User talk:Sitush/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Dara Singh

I accidentally hit enter when I went to type in the reason, accidents happen so I am edit warring as much as you are - 1 revert. And I took your input on "currently", then took out any date reference at all and simply state "it is in" - yes that can change but so can anything in any article about a living person or a current subject. If it changes update the article, that's how Wikipedia works. Should all articles on living people have the "potentially dated information" tag? I mean that can change at any time too. The version currently in there is 100% correct.  MPJ -US  12:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what? I can't be arsed today. I seem to be surrounded by people who are winding me up. You have a point, yes, but if I hang around I'll just lay into you regardless. The sooner the damn arbcom case progresses and I get to see GorillaWarfare & Co. propose more spiteful sanctions against me, the sooner the stress will go. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And I give up - that message is two days after this. Presumably no drafter is permitted to make a move without the agreement of the other two. This is like being on the wrong side of a cage in a zoo, waiting to be fed and knowing that it will always be later than promised. God knows what state LB is in, especially bearing in mind that the Workshop phase was also extended for a week when no-one outside ArbCom seemed to want it to be.

If all ArbCom cases are like this and the GGTF case then someone needs to revise the standard timetable, if not the process itself. It's inhumane. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk

I know Shakya has problems, I'm going to bed and I've had a ton of insomnia so I'm kind of trying to not do stressful things and that conversation is interesting to me as a wikignome and a linguist without being stressful. I'm sort of chatting, which I guess isn't really appropriate. Sorry if I was weirdly focused. As someone who wikignomes a lot, knowing the correct format is sort of important for when I bring the hammer down on a really messed-up article. Anyway... Ogress _smash! 06:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, it's no big deal - chat away. As for insomnia, I sympathise - it is a common problem for me and I often go 50-70 hours without sleep due to tinnitus ("often" being pretty much every week). It's so bad that the docs reckon it will shorten my life, but hey-ho. Get your head down and turn off the alarm clock, if you use one; wake up when your body tells you to do. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm so sorry you are feeling so poorly right now. Feel better. I was 55 hours out when I finally managed to get some sleep, I hope you get some (it's also chronic issue for me, but not weekly... comes and goes). Feel better. Ogress _smash! 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help again please

In the article Kadava dynasty the vanniyar caste editors are trying to create false history. They are misquoting authors. We have even earlier discussed this issue. Thanks for the help. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Please give this editor time to deal with real world issues. Wikipedia can wair. Scr★pIron^IV 03:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. Please take your time and get well soon. warm regards Sangitha rani111 (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Get Well Soon

'User:Mahensingha (talk) is wishing you an earliest recovery of your health'
Hopefully this note has made your day a little better.
Wikipedia misses your care and protection.
'Get well soon'. .....PLEASE. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
--MahenSingha (Talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes all CAPS mean different.

Edit request for Bhumihar Brahmin

sir please edit in bhumihar brahmin page that they called as babhan in magadh region of Bihar and also called bhuinhar brahmin in eastern uttarpradesh.

pls also remove bhumihar community origin from rajput men and brahmin women.

i also wish that get well soon and recover your health fast.

sitush Edit request bhumihar brahmin

in Bhumihar article pls remove the term bhumihar brahmin origin from rajput men and brahmin women

and add proper information they called bhuinhar to bhuinhar brahmin in Eastern uttarpradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adding founding (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India

Yes, I got a warning but the issue was that the reverting editor was not addressing the concerns or was trying to build a consensus. Would it be fair to address the concern and then revert the edit? I have not removed the claim, totally, as it still exists in body of the article. But I still think, as long the concerns raised in the talk page of the article, as well as in User VictoriyaGrayson's talk page are unresolved, lead section should not have the statement pending a consensus. -- AB^Talk 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that mess in passing. The article is on my watchlist but I'm not very well at the moment and am making a conscious effort not to get involved, and indeed trying not to edit anything. You can't remove reliably sourced material without consensus and, as I recall, you do not have it. The statement has been in the article, in one form or another, for a long time now. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory section of an article should summarise the body and, obviously, a claim of that nature is pretty significant.

I'm not sure that it is a particularly well formed statement, even if it does reflect the cited source and people of the postcolonial school like Nicholas Dirks, but that is an issue for the talk page. I might be back editing properly next week, depending on how quick the docs can do their thing, but you really do need to discuss in the interval. And if you all come to agreement before I get back then that's fine. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to hear that. :) -- AB^Talk 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki:, your edit in the morning was already premature but, once I reverted it, you should have waited for the consensus on the talk page before redoing your deletion. You have done it four times too many. It is aggressive and pushy. There is no excuse for that. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: I came here for an unrelated reason - Sitush, we discussed health the other day and I'm so sorry you are feeling so poorly right now - but I am going to note that really, the scholarly consensus on this is really there. There are Indian authors and Western authors and they are plentiful and easy to find. Edward Said even reviewed Dirks' 2001 work and wrote, "Massively documented and brilliantly argued, Castes of Mind is a study in true contrapuntal interpretation. Nicholas Dirks is a subtle unraveler of the dense, many-layered fabric of India's colonial and modern history as they converge in the idea and practice of caste. Even for the nonspecialist, the results of this gripping book are remarkable to behold." So I think you're not going to be able to remove that statement, no matter how much it chaps your britches, if you know what I mean. I added the first random cites I hit in google books as I mentioned on talk to biblio and the sentences in question. Ogress _smash! 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We will spare the rhetoric, and try for a consensus. shall we?-- AB^Talk 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that "consensus" doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't agree with the statement in the article, but I am part of the consensus, i.e., I agree that the statement is well-sourced and is an accurate representation of the part of the literature that it represents. It is not my view that counts, but the scholars' views. The problem is not with the statement, but rather with the other possible statements that aren't there. Once you fix that problem, i.e., write enough about caste that existed before the arrival of the British, the importance of the British will automatically reduce. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not mean categorical claims would find entry into lead, based on some passing reference? Does it?? AB^Talk 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that when Kautilya3 says that they do not agree with the statement in the article they mean that they would prefer something a little more nuanced. I certainly would go along with that: it isn't a question of whether the academic viewpoint is right or wrong because we should just reflect it; however, it is but one viewpoint and I vaguely recall thinking some months ago, after reading the sources, that perhaps we were overegging that particular pudding. But, as I said above, this is really a matter for the article talk page. I don't think anything will get resolved here because it is not the primary venue for discussion of the article. Not that I object to anyone continuing this thread - feel free. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All I want is for you to get better; please take it easy and don't let the wiki-drama affect you. Scr★pIron^IV 00:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You must be knowing it is not gonna be resolved any time soon.. But if you could give a hand, I would find sources and will quote it on talk page. And I see everyone crying HIndutva hinduva hoax here.. Is it such a monster...? Get well soon. AB^Talk 13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No content without "GLAM professionals" - really?

Just popped in and saw this removal on my watchlist. Really? We'd have no content to work with without GLAM professionals? I've not checked the cause of the kerfuffle but as a standalone comment it sounds like delusions of grandeur. Or "bollocks", as we say in these parts. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Since "GLAM professionals" is just a pompous term for librarians and archivists, it's partly true. Libraries and archives are very useful for building content, but, hey, so are booksellers. And... the vast majority of online archives and rare books made available from national libraries and archives, e.g. Gallica, Archive.org, etc. had nothing to do with Wikipedia's "GLAM initiative" or its participants. So, a teeny weeny overstatement there. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Food is quite handy also, so let's all praise the farmers. And our parents for our very existence, even when sometimes that existence was by accident rather than design ... and so on. I'm afraid that this was just another attempt to coat-rack the civility issue that has become a moral crusade for some people. I've met plenty of crap librarians etc in my time, and plenty of good ones who swear like troopers, are dismissive of others etc: they are humans, not superhumans, and we find the ways of the world are reflected in them as much as in any other occupational group. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And let's not forget the artists who paint, the engineers who design, the mathemeticians who theorize, the authors who write, the journalists who report, the politicians who lie... all of whom, we would have nothing to research, archive, compile into an encyclopedia. I will now cease to write, or someone will choose to find my comments uncivil. I really do hope you are feeling better, Sitush. You do good work here, but that is secondary to your health. Scr★pIron^IV 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed: "GLAM professionals" are as parasitic and dependent as anyone else, and probably more so than some. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, and if Newton could be humble enough to recognise that then I think we should be, also.

I am just back from another trip to the hospital. Things will pan out - it is just a medication issue that, at times, is making me even more grumpy and unpredictable than is normal. That said, I might go hunting for some lavender oil as per a tip given above: the worst it can do is lead to some wrinkled noses and odd looks being cast in my direction should I visit the rugby club, and that's just from the ladies' team ... They do call themselves "ladies", btw, although I'm never sure what term is appropriate here, so mired has the issue of gender PC become. I've not got the physique or brain to negotiate eggshells. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Ok i understood that, but i can`t understand why you are reverting my edit, i gave reference too, i have quoted my many writings from book The People of India' , by Sir H.H.Risley, 1915 2nd ed., ed. by Sir W. Crooke 1969 which was provided as reference for other texts in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiteame (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirks 2006

The Dirks 2006 reference mistakenly says 2009. Please correct. In other words, the book "Scandal of Empire" is actually 2006.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to take a break soon and do some more cleaning later. I'll remove the u/c tag. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India now protected

Sitush, you've been alerted already, but remember the article is under WP:ARBIPA. If more than one person has broken WP:3RR usually all parties get blocked. Holding the British responsible in some degree for the ravages of the caste system probably deserves an RfC if it hasn't happened yet. You can bring to the RfC whatever sources you think should decide the matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston I think this is quite unfair. Sitush was doing a lot of productive work today in cleaning up the references in the page. The user that was reported at AN3 was clearly POV-pushing and modifying impeccably sourced content. If Sitush reverted him, it was only because the user was interfering with his work. The user that edit warred should get a block. It is a repeat of what happened with ABEditWiki a couple of days ago. Your initial leniency to him proved counter-productive. I am pretty sure it will be the same again. People that violate policies should not be excused. They will only get worse if we do. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I haven't broken 3RR etc and, as Kautilya says, I was basically cleaning up and finding my efforts overwritten by someone who presumably doesn't understand edit conflicts. Practically everyone on the talk page agrees that the Raj issue is odd but as yet we are not finding reliable sources with which to balance it out. Anyway, WP can go stuff itself if this is how I am going to be treated. You're usually good at spotting the real problem but you've missed it by a mile here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that WP has basically become an impossible environment to work productively within, so I guess at the end of the day that means the admins have won. Now they can just sit back and guard their holy grail without the irritation of editors such as you and I adding stuff they don't understand. Eric Corbett 18:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Practically everyone on the talk page agrees that the Raj issue is odd but as yet we are not finding reliable sources with which to balance it out" - that's a very good summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it odd. I am looking at it with an open mind, and realize that I didn't know enough about how the Indian society was before the arrival of the British. I also believe that the scholars who studied the issue in depth had solid grounds to come to their conclusions. I am not confident that we will be able to find sources to "balance it out" any more than the scholars were. We are just being arrogant to claim that we know better than the scholars. I am thinking of taking this to WP:ARE because nothing less will work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're mostly all going by the modern sources, whether you find it odd or not. FWIW, I've always held the view that the Raj was in large part responsible for the rigidity that became implicit in the caste system of late-19th century/early-20th century India and that, unlike their efforts with the railways, the present-day impact of the Raj in that context is a massive negative. I thought this long before I came to Wikipedia and nothing I've read since has changed my mind but that doesn't mean I would edit war to keep out any reliable sources that said otherwise, nor have I done so to my knowledge. That the thing existed before is not in dispute, it is merely that it was much more fluuid, hence the so-called shudra kings of the Kakatiya era etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• A drive by comment: Sitush et al, a week's protection isn't the end of the world. I'd wager that over 50% of the content on en.wiki is pure, unadulterated junk, but reading through the talk page it appears this isn't the case with this article while there appears to be some discussions on how to improve it. Take some time off from this, perhaps just spend a few minutes now and then documenting stuff and in the meantime, Mulk Raj Anand might do well with some love and care, sort of how he developed Coolie and Two Leaves and a Bud. They are enjoyable books and will also provide some basic insight into the difference between {{British English}} and {{Indian English}}. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is going to get sorted in a week needs their head seeing to - be better protecting it for three months or more if that is the intention. It is a big, big job and, as I and others have tried to explain to the newbies, it is no good messing around with the lead section (which is what they're basically doing). - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The troll post you mentioned

Hi Sitush -

Gorilla took action against the arbcom post at my explicit suggestion. The IP user had two edits. One was the arb post, the other was a sexist slur at SlimVirgin. What's the problem with not letting the troll post stand? It had been posted less than two days ago unless my timestamps have gone nuts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe she has removed the wrong thing? I make it 21 June. I've no idea where you explicitly suggested it but this looks like a mistake. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I just misread a date stamp. The user's first contribution before I killed it was to complain that SlimVirgin's username was inaccurate as she was neither slim nor a virgin. Why should we let that level of troll participate in such a forum? Let alone one where the contributions of so many long-term good faith users are still being hatted? Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because, like it or not, the other arbs didn't object? Using some sort of private backchannel with your politically-aligned mate GW doesn't look good. If nothing else, you should have raised it openly on the talk page, and I think you will find that LB did that herself and the arbs took no action. GW is throwing her weight around at the moment and it is not good to see. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Want to take a wager that she'll propose sanctions against me in that case? She seemed to be suitably vindictive last time round, and left it until late on for maximum impact. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are some things where private discussion is more appropriate than public discussion, even on Wikipedia. My comment that led to GW deciding to remove the troll's post (and you still haven't put up a decent argument as to why it should've remained in a discussion where so many other comments were aggressively hatted) occurred during the middle of a discussion related to an incident that's currently being discussed on at least two of the functionaries lists. Eric was pretty obviously pen-testing his sanctions, and desired either a bunch of drama or an enforced wikibreak. If he wants to take a month off, cheers to him - I've certainly done so myself at times - but he made the decision himself... Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am not getting involved in the Eric saga here - while I do not always agree with him, you consistently disagree with him and you are nasty piece of work in the manner that you handle the WMF mailing list, where you consistently allow trolling and PAs from one "side" but not from the other.

  I believe that other PD talk page stuff was hatted (aggressively is your POV) because they were deemed to be off-topic. They were also hatted fairly soon after the event, not five days later. The IP's comments on that page were deemed not to be. The IP may well have trolled elsewhere and it may or may not have been the same person, who knows? I'd generally be in favour of preventing IPs from editing anywhere on Wikipedia, and certainly on the drama boards, but that is not going to happen and while it doesn't happen, on-topic messages from IPs are valid.

  There was absolutely no need for that particular request to be made to GW via some backchannel: some things are sensitive, yes, but that wasn't given your rationale here. Frankly, I'm appalled at your behaviour and that of GW, although perhaps I should not be because it seems to be par for the course. I'm also concerned for GW, for reasons similar to those I've outlined at EvergreenFir's talk page: she is very exposed here and while the decision is hers, given what has happened to me and to LB recently I really would urge caution. Discretion is the better part of valour. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, my apologies in part. I know that you suffer from poor health and I guess all the examples of bad stuff at the list might occur during your periods of illness. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was an IPV6 user in close time; I would bet my big toe it was the same person. I may have contacted her today asking about the rationale behind not hatting it anyway - she's a friend, and despite what some Wikipedian think, friends talking is not inherently evil - but to be clear I've also been in contact with two other arbitrators, arbcom as a whole, an individual oversighter, and the oversight team as a whole today, as well as several people off-wiki about various events, including editathons, grantmaking, large content donations from GLAMS, and a few other things. I've probably spoken literally with several dozen editors today, and I'd argue they were pretty much all appropriate contacts. Do you expect all matters that don't fall under strictly necessarily private business (of which surely you agree some exists - or you would argue +OS and revdel would not exist among other things)? If so, would you mind increasing my free time significantly so that I can ensure the separation is perfect? Although you are correct that I missed several months of gendergap moderation, I have confidence in Emily. If you think we consistently allow personal attacks from any side I'm worried about your thought process.

Ugh,I've had quite a lot of respect for a lot of your work in the past. Unwatchlisting this page now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unwatching is always the best policy when you have lost the argument. You'll never get support for the claim that the comment in question was trolling. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I'd give up trying to argue the case for common sense on AN, you'll just go mad. Say, have you had problems getting on the British Newspaper Archives site today? I wanted to pull some stuff out for the 1926(?) renovation of Lees Cliff Hall but things kept timing out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not used BNA today. I can have a dig round it as a test if you would like that? - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Would be great if you could, cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: seems to be ok here. I can search, add/remove filters, navigate results link, zoom in/out and pan. No sign of timeouts anywhere. Tried various random searches and random newspapers, although there doesn't seem to be anything of note for Lees Cliff Hall in the 1920s (one article might refer to the refurbishment but it is a report of a council meeting that discusses it in passing and doesn't seem likely to add much, if anything, of note). - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cheers for having a look. Sometimes the BNA can be a bit hit and miss on stuff and you end up with lots of Crinkley Bottom Advertiser and not much Daily Telegraph. Still, it's free, so I can't complain too much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a bit hit-and-miss, and for some reason their collections of any one newspaper seem to stop/start almost randomly. I'd be surprised if the British Library didn't have access to more complete sets - my local library does for, say the Bury Times. Coverage at BNA after about 1914 drops off alarmingly but they acknowledge this to be the case - makes hunting for 1920s stuff even more of a lottery. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Need a favor

Would you be able to translate and tell me if the sources listed are reliable? Here is the list. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on that talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, LB

@Lightbreather: I can't post on your talk page since you banned me from it. Maybe self-revert this? I think you might technically be in breach of an IBAN, although I've rather lost track of who is banned from what. If I'm wrong then apologies for mithering you. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

guidance required

Hi . Need some guidance. I would like to contribute, in future, with a different user name (my real pen name). Will it be OK to just contribute in new user name, and discontinue using the present user name (Rayabhari). Or is it necessary to inform about changing the user name officially to the admin? Can you kindly guide me? Thanks . -Rayabhari (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rayabhari, it's good to see you back. If you want my opinion I would avoid using your real-life name. It can cause a lot of problems for you. The process for changing a username is found at WP:CHUS but please think hard about this first. I'm going to ping Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff for their opinions - they are both admins here and both do a lot in the Indic topic area. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you just want to change name, then the link above is fine. If you want to change accounts, you'll need to read and follow WP:Clean start. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rayabhari: Summarizing/adding to what was said above:

1. If you want a new username and want formal credit for all your prior edits to be transferred to that username use change username
2. If you want a new username and don't want it associated with your current account use the process under WP:Clean start (aside: don't see why you would ant this though!)
3. If you want a new username, and don't care much for formal credit, just
   • open an account with the new username and start using it (and discontinue using the current account),
   • for full disclosure, drop a note at the new account's userpage along the lines of "I used to previously edit as User:Rayabhari" and a corresponding note at the Rayabhari userpage.

Since you plan to use only one account at a time, and are not changing usernames "under a cloud", there is really no issue with your plan and no real bureaucratic requirements. Just be sure to recognize the risks associated with editing wikipedia under your real name (or, pen name that you use off-wiki) that Sitush alluded to. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Get Well Soon

Wishing you a speedy recovery and looking forward to having you back soon. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, you ok?
Still catching up on my talkpage/notifications from last week, but let me know if I can be of help on/off-wiki. Easy problems preferred. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This place is going mad

• GorillaWarfare blocked when involved and evidently biased
• Black Kite closes an AE discussion way too early
• Resolute makes up sensationalist aggravations/attacks
• Floquenbeam gets blocked by DrKiernan for repeatedly removing same *even* though Resolute had sort-of apologised in a completely unrelated thread and DrK was a party to that thread
• ArbCom keeps putting back the LB proposed decision and now seemingly can't even be bothered giving a revised date, despite requests made twice in the last 24-36 hours
• Kevin Gorman starts wikilawyering like hell to protect Gorilla and to pursue his long-term vindictive efforts against Corbett
• ReaperEternal does the common sense thing and gets lambasted for it, notably by said Gorman
• Some anonymous admin apparently spoke on IRC of wanting to see Corbett in a bath of acid - we don't know who but obviously they're not fit to make an admin action in relation to Corbett in future and probably not fit to be an admin, period

The list of dubious admin behaviours that have gone on this last couple of days includes the above but is not limited to it. This place has gone fucking mad. Someone email me when/if sense returns. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(just passing by) I'd actually say the place is showing its true colors and not going mad. This sort of thing has always been bubbling just below the surface, and from time to time it splatters up and burns the unappreciated cooks. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of Region based caste pages like Bihari Rajputs

The article Bihari Rajputs is also to be treated in the similar manner as is the case Rajputs of Gujarat. The article stands taking support of your name See1, 2 where the eminent editor gives reference of your concurrence which in fact is not here. Factually, a great number of kings once collectively declared themselves as a great caste so called Rajputs, but they are certainly not the descendants of Son, moon, fire or any other Indian God. How can we still believe in glorifying them at the cost of degrading the other fighters like Jat, Gurjar, Ahirs and many others, who too fought and ruled the country, but could not form a large alliance for themselves like Rajputs. Please help building neutrality. Being Rajput is certainly a subject of notability but being a Rajput from Bihar state or eastern region is simply over glorification. Otherwise, rest all major castes too are found in every state of India, like we see a lot of articles from the Potter turned mason (or other profession) caste of Gujarat like Kadia Kumbhar, Mistri (caste),Mistry (surname),Mistris of Kutch Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya, Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia, Vatalia, Shorgir etc... all groups representing the same caste and they are not names of the clans or gotra. So far I have been against all such caste glorification but now I am bound to think that if one can exist then why shall we stop the others. Rajput article is still able to delete at once all such facts which go against glorification. Are we still living in the old tradition of suppressing others and glorifying Rajputs that if a Rajput says he is son of fire god then it is history but if a Jat, Ahir or any other known ruler says he was a Kshatriya then it is Sanskritisation. A Rajput article can title a well known Maratha king Shivaji as Maratha Rajput but if a Maratha article says that they are Rajputs then it is "Sanskritisation". in which direction, actually the most popular modern source of information (wikipedia) is being led. I think this is not the place for me and I must quit, hence, I told you what I observed --MahenSingha (Talk) 20:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of cleaning up to do, Mahensingha. I've been doing it for years and often find myself going in circles because we're repeatedly working against clueless people and because it is impossible to keep a watch on so many thousands of caste-related articles (I've got maybe 1800-2000 watched at the moment). Quitting isn't going to fix anything though, and I'm concerned about I think this is not the place for me and I must quit. Maybe take a break? I'll look at the Shivaji thing - anything on Wikipedia relating to him and to Aurangzeb is always fraught with difficulties. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, be it a single word but I really mean it. Quitting is not the solution, I do agree but What else can I do? I am ready to discuss, I answered all the queries in the light of various available sources. I gave them references of previous discussions and consensus, but they are not agreed. They dont believe in healthy discussions, they dont agree to what the various sources say but the only one thing they do perfectly is to consistently edit the contents and make the article in the form they desire. I am still doing my duty. Anyway, tried to be little creative, I desired to wish you early recovery of your health on your page. Hope you are better. Again, thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mahensingha, your argument is quite confusing. You believe that making a page about Bihari Rajputs belittles Ahirs and Jats? How does it do so? Historically Rajputs and Ahirs were both recruited together during Sher Shah Suris reign so there is nothing to do with belittling one caste just by simply creating a page. Where does the page ever mention as fact that Bihari Rajputs are descended from Gods? The Rajput term has been proved to be merely a title and nothing more.Suijai (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Suijai, just do not restrict the issues limited to Ahir/Jats/Rajputs. I have given my view about a wide range of caste articles Rajput,Jat, Gurjar, Ahir,Kadia Kumbhar, Mistri (caste),Mistry (surname),Mistris of Kutch Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya, Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia, Vatalia, Shorgir,Maratha and many more (See above). Everywhere the problem is common. Restricting it to one or two is not my point, it is just your own view. Just go through my contributions as I am active on approx.15000 such articles. Historically and culturally, all such castes may have something praiseworthy as well as negativity. What I say is that we shall neutrally edit the pages with a view to make the articles informative and certainly not promotional. If we are accepting articles like Bihari Rajputs, Mistris of Kutch, Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya then we shall happily be ready to accommodate all such regional caste articles.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrator EvergreenFir, reporting for duty

But seriously, you were right to tell me to back down. The reason I commented is that there's be a couple dozen people that might be unfit to take admin actions against Corbett (some already voluntarily refrain). I understand your concern about the IRC comment though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but no, I wasn't right. You are entitled to point out the potential ramifications. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, on my talk I made a remark (a while ago) about edits wasted on arbitration. I don't want to add to the "evidence". Did you see my initial statement, and did you read the book and took the stroll which I recommended to Kevin Gorman after I had asked him to apologize to Eric (which he did, to my surprise)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No, I did not. I'll go read your initial statement. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Light relief (maybe)

This talk page of yours is a bit heavy, no? Brighten your day with my latest (re?) discovery, Talk:K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. (I wonder: Could there be some tenuous connexion with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vivek Kumar Pandey (2nd nomination)?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How on earth did you find this? My eyes are hurting now! —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Spiffy, I think I may have just trodden on your toes there. I'll back away. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

After removing 10K I stepped away, was too much for me, I'll get back on in a bit. —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done, chaps. Both the article and its talk page are much better now. (Even if they are less amusing.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: more to do there, although I really don't see why it needs a separate article if the claims that are made are correct. It has been going for 14-15 years, has five teaching members and has produced seven DPhils. That is pretty trivial stuff and a merge into University of Allahabad seems sensible. It could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree, but you must understand that this is the workplace of Vivek Kumar Pandey (see this old version, passim); and over the years the achievements of V K Pandey have been of great interest to a number of different WP contributors (who all write in a distinctive and very similar style). Oh, hello -- what's this: WP:Articles for deletion/K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, and bearing in mind my earlier rationale, I think I will boldly merge and redirect. What say you, SpacemanSpiff ? - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect should be fine. I'd initially confused this centre to be like the CSIR centres, but that isn't the case. —SpacemanSpiff 09:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not asked, I'll say that I think that's a good idea. ¶ Coincidentally, the article was created and in its earlier days was vigorously edited by User:Vivek Kumar Pandey. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

He's also uploaded a picture of himself at Commons. That picture also appears to be that of the "1st professor and senior most" namesake at the centre. —SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting up this photo and the others for deletion seems a good idea. However, since I wrote the message above about your (Spiff's) improvement of the talk page, I've felt increasingly queasy about the matter. That the messages are long is in itself no reason to remove them. They're not inherently monologues. A contributor to the article (actual or potential, or indeed a non-contributor) is welcome to post constructive/explanatory comments on the article; if nobody responds, this can't be assumed to be the fault of the same author. (These comments were prolix and hard to understand, but those are separate problems.) If a comment is particularly obscure or prolix, it's OK to hat it; but deletion should be performed sparingly. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: The content I removed from the tp (not the stuff hatted today) was all about some Right to Information Act cases and disclosures (though I might have accidentally included another post or so) and it was by another user who I think is in a dispute with this one at the university, see this link for the addition of "1st professor" for someone else, I haven't a clue what this "1st" issue is, but given that the sources are some RTIs, I think it's a dispute between them on seniority which has spilled over to en.wiki. That's why I'd actually left a note asking not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to the other user [1]. They have both been using the article to enhance something in the outside world. As for the term monologues, point taken, I'll just remove that. —SpacemanSpiff 10:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I admire your effort to make sense of that stuff. For each long stream of it, I did no more than attempt the first sentence, attempt the last, and glance here and there between the two. The final sentence of the one you link to is a delight: In As 1st and senior most words, word "as" makes the section(Faculty members of first ever recruitment on permanent faculty positions in the centre)as an Universal truth which can not be changed and challenged in the future by any mean. I've now read it three times and still don't know what it means; but I shall be sure to sprinkle future talk page messages with the word "as", if doing so promises to convert what I say into unchangeable, unchallengeable, universal truths. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I did get a bit curious about this mess and went fishing. Apparently I wasn't far off the mark, this is about some seniority issues that plague Indian governmental positions. See the second listing on this page. They are trying to figure out who is senior by a few minutes (it has an impact on promotions as these positions are not based on performance but tenure). As. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Wow. I knew that the cadre had some sort of significance because I've seen it mentioned so often. Is that just an academic thing or does it apply to all of the ICS also? What about the army? The notion that age = wisdom has a history that stretches back for millennia but I don't see how it can do anything but hold back development in present times. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a little more complex, sort of matrixed. In the Institutes of National Importance, CSIR Institutes, etc each of them have their own criteria for titular promotions like from Assistant to Associate Prof etc but within each title they have different grades (sometimes a grade may overlap across titles) and this grade promotion is based on seniority. So, it's possible that an asst prof who joined the service 10 years earlier may be ranked higher than someone who joined the service five years earlier but got promoted to associate prof owing to a stellar record etc. In such situations seniority comes in play as certain roles and responsibilities are based on this seniority rank -- both are in the same grade, but A joined five years before B and is therefore more senior. But soon B will move to a grade beyond the grasp of A, so it's only temporary. However for two people who join within a week of each other, it's dastardly as the first person will be higher up based on the date of joining. —SpacemanSpiff 09:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps other factors could help too? -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I was careful with my choice of examples; the INIs, CSIR institutes and a few universities like JNU etc have less of these "other factor" issues as they have good systems in place. Affiliating universities such as Delhi University etc are less likely to have problems within the uni departments and more likely to have them at constituent colleges. Looks like we've become Flickr now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear bot, why bother changing? Why bother notifying? How many ArbCom cases meet their deadlines? The current Lightbreather one is horrendously overdue and has had numerous changes to dates etc throughout, and that seems to be fairly common. Go do something useful, bot, like address the real issues. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Toolserver

An artist's impression of the Labs server

Why the heck can't we go back to Toolserver? Labs is bloody useless and has been from Day One. Repeatedly timing out, a lot of tools gone AWOL due to porting/personal issues. I can't do sod all and am increasingly pissed off, especially when sock-tracking. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An excellent question, and one that has probably been asked on WP:VPT more times than I'd care to remember. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the whole labs thing was running on a knackered old Pentium III box with 256MB RAM and an old 3Com ISA 10baseT card (remember them?), spending about 90% of its time in swap. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably running through a 300 baud acoustic coupler also, and perhaps the only mouse is the one running round in the wheel to power the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That explains why when I tried to look at the copyvios tool it reported "R Tape loading error, 0:1" Actually, while we're here moaning about things that used to work but now don't, have you noticed British History Online's "Citation" drop-down box doesn't have a "Wikipedia" option anymore, so instead of just copy/pasting the citation straight in, you've got to reformat it to our templates by hand. Grrr. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that bright I never knew BHO had one, I used it a lot. I wish it had one of those templaty things like NHLE or ODNB, so much easier for editors who write. J3Mrs (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Appearances suggest that people actually writing worthwhile content on WP are now an endangered species as the project moves by decree towards a new, morally ambitious purpose. Perhaps BHO have been tipped off about this and decided to declutter the drop-down. It would also explain why no-one can be arsed fixing Tool Labs. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I maintained a tool on toolserver and labs. In my former life, I was a linux/Unix sys admin for 20 years. Now and in my former life, nobody remembers the bad times, only that it has to be worse now. I remember when toolserver was down for a month because of database issues. I remember when toolserver was down for weeks at a time. I remember the slow, ancient computers toolserver ran on. Things are better at labs. They have redundant database and queue (where things run) machines and alot more of them. The main problem has been the file servers. They ran out of space and had performance issues. Disk space being used is alot more than was being used on toolserver. They did upgrade things a few months back. Latest 2-day long outage (longest outage I can recall) was due to the file system becoming corrupted. That is rare and you can't prepare for it. They did have tape backups, but due to the size of the filesystem, it took awhile to restore.

"Tools gone AWOL" isn't just "porting/personal issues". If a person isn't around to port/maintain a tool, the tool isn't going to be around when something breaks on toolserver. The main issue was due to copyrights. On toolserver, you didn't need to have a copyright for the code. You didn't need an open source copyright. If a person isn't around to port and there was no open source copyright, the code couldn't be moved. On Labs, the code has to be open source. So now, if a person goes AWOL, another can step up to maintain the code.

There were issues when toolserver started up. They did invest in more hardware and did hire another person. I'm much happier now on Labs than toolserver... more space, better computers, up to date OS/software and less down times. Bgwhite (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And bloody slow for the end user. I'm not joking, everything I try to use seems to time out. I'm sure there is some dinky little tool somewhere there that works ok but either the coding has gone awry or the resources that you see are not the ones that I experience. Toolserver wasn't perfect by any means; Labs is crap, which is particularly surprising because it was supposedly designed and specified for exactly the purpose at which it is failing.

I'm also getting constant "loss of session data" messages, although I'm not sure what is at fault there: it could be anything between me and the server, so I'll go hunting some time. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't say for other tools, but I use my tool (WP:CheckWiki) 50+ times everyday and I rarely have a problem. But, I don't use the replica database (replica of Wikipedia's database). That was the major source of problems at toolserver and I wanted to avoid it on Labs. If a person is logged in and depending on what gadget is installed, every article will contain something from labs. When labs goes down, articles don't fully load. I've never gotten a "loss of session data" message. Every tool runs it's own web server. This is good because one tool can't take everyone down. However, knowing what option to turn on or off causes problems. The learning curve on Labs is much higher because you control more of your stuff. What tool is your main source of problems? Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, the Interaction Analyzer is my major problem re: timeouts. I think you are probably aware of the amount of socking that goes on in my particular sphere of interest. BTW, I understand the open source vs copyright argument, given the fundamental principles of WP.

I've programmed some big stuff myself in the past but I just can't get my brain in gear nowadays for that sort of thing. The last big project was maybe 100-120k lines of VisBas using OOP/custom libraries + a couple of bought-in OCX DLLs etc for a company that manufactures polythene sheet and bags, and which had an extraordinary desire to make the UI look nice even though it was an entirely internal project. A solo job, and it drove me nuts for the usual reason, ie: the customer kept changing the requirements. I kept it running until about four years ago, at which point I handed the code over and said that enough fooling around had gone on. They also insisted that it was VB, which itself involved a bit of a learning exercise because my background was in C etc, although I'd used VB for fun/quick-n-dirty for years (as you will see if you trawl the old mailing list archives). Don't ask me about Python, Lua and the like - the entire programming thing is in my past, although maybe one day I'll dabble again.

The loss of session data is almost certainly unrelated to Labs. I just need to track down why it happens pretty much every edit. It has been going on since the switch to https but correlation is not causation and I'm normallly (but not exclusively - five PCs and a fileserver-cum-MythTV setup here) using FF 38 on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS Desktop, which has been getting a shedload of updates of late. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The session data issue is not limited to you. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Session_data_loss_message. Zero response from WMF there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. That saves me some effort that probably would have revealed nothing of note. FWIW, I had already checked my router logs on several occasions and, according to those, my connection has been consistent for about 8 months. That blip coincides with me shutting down everything including the fridge/freezer etc when I did some rewiring. That said, I get the message on practically every edit, not just the long ones. I make enough errors of the typo variety without having to jump through that hoop also. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Bgw, Every tool runs it's own web server - so, effectively, every tool has its own virtual machine? I'm curious re: what the machine implementation might be. VMware etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They use QEMU with KVM and Xen for virtual hosts. There are over 500 virtual hosts running. A tool editor can request their own virtual host. Majority of virtual hosts are for internal Wikipedia operations. The web server is nginx and it uses nginx' "server block" (virtual host) mechanism. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And, heh, for anyone who has followed this thread since Ritchie333's remarks, my first direct experience of computing came indirectly (!) While at school I was involved with a model railway club and one of the idiot tasks assigned to newcomers was to help in the scaled replication of a bloody huge railway bridge somewhere in north England. The "bricks" were the card punch-outs ("chads"?) which we got from the National Computing Centre in Manchester. It just so happened that the "chad" was more or less scale size of a standard British brick of that period. Every ... single ... damn ... one ... stuck onto a plastic former using a toothpick/cocktail stick and a dab of diluted glue ("Resin W") Then they had me create some scale dry-stone walls using crushed shale from Saddleworth Moor, again individually dabbed. But it kept me away from my (at the time) somewhat irritating younger brothers and it came with a fantastic meal from the local chip shop. Happy days? Or the first signs of madness? - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Get well Soon

Get well soon. My sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. I generally use lavender oil rubbed in feet which is good for sleeping. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I may well try that, Sangitha rani111. Thanks for the tip. Sleep is a perennial issue rather than the current problem but anything natural that might assist me is worth a go. For all sorts of reasons, I refuse to take stuff like zopiclone, amitryptiline, temazepam and the like - I've been prescribed them all for sleep deprivation at some time or another and, well, never again! - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you active. Sitush before going to bed please have warm organic milk with a table spoon of honey added to it. Also the lavendar rubbed in feet is very effective for sleep. once again sincerely wishing for your full recovery. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sitush how is your health. Did the lavendar oil work. It usually gives good sleep which is essential for health recovery. once again my wishes to you for a good health.. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

To get sleep, in our place, they take green gram boiled juice mixed with grounded "gasagase" seeds. If mixed with sugar, very tasty and one glass of intake assures good sleep!! :) - Rayabhari (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanniyar copy right issue

Please resolve the copy issue. Myself and user Merkcid seem to be going back and forth. Please resolve once for all. My point is "lowly agricultural labouring caste" should be included in Historical status.

India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India

By Christophe Jaffrelot

https://books.google.com/books?id=qJZp5tDuY-gC&pg=PA184&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VzKLVa-tO8njoATs8pCQAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pallis&f=false

Society In India

By David G Mandelbaum / University of california Berkeley.

Page 509 https://books.google.com/books?id=igfd9YYCqf8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Society+In+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3BmQVdywKYvloATZkbzABQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vanniyar&f=false

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India

By Rupa Viswanath / Columbia university

https://books.google.com/books?id=QnbeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&dq=vanniyar+laborers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FxeQVa30DIXyoASiyICoBQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20laborers&f=false Notes 273

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sitush hope i am not disturbing or wasting your time. When ever you have time please look at the discussion and make changes.

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sangitha, the issue isn't forgotten. It is 0240 here and from that you might gather that, alas, the lavender oil is not making much difference. I'm going to persevere with it, obviously, but I find myself dotting around talking what is probably mostly irrelevant nonsense at the moment. In fact, I need to walk away before I get into trouble for doing so.

I notice that you and Merkcid were both blocked for a short time regarding the Vanniyar issue. It isn't worth it, trust me. Sometimes you have to let things go for a while and see what else happens. As things stand, I do not disagree with your opinion and I am continuing to read about the issue generally but you can do much good here without sacrificing your ability to edit, and indeed you have done. There is a saying here in the UK that goes "choose your battles wisely", which basically means don't put yourself in danger for little gain. The phrasing that you and Merkcid are arguing about is, in the scale of things, fairly minor. Yes, I believe you are right but it isn't something earth-shattering and, if needs must, we can live with it until more people or sources turn up. I mean no offence by this: your passion is obvious but sometimes passion can actually be the downfall of people here. And now, yet again, I think I will try to get in my bed and actually sleep! Please do feel free to continue leaving messages here: we agree more than you might realise and you are welcome. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I will follow your recommendations. Glad to hear that you are using the lavendar oil. My sincere wishes for your speedy recovery of health. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sock

One can't be "involved" with a sock (of this user [2] who was blocked for the same). Recently another editor's sandbox was deleted on his block which had exact same stuff. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You were effectively involved in the thread, which was making certain allegations about you. Deleting complaints about yourself anywhere other than on your own talk page smacks of censorship. You know what I did after reverting you, and I've also left you a note of explanation on your talk page. I didn't link to WP:INVOLVED, which is a very specific usage of the common word. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I obviously reverted a sock which is ok as even in the literary sense of "involved". I know you used the "good faith" revert on my blanking and hatted it. I'm not off to censor anything.. I'm out to get the socks. Still if you need to be assured, there's consensus to delete this content at this venue. And this is gaming the system to recreate that deleted content / accusations. I hope you'll do what's best in line with that. I'll leave it at that. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Sitush: Err, no. I don't think you are familiar with this MfD on a sandbox (of now-indeffed user, Cosmic Emperor), deleted for WP:POLEMIC, WP:ATTACK and a myriad of other reasons. That thread is a verbatim copy-paste of whatever filth was in that (deleted) sandbox. Besides, it is not the correct venue for making a report. I really think this is pointless - if it should not be there in the first place, it may as well be removed. Mar4d (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want the pair of you arguing on my page. Whether that was the work of a sock or not, there is probably little doubt in the minds of many people that you two work together. That's up to you and them but please do not start another interminable argument here. You won't win it because you ain't going to change my mind regarding the hatting. There are admins who frequent WT:INB and they will remove the thread entirely if they think that is a better option. You both know where SPI and ANI can be found. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't care less about it and it bothers me the least (I've plenty of other things to look at). If anyone wants to file something of any sort, the doors are always open and there's a procedure to be followed. But just as you have your mind made up, I'd also like to make it clear that if I see a blocked sock posting polemic crap and what not inappropriately, I will take it in my personal capacity to revert. And I don't need to seek anyone's permission for that matter. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

need support

please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

ANI

An IP mentioned about your comment in the last part of this discussion.--X Swordsman Xcalibur 15:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Zaketo socking

FYI. Also pinging @SpacemanSpiff and Thomas.W:, who I believe have also run into the original and/or sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

just an ip, should be in my contrib history as I left a note on their talk page.—SpacemanSpiff 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother digging it up. Left the note mainly FYI, so that we all have eyes open for future socks that I am confident will be created. Also blocked socks' edits will need to be reviewed/reverted. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For your eyes only

....if you have the time/inclination. Enjoy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Anyone who attends this should probably thereafter be treated by default as a meatpuppet/tag-team member on en-WP in so far as matters relating to policy changes etc are concerned, and especially so in relation to policies that affect civility and the related favourite topics of the en-WP GGTF. What the heck are the WMF doing here? - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for this instance, but "ally-training workshops" are not a new phenomenon at academic institutions in the english-speaking world. They're typically not limited to gender issues (and they shouldn't be) like this one seems to be, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of them before. Sounds like yet another piece of management-speak spreading out of the US.

It involves paying $9000 to the Ada Initiative, a cosy WMF home-from-home where the "right-on" former journalist (and rather calamitous former WMF head) Sue Gardner has a major involvement. The idea of an invitation-only, closed session for practically anything related to Wikipedia is anathema to me, except where legal issues are of concern. Also anathema is the notion of discussing strategies for wikilawyering to achieve preconceived goals, and especially so when there is no evidence at all to support premises such as that women are put off this place because of perceived (and highly subjective) incivility. This place is infested with gender warriors from both sides of the debate (Gamergate, anyone?) and it pisses me off, in large part because the various rows etc are taking out good content creators and creating an environment of interminable and tendentious lawyering.

There have been attempts to set up women-only spaces here, there is the WMF-hosted echo chamber called the Gender Gap Mailing List, and there is also a women-only mailing list hosted by Systers that has been promoted here. All of these, and more, are ghettoising strategies and suggest a politicisation that is at best dubious in the context of the WMF mission. That Roger Davies has just referred to a substantial amount of "backchannelling" in an open arbcom case just adds to my concerns - I know that at least some of that would have been necessary but my bet is that much of it was not and was basically just more attempted hijacking of a specific situation for a wider purpose. There really isn't very much that could or should be done via backchannels when the spirit of this enterprise is supposed to be open-ness. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think ally-training workshops themselves rose out of activism/academia, not management. But this one certainly seems to have a lot of issues. Ally-training is important, but it cannot become the WMF's raison dêtre, that would be ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Babur

Hi. Hope you're well. I noticed the article on Babur was up for reassessment. It has been almost a month since you initiated the reassessment and the fixes haven't been made yet. Do you think it's time for it to be delisted? Cowlibob (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've not made much progress with it and neither has anyone else. Plenty of people have raised concerns, however, so delisting would appear to be the correct course. - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. It seems that because it was an individual reassessment and not a community reassessment that as nominator you'll have to formally close per this page: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment or else I would have done it. Cowlibob (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sitush has edited the page significantly before this discussion, and therefore I don't think he can delist it; or even if he can, should not, just so we can play by the rules. It seems to me that there is enough input from enough editors to call it a community reassessment. Drmies and Abecedare both do not seem to think there is a quick fix for this, and RegentsPark did not seem terribly happy with it either. Drmies did not comment on the review page itself, but I don't think that means discounting their opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde--I did leave a comment on the talk page to that effect, and there have been no significant changes since that time. As far as I'm concerned delisting is still warranted. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just took another look at the article and many of the concerns I mentioned (prose, sourcing, MOS issues) persist. Here is one short extract from the article that illustrates all three:

One of the enduring features of Babur's life was that he left behind the lively and well-written autobiography known as Baburnama. Quoting Henry Beveridge, Stanley Lane-Poole writes:

His autobiography is one of those priceless records which are for all time, and is fit to rank with the confessions of St. Augustine and Rousseau, and the memoirs of Gibbon and Newton. In Asia it stands almost alone.

So I agree that the article should be delisted. Since I commented at the review, someone else should make the final call though (at least that is the convention at AFD, RM etc discussions). Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have delisted the article as an uninvolved editor as there is clear consensus among all involved that many issues remain. Cowlibob (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed decision posted

Hi Sitush, in the open Lightbreather arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tomara clan

Dear user Sitush, edits in Tomara Clan wiki page with reference of Sh Jadunath Sarkar, an eminent historian has been undone by you, please look back at my edits today that you had undone, i added a very well known province of erstwhile Jaipur state. You seem to be taking all reference of British Raj out, they had their reference in oral traditions as books were not common in that era gone by (especially for very local history of smaller provinces) , with that in mind how is it possible to provide reference if its not via books or historians of an era gone by ?? also please let us know on what basis you throw out some references while allow some books as references, please provide a path for us to follow to refer something. If your criterion is that any book older than 40 years is unaccounted and can not be used as reference then it will be tough to provide reference, especially for smaller and lesser known places and its people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjtanwar (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarkar is certainly not as respected as he once was, and your edits introduced a lot of other dodgy sources etc. We do not say things just because someone documented it: the sources have to be reliable and the consensus is that pretty much everything from the Raj era is not, especially where it relates to caste issues. Can you not find any more recent sources? It surely cannot be difficult to establish the Tomara rule of the Jaipur region? - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy relates to you:

6A) All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:

1. Mike Searson (one-way)
2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
4. Sitush (one-way)
5. Scalhotrod (two-way)

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Arbitrary heading

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For offering genuine advice and looking out for other editors, even those who may not see eye-to-eye 100% of the time with you. For taking steps to start discussion on a sexual harassment policy and doing so with the intent of aiding fellow editors (both individually and generally). For showing empathy and concern and for taking a more diplomatic approach to issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't quite put it all into words that make sense, but I was delighted to see your message on my talk page today. Unexpected and thoughtful. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's simple - don't be a knob

Thank you, EvergreenFir. I am much misunderstood regarding these issues.

FWIW, the RfC proposal to have a specific sexual harassment policy is making a mountain out the downward tip of a spiral molehill on a sloping iceberg. That form of harassment is just one of many, all of them inappropriate and all upsetting in equal measure to the target. Thus we'll need to introduce similar separate policies for race, religion, disability and so on ... and all of them will say the same thing, paraphrased as "don't do it". I'd guess well over 90 per cent of cases that would be reported would also be highly subjective, while the remainder would be so blatantly obvious as to be already covered by things such as CIV and NPA. The exercise smacks of tokenism and will just lead to a lot of lawyering. That Jimbo supports it is almost a rubber-stamp of its tokenistic nature. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

↑ What he said. Wikipedia has a lot of people who like playing lawyer, and are encouraged in this by Jimmy Wales who has a tendency to issue pronouncements on situations he doesn't really understand. I've not seen any credible proposal yet that isn't a variant of "if someone asks you not to do something again, don't do it again unless you can demonstrate that you have a good reason to do it". – iridescent 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is, there's too much procrastination on here. I've I'm knee-deep in article work (and I generally work in areas nobody else is bothered with), I will miss all the drama and policy stuff flying around through not concentrating. It's only when I think "what shall I do next" that I drift onto talk pages which leads to ANI and dealing with silliness. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Men's rights movement in India: just FYI

[3]. I guess you didn't get very far with it? Bishonen | talk 17:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

No, sorry. I'm not going to do, either. The likes of Gorman, Tarc, The ed17 etc would love nothing more than to try to hit a target painted on my back. The encyclopaedia's primary purpose is thus diminished: it's about time we got a grip. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agri group

Hi, Sitush,
I was looking at a malformed article called Agri language and I came across the articles Agri people and Agri caste. Is this the same group? What is the typical designation, "people" or "caste"? Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Same community, and I think most people (sic) would consider them to be a caste. Articles should be merged and every single unsourced statement removed. You'll thus end up with a single sentence, which itself is poorly sourced. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Fed up

Here we go again. I'm fed up of being mentioned in ArbCom proceedings, even when they do not escalate to being a case, and I'm fed up of seeing the outcomes of such proceedings being manipulated by a lynch mob of pettifogging WMF acolytes and POV-pushing warriors who do bugger all where it really matters on this project. Now everyone go figure why I haven't been editing much of late, and why I'm going to be editing even less. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy. Soham321 is in trouble and he is look for some friendly parenting :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

They mentioned you because of how well they get along with you. In this case, it is a complement. I did have to look up what pettifogging and acolyte meant. My tiny brain can only hold small words. Bgwhite (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care why, although Soham is misguided if they think I would be likely to defend their generally disruptive behaviour just because at one particular article there was someone who was even more disruptive. My bigger concern is that the more I am dragged into ArbCom stuff, the more it opens opportunity for twisting by the, erm, twisted people who are attempting some sort of power play here. I'm also rapidly moving towards the view that no sitting arb and no past or present employee/contractor of WMF should be allowed to perform admin actions that involve imposition of sanctions, and that the WMF need to shut down some mailing lists and IRC channels. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Mirror

Can you find out where this book is copied from? Is it just from us or does it also include your friends Tod and co? —SpacemanSpiff 15:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is perhaps the most notorious of all the Gyan books. It was lifted from our articles and is repeatedly used now to restate absurd claims regarding kshatriya status etc. Moonriddengirl knows it well! - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Btw, User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good to know, I was trying to get information on this for Tamils which I plan on taking to FAR soon, not any caste articles which I avoid editorially. —SpacemanSpiff 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Jat

Hi Sitush

I did not remove any information, i just added the information 'jaat', only a single word with refrences. Can you please revert it back.Prashant 015 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. You are right. I am very sorry about that and will fix it, although I'm not convinced that a citation is needed for a spelling). - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian****wiki

See diff and diff. Welcome to the show! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet now. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

An apology

I wish to offer you an apology. I stand by the gravamen of what I said, but I could have, and should have, chosen my words more carefully. For that I apologize. Dumuzid (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Bernstein, however, has tipped me over the edge and I'll be digging up the diffs for that later. It is about time we were rid. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at this, the link to which was tweeted from an account purportedly operated by someone called MarkBernstein (I have a screencap of the tweet). Then compare to this AN post and explain the hypocrisy of calling out unedifying off-wiki commentary. Also explain the clever sort-of insinuation that I am some sort of Gamergate ally when, in fact and as I have repeatedly said in the last day or so, I don't even understand it. And part of the reason I do not understand it is because our article is such a mess. Those links are just two: I could haul out a lot more just from the last 36 hours that demonstrate we have a problem. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons why I don't use social media, read blogs or forums, or any online media except the BBC and the broadsheets' online versions. Wikipedia is pretty much all I do on the internet. Life's much simpler when you're a dinosaur. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to not read email also - that is how it came to me. I really don't give a crap about what they're saying: my objection is the hypocrisy etc of Bernstein. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rajput

wish you get well soon. kindly do not remove my edits from article Rajput as I've edited in good faith and fixed some contradictions. please discuss if anything is wrong with my editing. kind regards. Rmkop (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussing is exactly what you should be doing, as I've said on your own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, be aware that this editor prefers to log out and edit war to push their POV using outdated/unreliable sources along with tertiary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been considering SPI, so will keep an eye on it. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jhala/Makwana Rajputs

I added four other sources. Here's another one: https://books.google.com/books?id=WNtHAAAAMAAJ&q=Makwana+Rajputs&dq=Makwana+Rajputs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCGoVChMI9c3agq39xgIVSKceCh1RyAD2

The 1891 census of India is not a reliable source, and nor is James Tod. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakya hatnote

Earlier there was no hatnote and I had no issues with this article. I think you were not paying attention to the hatnote changes that were being made recently. Let me tell you by example:-

The previous hatnote was this: This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the Kachhi community of North India who adopted "Shakya" surname, see Kachhi (caste)

Now, this misleads a general reader to think

1) Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore.

2) Which further implies that everyone from North India or anywhere else who uses Shakya surname is a Kachhi. Which is false because the Shakya state itself was from North India and hence most people in India/Tibet/Nepal using Shakya surname are infact Shakyas not Kachhis.

There are instances where Kachhis/Kushwahas use Shakya surname but then they use a lot of different surnames from other castes. This cannot be used as an excuse to make the entire Shakya community a Kachhi/Kushwaha.

I would request to modify this hatnote to reflect something like this: This article is about the ancient history of Shakya clan. For the Kachhi community of North India who also sometimes uses this surname, see Kachhi (caste).

And then

In Shakya article: we can later add current demographic of Shakya population in various regions, their current conditions etc

In Kushwaha/Kachhi article: we can add their various claims to Kush, Maurya, Shakya etc while specifically informing that these are seprate castes whose surname Kachhi/Kushwahas sometimes copy.

Really, I don't want to discuss this here but if you can prove that there is a separate modern Shakya clan then maybe you need to start another article? There is no doubt that Shakya is a synonym for Kachhi, so a hatnote is valid. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, thanks for giving your opinion, and sorry for all the trouble and extra work you received. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The hassle has been going on for years and I've long suspected it was one person behind it all. Honestly, if a username contains "truth" and is editing in the Indic topic area then we can pretty much guarantee it will end up being blocked for socking.

Another long-running sock issue surrounds the Bhumihar community and, sure enough, that exploded again yesterday also. Just a normal week on Wikipedia, then. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This maybe a subject of your interest

Could you please take a look at this discussion. It appears to be a content dispute, an editor asked me for input but I'm not interested in the subject (its not an area I'm expert on). I would be happy if you can take a look. Cheers, Jim Carter 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not something I know much about but I see that someone else has stepped in, so hopefully things will settle down. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

rabtman

Please explain how my rationale is nonsense. I just checked the sources again, and the statements were not even there. I saw your appeal to spacemanspiff to team up against me. But please explain, I also didn't delete any of your messages from my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Article talk page, please. I wasn't asking anyone to "gang up" but, yes, I did misread the diff on your talk page and apologise for that. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well anyway because we are both here, would you like to discuss the issues on caste based pages? We might as well get it overwith. I would also like to talk personally right now, and I will discuss on the article page later. Please reply as soon as possible.Rabt man (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edits were to Ezhava and related to content in that article. The correct place to discuss content is on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey sitush, this is not just regarding Ezhavas, but also other castes as well. I have searched countless other "forward-caste" articles and have noticed that you were reverting many edits that showed any positive sides of any of those castes (ex. bunts, nairs, rajputs, among others). Many of the sources that you have given earlier were also that of "scientific rascists" from Europe and other Western countries who had opinions of bias. I also noticed the fact that you have been painting the castes of "other backward status" in a more positive light by removing any bad points of lower castes (as shown in the Ezhava page). These castes of forward-origin may have been arrogant or treated lower castes in a bad manner, but that does not mean that any revenge should be taken upon them, such as saying how beef is a favorite food of Rajputs and Nairs. I have also noticed in the Ezhava article among others how the article is filled with theories of "foreign origin, and saying that the Ezhavas were the same as Nairs and Muslims in ethnic origin" (which clearly shows a feeling of inferiority).

I wanted to remove the many parts of the article (which were put under sources but were not mentioned by the way), in which Nairs were said to be of same origin of the Nairs. Please remove any comparison between other castes, as the article is about Ezhavas, and stop policing me when I try to remove cited opinions.

You yourself have defended the Ezhava caste from scientific rascists (bottom), while you and many others have supported an attack on Nairs in which any major points of positivity are removed, not mentioned, or 'replaced' with worse. Such scientific rascists are also present in the attack on the Nair article in which Nairs are said to be demonic, unusual, and primitive [which some primitive things were true, and I do not deny], while the points of different ethnic origin, habits of cleanliness, countless military victories, said by Anthrpologists were not mentioned. The Kings of Travancore being of Nair Origin are also not mentioned.

With all due respect, my point is to please let others edit these articles and let others remove clear attacks as it is pretty obvious. Anyone who has attempted to bring out the fact that these articles are biased were banned by teams of editors working together to keep literally anything good about one caste in check. My Nair case in point, I do agree that the caste has been part of an arrogant community that has done many social ills, but please call off the attacks on these communities. People literally make accounts named "Nair" in order to attack with some hidden confusion. At least leave the community alone please, and stop teaming up with others (notably SpacemanSpiff), as it is unfair with moderators banning anyone they like (Spiff also broke the 3r rule, but banned me because he did not agree with my edits).

I would also like to hear your side of the story. Please respond as quickly as possible. Also, this is not just abt one particular page, but rather many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you do not like what I am doing then take me to WP:ANI. I'm sure you already know of it. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush I never said I did not like what you were doing, I just want to sort out a compromise or a motive in a civil manner. I would like to discuss not impose. Rabt man (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What compromise? I am editing in accordance with policy etc and it just so happens that hundreds of other people involved in the topic area are not. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean right great wrongs? You're using Wikipedia to make personal attacks on the pages of upper castes. Seriously, if someone says at least something the least bit positive you immediately revert it. Please stop. Just look at literally any page of a 'forward caste' and you have reverted anything that you personally didn't like. What is the meaning of this? I would like to discuss this with you here right now, as this has been going for far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:ANI is the place to challenge my behaviour because I am not going to generally change my ways. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "your ways"? I want to at least talk to you in a civil manner. My interests are not in getting people to block you like you are doing with me. You can team up with people all you want, give as many threats as you want, but your intentions are somewhat clear at this point. Please answer my question. Rabt man (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have answered it. If you do not understand WP:RGW then there isn't much I can do as it really is self-explanatory and quite obviously applies to your edits. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rabt man: If you have something to discuss regarding content, I suggest that you do so at the appropriate article talk page. No one is threatening you, but your battleground mentality is not benefiting the Encyclopedia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way I could talk to you personally away from this talk page? -Rabtman

I do not want to talk regarding an article, but rather, regarding your edits. I asked Phil if there is any other way, but I have not yet found a response. Would you like to talk on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to talk about. I have explained my position and I know that you consider it to be "vandalism", "ganging up" etc. You're wrong about that but it seems obvious to me that no amount of talking is going change your mind. We've had this issue before with a group of sockpuppets from the Nair community and also with co-ordinated off-wiki activity by other members of that community. It is, I'm afraid, a familiar pattern but numerous admins and ANI reports have always reached the same conclusion, ie: the accusations are baseless. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree about the sockpuppets (I really am not one of them). And I do understand if you have anything personal with them, but I have also noticed a team of editors on both sides of the conflict. I also understand how you might want to revert my edits if I write anything positive of Nairs (as you might think I am working with them etc), But the problem is, the entire article on Nairs (and other upper caste articles) feature a blatant public attack on the community centered around the demonic traditions. The military conflicts only show the brutal captivity of Nairs at north Malabar, but any of their rebellions or victories are not mentioned. But please understand (your intentions might be well), that the article has many things that are insulting to the community (such as eating beef and pork. These were not only shunned by Nairs but by all walks of Hindus). These editors may have teamed up to remove that, and from the revisions I looked at, they may have broken many Wikipedia rules to do so. I just want to add some positivity to that article, and when groups of people such as spacemanspiff, boingsaidzebedee, achayan, "Nair", and you work together to undo any of my edits, I find it unfair. Perhaps it is because you may confuse me with one of them, but please look at the article. It is clearly written to bring out negativity. Let me, and others edit Wikipedia as well. Just because someone is a Nair does not mean they want to delete the bad aspects of the community, as Nairs also deserve a say in an article about them. If the overall intention was to make the community look bad, it was successful, but keep in mind that Nairs have their sensitivities as well. Please show at least a little kindness in this, even if there is a personal motive. Thank you for letting me know, and please respond soon :). Rabt man (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Karwal

Hi. You may want to review some recent contributions to Karwal. I reverted them but there might be something worth to keep there. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There isn't but thanks for the heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Is a tendency to argue from one's views rather than the rules really something that we want to see in an admin? - No, and remember that as a wider community we have written the rules. Its thorny and has come back on us - content people tend to see the results as common sence - IGAR- many of the younger admins are rule driven and see sacred script and damn the spirit. Theirin lies. Ceoil (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability? Indepth coverage? Passing mentions?

People think my AfDs are waste of community time. Thought you maybe interested in the subject. Your input is highly appreciated! Cheers, Jim Carter 11:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy friendship day

Happy friendship day --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Raju

I don't understand why you have rollback my edit on 'infobox template caste' on article raju. I don't see wrong in any field. Please undo - Varmapak ^(talk) 15:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "We do not put varna in infoboxes, and the religion thing might be WP:OR". Are you sure that all Raju people are Hindu? That seems unlikely nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refer the Telugu article of Raju, you can find Hindu navigation template in it. This is a 'infobox caste template' whats wrong in filling it's field?? - Varmapak ^(talk) 17:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Different Wikimedia-hosted projects have different policies and guidelines. This is the English Wikipedia and we abide by the consensus of those contributing here, not those at the Telugu Wikipedia project. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Who's policies and guidelines??? English wiki is not restricting the template for varna field. I know you will not agree. - Varmapak ^(talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed on several occasions, including I think on the talk page of the infobox itself. Even if this were not the case, you really do need to read the article as that makes it clear there were in fact no kshatriya in the Andhra region anyway. The varna claim is just that: a self-promotional claim that appeals to people's vanity. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your understating is wrong. We could not conclude, better let this go in talk page and let people discuss. - Varmapak ^(talk) 18:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Raju. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Varmapak ^(talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Devendra Fadnavis

Hi, I have added sources in Devendra Fadnavis, you can undo your latest edit from List of Brahmins where you deleted Devendra's name. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if your sources show him self-identifying as a Brahmin - it isn't enough for a journalist to say that he is such. So, do they? - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

With that logic we have to delete all matter from all BLPs which is not self proclaimed by that person. We are dependent on "independent reliable sources" not on primary personal website of Devendra. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The logic that I have repeated in numerous edit summaries at List of Brahmins, which refers to WP:BLP and the notes at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. If your sources do not show self-identification then you should self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not talk about self-identification, they only talk about "published reliable sources". And I have provided most reliable sources. Moreover, I appreciate your concern regarding caste issues and you have notes over it, but it can be your own stand, and it can be applied to persons whose caste is really debated. But in this case of Devendra there is no is no such case. Various reliable sources referring him as "Brahmin". Rather I will request you to undo your latest edit on List of Brahmins.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to have read my notes. They include links to discussions at WT:INB etc. This is not just my concern but rather consensus. It looks like you have reverted me, so I suggest that you undo that pronto. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You should know that there are discretionary sanctions regarding South Asian caste related issues. You will find hardly any "self-identification" of caste by any major public figure. If you claim that there is consensus regarding this then we have to review all such lists. I don't think that currently most of people mentioned in List of Brahmins publicly self identified them as "Brahmins". I don't want any unnecessary rift with you. You can revert me. But I hope that you will review other mentioned people with same strict criteria. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I do apply the same criteria. And there are people in that very article who are referenced as having self-identified. Please check the history, where you will see that I am currently working on cleaning it up and that includes adding sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Haxxorsid

Well I didn't had any wrong kinda intention like giving importance to nationality .But its ok :) I won't add it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxxorsid (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid:, it's no big deal. You are new here and would not have known of our guideline. Good to see that you are not going to continue doing it now that you are aware. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Perike Talk

Hi. I left a request at Talk:Perike#Request_for_links_to_WP_community_consensus_discussion_on_reliability_of_Edgar_Thurston.27s_work. if you would be kind and reply there it would be appreciated. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush

Hi sitush this is Kanchipuram silk. You said that I inserted commentary, while I only moved one part of the religion section to the Military Section because I found that the Captivity of Nairs at Srirangapatnam is more so incined towards Military history, not religion. 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk)

You did more than that. You added

There above statement seemed to be written by a non Hindu as Panikkar is for some devious reason is trying to indicate Dravidian as an alternate other than Hinduism. Dravida means the land surrounded by the 3 seas. Pannikar is probably a Christian convert who is part of the India pseudo secularist educations planted to confuse Hindus to make them more susceptible to conversion to other religions especially Christianity.

That is pure original research. We do not allow commentary of this type in articles. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No I swear that I really did not. This was written by someone previously, not me! Look at the sources if you would like. It was already there! It was written by a previous editor, and I demand an apology.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I must be going senile. Perhaps Kautilya3 can confirm whether I am misreading what you did, as you also appear to have deleted the Seringapatam stuff that you moved in the preceding edit. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Kanchipuramsilk, are you claiming that you did not make this edit [4]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I promise, it may have been done on accident, but I did not write any of that! I saw it written by a previous editor, but all I did intentionally was move the srirangapatnam things to military history, and remove the sri lanka things. Feel free to remove the commentary.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gujjars

Hi, Hope you are fine... Why you are reverting my edits??? For god sake don't create vandalism about gujjar peoples, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikro Nekros (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Colonian census and castes

Came across this article and thought it'd be of interest to you (just in case you haven't read it already):

Walby, Kevin; Haan, Michael (November 2012). "Caste Confusion and Census Enumeration in Colonial India, 1871-1921". Histoire sociale/Social History. XLV (90): 301–318.

Abecedare (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare. I vaguely recall reading of it but a quick glance demonstrates I didn't/couldn't actually track it down. I'll make use of it now. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Teen Darwaza

You reverted reliable sources from article. I removed Gyan as per your opinion but all three below are not Gyan or Raj publications.

• Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Ahmedabad. Government Central Press. 1879. pp. 273–277.
• Sir Theodore Cracraft Hope; James Fergusson (1866). Architecture at Ahmedabad, the Capital of Goozerat. J. Murray. p. 42.
• James Burgess (1900). The Muhammadan Architecture of Ahmadabad : A.D. 1412 to 1520. W. Griggs & Sons, limited. p. 25.

Tell me why these three are not reliable sources? Nizil (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The British Raj operated from 1858 to the independence of India, and the above works are from the first half of that period. Please see WP:HISTRS for an explanation of why we avoid sources from that period. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I think these sources are historical scholarship. Even if they are published when there was British Raj, they are not sources covering only that initial years. Eg. Teen Darwaza was built in 1415 and they are covering info about it some 400 yrs later. Apart from that James Burgess, Theodore Cracraft Hope, James Fergusson; all are noted archeologist or historians, not journalists or press. They pass "historical scholarship" criteria. I think you misinterpreted the WP:HISTRS. Your opinion? -Nizil (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion aligns with consensus established over many years: we do not use Raj sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not using above sources? Why are they not reliable? Only because they are published during British Raj? I dont think its valid reason. They cover very detailed historical information and mostly in nonpartisan manner. The author of these books are scholars. If you think otherwise, we should consider opinion of someone at WP:Wikiproject History.-Nizil (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Please look for the word "recent" in WP:HISTRS. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Kautilya3: for taking part in discussion. I think "recent" scholarship is considered as preffrered source there but it does not mean that older sources are not considered reliable or should be removed. In Nutshell, "1. Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. 2. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." simply admits that those recent or other works are preferred but other sources can be used. Here above Sitush considered all three sources unreliable only because they were published during British rule. They all are scholarly works of that time and we can still use them as reliable sources as noted in nutshell. More recent scholarship sources can be added to improve the subject. Do look at all three sources and information in them. New sources are preferred over old one but that does not mean old sources are unreliable or should be removed. So what do you say? Regards, -Nizil (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All the British Raj era sources are problematic because of the prevailing conditions at that time. Plenty of racism and biases. Novice bureaucrats masquerading as scholars with little training in the disciplines and poor knowledge of the local cultures. Indians being mostly uneducated or under-educated to cross check information contained there, or lacking in power to contest the claims. So on. We have to find contemporary sources that can interpret the claims made in those times. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, @Kautilya3: that there are biases and wrong impressions. But I think we should not generalise to all sources. We should check on case by case basis. Here, when I use above mentioned sources for information about a Gate. There are no bias or any problematic opinions regarding a "Gate" like a year of construction or who constructed it or general description of it. So we can use them there. In case of historical discussions, there can be bias or manipulated opinions in British era sources but here it is a Gate which is non-controversial subject. I think we should not generalise all sources of British era as Unreliable. And yes, we can add more contemporary sources to them also. So what should I do? -Nizil (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Samra

Hey Sitush, Namashkar, Bro , After reading History of Sindh, Jatt, Soomra dynasty, I have found that Samra who are JAtt clan might be Soomra who are also Sindhi Rajputs.--Jogi don (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We cannot rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources. Do those articles actually contain any reliable sources to support the claims? - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

New phrases read today

• SJW
• Concern trolling
• Imposter Syndrome
• Second generation gender bias
• Intersectional oppression
• Emotional labor
• Tone policing
• Hivemind

I've come across a few more also, all of them based around WP stuff. They are gibberish to me. Am I completely thick or has the ability to communicate in plain English given way to the ghettoisation of buzzwords? Whatever, since these things all relate to WP, the people using the terms need to find another way to say whatever it is that they mean. Almost by definition, I'm not against learning stuff but, please, K.I.S.S. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, not entirely sure if this is a complaint, or if it is, what you seek in response. Okay, these terms are gibberish to you. So, learn them, or don't. Language = change, right?

I've seen all of these before, they've been around for varying lengths of time, and are used in various contexts, many of them turn up in discussions of feminist theory, but by no means exclusively there. And they are by no means limited to use on WP which merely reflects the language used in the wider society. And like any word or phrase the terms facilitate the ability to communicate faster and at a higher level because of their brevity and ability to pinpoint a specific concept without an entire sentence of explanation. Some are perhaps more appropriate for comments on Talk pages than in article space except for very specific topics, so if you have a complaint about appropriate usage of language and you saw some of these in Article pages, perhaps you could provide links to them, or if you understand the terms and just don't think they're appropriate, just go ahead and change them if it improves the article.

Do these and other such expressions arise and spread quickly? Yes, sometimes they do, and the age of internet discussion forums has greatly accelerated this trend. Some terms never make it, or shine briefly and then fall by the wayside, others remain, meeting the test of time, and enter the common parlance. Generally speaking, these terms are sufficiently widely used in certain theoretical contexts and are pretty well understood, to the point where you can find glossaries, or definitions of them in various places. I'm sure you could look these up as easily as I could find you a reference for them, but if there are any you truly don't understand, ask. The 1st one often has a built-in sneering or critical political view attached to it--the more neutral term is SJA (social justice activist) although some claim the "warrior" moniker. The 6th one is not even "a thing", it's just adjective, noun--meaning exactly what it says, so shouldn't even be on the list.

HTH ("hope this helps!" ;-) ) Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand any of them. My guess is they are Americanisms; certainly, feminist studies seems to be a niche academic subject for people in the US but I don't think it amounts to much at all in the UK. To be honest, the more I see of this sort of stuff here, the less I want to contribute because it all sounds like social engineering and that is not the purpose of this project. If you're good enough, you'll get on okay; if you are not, you won't. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Gibberish? Sitush, are you disgruntled? They seem to me to be words that you (meaning you personally) will surely understand in context unless you prefer not to. I hadn't heard "concern trolling" (though it's obviously not new), but was pleased to see it from MastCell here, I thought it witty and cogent. Within an hour or two it turned up again. And Liz used emotional labor to describe who is, and who is not, expected to keep the boss in a good mood by laughing at his jokes — yes, that is a feminist point — I rather liked that too, best thing I've seen Liz say. But on another note, I'm pleased to see you don't understand the old "hivemind". Sic transit! To me that's primarily the name of a grubby old website devoted to outing and otherwise discommoding high-profile wikipedians. Google doesn't seem to find it anymore.. good riddance. Bishonen | talk 07:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

I've heard of Hive mind and emotional labor. Hive mind is a popular concept in science fiction. My wife worked at Chick-fil-A a million years ago and they used the phrase emotional labor there... Always smile. Say, "my pleasure" instead of your welcome. Say, "may I refresh your beverage" if you want to refill someone's drink.

Sitush, I've found something else to direct your anger towards and it's a favourite subject of yours ... WMF programs. I and a few others have been on hate filled rants towards the Content Translation tool. To give you a wonderful idea of its greatness... Alfred Berengena and whatever this mess is. My personal utter stupidity from WMF... They finally fixed a Parsoid error that we reported months ago, but the error still shows up in Content Translation tool. The reason is Content Translation and VE use different versions of Parsoid. One has to report the error twice to get it fixed in both spots. arrrgghh. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is frustration, not anger. And, yes, the terms are gibberish to me. FWIW, I've never even seen the term first-generation gender bias, et alone second-generation. I could hazard a fair guess at "tone policing - the sort of thing Liz did on my talk page, perhaps - but that is my limit. Specialist argot can create a sense of legitimacy and of belonging but, as with the ever-shifting argot of teenagers, it can usually be avoided. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In my mind one of the differences between teenage argot and academic/activist jargon is that often the latter is invented because previous vocab is not quite precise enough to describe new phenomena. This is isn't a recent thing, every academic discipline has its own set of technicalities. Which is not to say that it isn't sometimes invented to grant legitimacy (Post-modernists are particularly guilty of this) but unlike among teenagers, it's the exception, not the rule....as a non-physicist, I don't expect to understand "Quantum entanglement" without some explanation, and so as somebody who is not a scholar of feminism, I guess I don't expect to understand "second-generation gender bias" without some research, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Any passing admin?

Is there any passing admin willing to consider events at Talk:Bhumihar#Abusive_content_WikiProject_assessment_Suggestion ? It has reached the point where neither I nor utcursch want to say more. The article has a long history of attacks/complaints from community members. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suspect a good-faith user, who's not a native English speaker and in whose native language "hybridity" translates as something like "animal husbandry", and thus is seeing racism where none exists. Since almost all his edits are to Bihar, I presume his native tongue is Hindi; you should probably rustle up a Hindi-speaker from somewhere to explain that the word is just a technical term without negative connotations in English. I'm reluctant to start threatening blocks over what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding. – iridescent 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. There are several major languages in the Bihar area, including Bhojpuri. I'll see what I can do using the Babel boxes or WT:INB. History suggests that unless it sinks in we're just going to get more screeds even if neither I nor utcursch respond. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think context is needed. In the book, right before using "hybridity", the writer quotes colonial British records. "Hybridity" was a racist idea, especially prominent among colonial British. The exact quote is "so-called 'hybridity'". Not reading more of the book, I can't tell if the writer is saying 'so-called' as in "common term" or 'so-called' as in "misused term". In some ways I can understand the person being upset because "hybridity" wasn't given a purpose why it was used in the article. Imagine throwing in "nigger" in Obama's article with no context. Bgwhite (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like I will have to read the source myself,rather than relying on who ever added that bit and the quick skim that I did as you have done. I doubt it will make the annoyed people much happier because the Bhumihar community, who are prominent in Bihar, tend to disagree with the entire article ... but we should get it right regardless. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Caste is such a confusing minefield. I don't know how you do it. I guess it takes some insanity to wade into it, but how you don't go completely insane is beyond me, especially with what you've had to put up with. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Being called hybrid would be considered offensive in caste-conscious society such as India regardless of DNA research indicating affinity of different castes to each other in a given geographical area. Jonathansammy (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably but in this context it is a quotation. I suppose it must go on but I've never seen anything nasty said of the Nambudiri-Nair hypergamous unions. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. I'd highly suggest not to respond to them anymore. I did have a good laugh when when he told me to ".Plz try to adopt a systematic approach . It would be welcome by all ." Bgwhite (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

u need to read

sir you need to read the source, I'm already done with this. please look over it carefully (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Kz1-mtazYqEC&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false). Rmkop (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong place. If you really must persist then discuss at Talk:Rajput. However, you will get nowhere because the problem is you seem unable to understand either the article or the sources. There isn't much I can do about that, although I and others have tried to explain it to you and to the sockpuppets etc recently. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen talk page and I understand, don't you worry, I would only edit what source is exactly saying not my personal opinion. if you've to write some variation then why are u citing this source. Rmkop (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hoysala related articles

I was disappointed the way you have callously gone about reducing and deleting stuff from Hoysala related articles without so much as starting a discussion. Be rest assured I will be bringing citations (even if they already exist) for the "uncited" lines you have deleted from Hoysala architecture, an article that has stood water since 2007 and has been a main page FA. You need to understand that very often, during intense copy editing, paragraphs get broken up into multiple paragraphs, thus separating a line(s) from its actual citation making it appear 'uncited', and that is what has happened in this article. Your attitude was careless, more than anything else. Hope you revert your edits on Hoysala architecture and give me time to study the content and bring in citations. You can tag it if you like, that way I don't have to struggle to reinstate the actual content. We are all busy in our personal life too and that's why I am asking you for time. Regarding the template, Template:Famous Hoysala temples, you deleted three temples which did not have underlying sub-articles, something I had planned to write about, after visiting them last April in Karnataka. In fact I visited them specifically to write about them. Wiki is not a "my way or the highway" kind of an encyclopedia. You have to learn to be patient. I have visited over 75 Hoysala-Chalukya temples in Karnataka, written numerous articles (even if some are only stubs) on them and own half a dozen books on the same topic. Writing articles in wiki is a fine balance between bringing in real content while at the same time not POVing about it. You are right, the templates can be a list and this is something I have had on my menu for a while and again I need time. Given time I will merge the two templates. There was a time when templates were the norm, or at least common in FA's and thats why I continued in that tradition.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I did start a discussion about some aspects but, in any event, you are referring to an article that was promoted to FA in 2007, would not have passed according to our FA requirements now, and which needs a lot of TLC. Yes, things might get mangled over eight years but it is unreasonable to expect someone to trawl through all of those edits to work out what has gone on when, prima facie, the thing was way below standard in the first place. I've contributed substantially to some GA/FA articles and I keep an active eye on the things as part of the process of maintenance. I know others who do the same and it is indeed the right thing to do. Once things slip, the "star" loses its lustre and in some cases, such as this one, becomes undeserved.

I have no problem with you reinstating stuff if you do it properly. As for the template thing, well, it was ludicrous then and it is ludicrous now. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please revert the Hoysala architecture article to its original form and tag it as you like. It will make it easy for others to contribute and improve it. I am sure any discussion forum will tell you that.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You source it, please. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Raheja Developers

An editor left me a message regarding citation and content concerns regarding Raheja Developers. Since you appear to be the most active editor on the article and I know nothing about the subject, can I ask you to address their concerns? I'm not sure why they are bringing the issue to me versus the article talk page or making the edits themselves. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: - they will be a sock/meat associated with the company. We've been having problems with them for ages and the points they raise on your talk page are the same as those that prior dodgy accounts have been edit warring over. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I slogged my way through the article history and I do see a pattern of trying to whitewash the article by various accounts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Raheja caste/tribe origin , does Raheja is a Sindhi tribe.?--Jogi don (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bugyals

You have deleted four references in this article as WP:RS. How do you determine the suitability of the book references so that I can keep a watch. It has happened for the first time. The article has now gone into a limbo as I cannot find alternate references. Can you pl suggest some alternate references so that I can retrieve the article which is posted on DYK? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 07:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. It has long been understood that Gyan stuff is unreliable, being various copyright violations of other publishers, mirrors of Wikipedia content etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Chrisitan Article

Can you please show me exactly where it is said in the sources the statements that were removed due to their caste-promotional purposes?Rabt man (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it at the article talk page with those who wrote the thing. This isn't about caste promotion/denigration, although I am aware that is your hobby-horse and that you are determined to see Nairs shown in a good light etc. Sources such as Susan Bayly are reliable, so you'll have to demonstrate misrepresentation by contributors or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jatt origin is from Sindh region

HEy! Sitush , You have reverted my edits Category History of Sindh because Jatt origin is from Sindh region. So kindly add Category:History of Sindh to Jatt--Jogi don (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see no support for your claim. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why wikipedia links got deleted

My recent updates are linked to wiki pages and why it got deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by UJcu (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi UJcu, I did try to explain this on your talk page. Is there something that you do not understand? - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF initiative on India to counter systemic bias?

I have occasionally seen you refer to this, but I don't know the details. What initiative was this, and when was it launched? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It was driven by Sue Gardner during her time at the head of the WMF. There is a report about it somewhere, commissioned after the event by the WMF. I'll try to find that but we're talking 3 or 4 years ago now. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Paswan

You recently reverted some of my edits on the article Paswan, stating so what? The line says They are considered to be an untouchable community, but citie does not specific about the Paswan caste, is there anyone? It is requested that please avoid summery field for discussion. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 08:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

So either remove the bit about SC or source it properly. There was no need to remove the entire paragraph, especially since it is common knowledge that untouchable = dalit = SC/ST. That was my second revert of you in relation to that paragraph and your prior edit summary made me wonder whether you may not be familiar with WP:CENSORED. Wikipedia really doesn't bow to the opinions of the Government of India. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(Not the opinions but the sources from Govt of India can be treated as the reliable. See WP:INDAFD) I am aware with WP:CENSORED but there are some incidents on Wikipedia which made me wonder that how the consideration can be different for the similar situations. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 08:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Caste warring

Oh lord the Shakya caste-warring makes me tired just hearing about it. The Newar Shakya caste are authentic descendants of Gautama Buddha? I just can't even. I can't.

I hope your health is a little better; mine is suffering rn thanks to a heatwave that has left the region with strong heat warnings. Ogress _smash! 20:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Come on now, Ogress. We have the descendants of Rama, Krishna and Parasurama roaming around here. Why not Buddha? It is the Indian way! I suggest that you claim descent from Varuna. The heat wave might bypass you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Naw I'm going Iranian in the Indo-Iranian with Verethragna; I live in a desert and we could use the apas. Ogress _smash! 01:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jazz Summers

"Passed away peacefully last night" Rusted AutoParts 13:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So please cite it rather than misrepresent what the existing sources say. Assuming Digital Spy is reliable, of course. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't get snippy, man. Rusted AutoParts 13:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: you've been here a while and should know this. You should also probably know of WP:CITEVAR. I'll fix it. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. Doesn't mean you should cope an attitude. Rusted AutoParts 13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No attitude here. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"actually, forget it - can't be bothered arguing with someone who is touchy". It's fine you might be having a bad day or something, just don't act shitty towards me because you didn't bother to take the source provided on Deaths in 2015. Rusted AutoParts 15:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why the heck should I be looking at a list article for a source? The damn list wasn't even linked from the bio article, which is where you made the faux pas. I'm not a mind-reader and nor can we expect telepathy from those who choose to consult WP for information. You are being absolutely ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the man is dead and obviously there will be a source on the deaths list. I'm not sure if you're just lazy, but you revert me, I give you the proof, and you go biting my head off. It's sourced now, just saying try not to be an asshole when someone's helping you build a new article. Rusted AutoParts 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to walk away, re-familiarise yourself with our purpose, our policies and our guidelines (including WP:BURDEN) and you need never to darken this talk page again. You are at present a menace. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well gosh, if it upsets you so, ill go. I don't think I need to read anything, as I doubt there's a guideline for picking up the lazy person's slack. Simply providing you the source offended you greatly. Can't say ill stop "darken"ing you talk page as I'm not some evil wizard. But I won't respond anymore. Quite frankly I don't like dealing with rude people. I'm not your mommy. Start wiping your own ass. I've said all I need to say. RAP (talk) 00:30 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: See WP:NOBAN. If a user requests you not to post on their talk page, you are expected to respect it. Given your hostile language above, I think you had it coming. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, a perusal of your talk page and recent disputes at articles such as Brad Pitt suggests that you regularly get into difficulties with experienced contributors regarding even fairly basic content issues. I'm not the one at fault here but if you think I have been rude, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Come here again and you will. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

K. Rusted AutoParts 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Yogendra Yadav

Seems like anonymous IPs are editing the page and same old text is back that you edited out/corrected. I am sure if I revert to your revision, it will be reverted from another IP. How do you resolve such situtions? As a comparatively new user, I am more interested in the process of resolving such conflicts. Please help. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be under control at the moment. If it continues then it is possible to request that the article be protected for a while from certain types of contribution. That is done at WP:RFPP and I'm sure someone will do so if it seems necessary. Of course, even anons are entitled to have their say but the article talk page is the place to do that when it involves removal of reliably sourced content. One thing that something like semi-protection can do is force the anons to discuss rather than edit war, although in my experience they tend not to bother and either go away or just wait things out until they can disrupt things yet again. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dadu Konddeo

Hello Sitush, I would be grateful for your input on the renaming of the article Dadu Konddeo. An editor changed it from Dadoji saying we do not do honorifics. Now, I could not find a single reliable source that called him "Dadu Now there are very recent news articles in Marathi calling him Dadu after publication of a controversial book on Shivaji by James Laine. Most historians including Duff and Sarkar have called him Dadaji and I believe the Ji is an integral part of his name just like other Marathi names such as Shivaji, Shahaji, Mahadji Shinde, Kanhoji Angre etc. When you have time please check the talk page of the article for more information. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I can do there, sorry. I don't know anything about the person and the order of priority when dealing with COMMONNAME vs HONORIFIC vs NCIN is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So that we don't butt heads...

Like we've done so many times, I'm letting you know that I want to add a 'not to be confused with' tag on one of the pages that you've operated on. Issue is, that a particular community has a similar sounding name to another community from another region of South Asia. But other than the somewhat similar names, the two communities are completely unrelated (in linguistics, origin, culture, gotra, surnames, etc). So is there any specific procedure that I have to follow? ShamusHarper (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation is your friend. It might be easier to consider the specifics if you weren't talking in riddles ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the Lohana and Labana communities. I've added a 'not to be confused with' tag for now, but there's this erroneous idea circulating that they're one and the same. What would you suggest? ShamusHarper (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find any source that categorizes the Labana and Lohana as the same, or states that they are related in any way. At the same time, there is no source that directly states that both communities are not related. (There are snippets on Google Books that supposedly make mention of both communities but they're inaccessible to me.) Would it be possible to inject text into the article(s) stating that the two communities speak different languages, have different Gotras, etc..? ShamusHarper (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Injecting something might be drifting into the realms of WP:OR unless the sources mention both communities in the context that you describe. This type of thing is a messy area and it isn't helped by issues related to transliteration etc. I appreciate your concern regarding GBooks snippet views - in fact, I'm pleased to see someone who recognises that issue - but the limitations of our policies can create situations such as this. You perhaps already know this but User:Sitush/Common#GBooks is relevant, as is the general notion that sources do not have to be online anyway.

In situations where we seem effectively to be asked to prove a negative (that the two are not connected) I think that the onus has to be on someone to prove that there is in fact a connection, with reliable sources even if not online. However, it might be worth raising the alleged synonymity (or lack of it) at WT:INB. You could raise it at the article talk pages but that might lead to two disparate discussions. Perhaps start a thread at WT:INB and then post a neutral note at the article talk pages that links to it? - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

{stalker comment} If you can find snippet sources on the net, then you may certainly be able to request those sources, or others, at WP:RX, which might get you fuller versions of the works in questions and maybe provide additional valuable information. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point! As someone who has availed themselves of the kindness of folks at WP:RX on numerous occasions I really should have mentioned that. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

British Empire

Hi Sitush, I'm having a problem with the same article with the same user User:JuanRiley who's deleting the some of part in a phrase in the top article that Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead. deleting the part to say that Britain's economic lead was fully eroded. For one I say that this doesn't give an accurate description historically and should be kept that way. I also note that user JuanRiley's edits is somewhat anti-British and trying to minimize the section of the British Empire as an example of before when I last disputed with him, my reasons were historically motivated but he refused to even give a reason to why he kept adding an then-thought unsupported content. Now he's back and trying to edit as he sees fit and justified his edit with saying that the word he deleted was redundant when actually the two word he deleted were necessary to not give a wrong concept. Another theory I have with JuanRiley is that his edit might be patriotically motivated, he tries to undermine Britain in his recent edit and user User:Calidum, who's an American like JuanRiley backs him up. Don't get me wrong, I'm an American too but I detest when edits are patriotically motivated rather than historically oriented. (N0n3up (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

Paraiyar page modifications

Paraiyar is a caste group found in the state of tamilnadu,India.I modified the article with all the reliable sources.But you are depicting that caste as a slave caste.And I modified the article by researching into the past history and made edit by giving line by line proof.But one time the caste was a slave but time to time the hstory of any castes change.Our country India was also once slave to british,but because of this the wikipedia article about India cannot be started like "India a former slave of british" though the information is true.It is racial discrimination.Same for this caste also.So if you dont want to glorify this caste then its okay.But discriminating a caste is a punishable offence under Indian Penal Code(Indian law).So I hope u might have understood what I am saying.You have the right to modify the sections which has no reliable sources,but you cannot discriminate a particular group of people because of their past history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS for details of what constitutes a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jats of Sindh redirect to Jat people is not fair

Hi Sitush you have redirected Jats of Sindh to Jat people is not fair , its just like hiding the facts, first read that article which you have redirected which is different in every nature from the redirected article.and why don't you tolerate the regional Jat of Sindh, these Jat are Baloch tribes. and if oyu don't restore Jats of Sindh, write about them in this article, so the facts should not be hidden from the world. hope you understand without any bias .

You were yet again falling foul of WP:RS. Furthermore, the article didn't actually indicate anything about the Sindhi Jats that differentiated them from Jat people in general. Just because a community exists in a certain region doesn't mean we should have an article about it. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Dear sir, hello, I have been following some of your past edits, and trust that you are feeling much better now; my best wishes for your health. Whenever you have the time, I would be grateful for your kind assistance: as I have proposed a merger between two pages i.e. Awan (tribe) and Awans of Pakistan-- as the latter seems to be to be merely repetitious and incorporating much material that is unreliable, and that has been, previously, removed by various editors from the older original Awan (tribe) page. Could you perhaps take a look at both at your kind leisure and find out some way to resolve this matter. I shall be very grateful, thanks. Yours sincerely, 39.54.241.61 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Col (retd) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have redirected the Awans of Pakistan article because in fact every single citation in the thing was either unreliable or plain fake. That is, there was nothing to merge.

I am amazed that the article survived for so long when it was so obviously duplicating the subject of Awan (tribe), but these things happen. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Awans of Pakistan

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Hi Sitush. Please read Proposed Merger to create a discussion first. I advise you to make a proposed merger and state your reasons for a redirect or merger as the articles have been separate for a long time and especially it is on a controversial topic. Do not hesitate to discuss any issue.

Pixarh (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Scheduled caste

Hello sir..when did the Rajbhar community has been added to scheduled caste and on which basis u have edited the Wikipedia page.. Thank u.. Piyush7500 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to have begun with these edits. I have fixed it in accordance with what the sources actually say. Thanks for spotting this. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Susan Bayly

I have seen you citing her book quite a few times so a gift for you. Solomon7968 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've considered writing it myself on occasion but have always held back because (a) I am acquainted with her from long ago and (b) I'm not convinced she actually meets our notability requirement for academics. Don't be surprised if it ends up at WP:AFD. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows citation counts of 548 and 458 for her last two books which is pretty impressive (and passes [[WP:PROF}]) for history. Btw, I don't think mere acquaintance/knowing someone personally is enough to imply COI. Solomon7968 10:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll see what her bio says at the college website. I did recently update Michael Axworthy but I declared my position on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

3 September 2015

Dear Sitush please watch your words and think twice before accusing other editors. Acquaint yourself with Wikipedia Etiquettes first.

Your statement is still confusing. Define "fake references'. At wikipedia, either references exist or they do not. There is no and should be no midway for that.

On the other hand, the entire content of the article Awans of Pakistan is referenced under the section heading of 'references' and 'further reading'. There is nothing duplicate in both the articles both in terms of content and context. Awans of Pakistan is one long article which deals with the full history of Awans who belong to Pakistan and is nothing like article Awan (tribe) which is too brief, politicized and contains only "2 sentences" (one is lead section and second in history) apart from two statements by 2 different people.

On a soft note, the article Awan (tribe) is very short and had anything been copy/pasted or duplicated for that matter, it would have been clearly visible. You may state your particular concerns if you have any and I might be able to help you there. As you have asked me to insert content in Awan (tribe), I can do that and help you after all what are editors for but to improve articles and I am a helper but please make things clear first and understand that both articles are separate.

I am watching this page, so you may wish to reply here.

Pixarh (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Read my edit summaries here. There are numerous citations that supposedly support the statements but in fact do not. They are fake, and you were responsible for reinstating them. I've explained at Talk:Awans of Pakistan and I absolutely guarantee you that you are not going to get your way on this one. I am actually thinking it might be necessary to check many more of your contributions, given the extent of misrepresentation that has gone on. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not create malicious redirects, as you did with Awans of Pakistan. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixarh (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#.5BProject_WIN.5D_Ideas_and_Opinions.
Message added 15:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What's Raj

Hey, sorry to disturb. But can you please elaborate on Raj sources. THanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not use sources from the Raj era for various reasons, some of which directly align with the comments at WP:HISTRS. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but what's Raj era? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

British Raj, so anything up to 1947 that relates to India/Pakistan. There are very few exceptions to the rule - most of the writers were amateurs and their writings were infused with notions of scientific racism, misunderstandings of history due to unquestioning reliance on Brahmin informants etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're talking about 1921, is Balbir (2008) ok? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No idea who Balbir may be but, obviously, they're a modern writer. Well, they're a modern writer unless it is one of the many modern reprints of Raj sources that are churned out by various presses in India. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Any admin watching?

Please see this sanctions section and the contributions of Righteous.12 (talk · contribs) over the last few months, more or less all of which have been disruptive at Arain. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing on Arain. AFAICS, Righteous.12 has left no edit summaries and has made little effort to communicate via their talk page or anywhere else. If the behavior continues after this block expires then I think we will be looking at a WP:NOTHERE indef.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just noticed they have posted something at the top of their talk page. I will try to deal with it later. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

mind on your own business

Why you are constantly changing our page 's information if we found it changed again then we will take this topic to cyber security....so kindly please revERT the changes that you had done on our page.. Bannaakkisa (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, there is nothing called "our page" on Wikipedia. They are all Wikipedia pages. You should be editing here only if you are willing to abide by the Wikipedia policies, which I have just posted on your talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just reverted your additions at Sunar again, and also reverted your move of that article to another title. Please see Talk:Sunar. A read of WP:NLT might also be useful. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement in English

Thanks for your concern and for marking the edit as a good will edit. Let me explain the grammar of what I wrote: "Neither was Singh born there nor did he live there." In English, since "neither...nor..." is a parallel structure, the "..." must be filled by the same type of grammatical structure in both places. In this case "Singh was born there" and "he did live there" are both independent clauses with a simple past tense verb, so this requirement is fulfilled. If I say, "Singh was neither born there nor lived there," there are two problems. First, the "was" is applied to both "..." groups, which in this case are "born there" and "lived there." So the phrase essentially becomes "was born there" and "was lived there," and "was lived" is obviously an invalid use of the verb "to live." Second, since "was born" is the technical simple past tense form of the verb "to be born," you need to have the equivalent for "to live," which can be accomplished by "did live" or "lived" in this case.

So, my restatement solves these grammatical errors, so I am going to fix it. Otherwise, you could say "Singh neither was born there nor did live there," or "Singh neither was born nor did live there," or "Singh neither was born nor lived there," and so on. All of these statements are fine, because they preserve the parallel structure, but what you wrote doesn't. So I'm going to fix it to what I originally had, but please feel free to fix it to any of what I just wrote or anything else that preserves the parallel structure later on if you would like to.

Also, I hope you are doing ok, based on the notice on the top of your talk page. :( Get well soon!

EDIT: In fact, "lived" doesn't work at all, because "was born" is passive voice, and "lived" is simple past, so "did live" is the correct form since that is also passive voice. See English verbs.

Subbupedia95 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I come from the school that favours ease of reading rather than strict adherence to grammatical correctness. So, for example, things such as split infinitives are not totally verboten. I have no idea whether you are correct and - no offence intended - I don't really care. Your version just doesn't "sound" right and it seems that RegentsPark agrees with me. Perhaps there is a better way to construct the sentence but yours is not an improvement for the reader, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We can argue about this till the cows come home :) so why don't we just get rid of it. It doesn't seem particularly useful to me anyway. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added because people kept insisting that his ancestral village was also where he was born and lived. Indeed, I think the villagers made the same claim in some newspaper article, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Will self-revert and put on thinking hat. --regentspark (comment) 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured; for me, even if something doesn't "sound" correct, it must be grammatically correct. I don't like incorrectness on published material one bit, no matter how bad it sounds, whether it be grammatical, factual, or in spelling. So I guess it's a difference of opinion. Ultimately, a solution needs to be found which takes care of both concerns. I don't care enough about that particular page to bother finding something that "sounds good" to you guys, but I hope you guys figure something out!Subbupedia95 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback Awan (tribe)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Awan (tribe)#Request for Discussion.
Message added 16:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pixarh (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to keep pinging me here. That article has long been on my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

panicker page

I am adding accurate info...plzz don't revert it . to ensure credibility I want you to know that I am a panicker myself,

thanks, p.s.(reply on my talk page) Mathew102 (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mughals related articles

Sir please take a look on others mughal related articles.--శ్రీధర్ బబు (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at [[User talk:--శ్రీధర్ బబు (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)|User talk:--శ్రీధర్ బబు (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am going through one of my bad patches with medication. It is probably better that I do not get too deeply involved at present. If you think there is a problem affecting several related articles - such as members of a community trying to enforce an unverifiable or non-neutral version across various Mughal topics - then it might be worth starting a centralised discussion at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you continue to remove my contributions to other editors and administrators talk pages such as Dennis Brown, then I will report you for vandalism. It is not for you, or a clique to arbitrarily decide what is 'relevant' to be included for discussion in a talk page and you have broke the rules of Wikipedia by doing so. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources

Dear Sitush, What are Reliable Sources i want to submit to believe the article. 1.Inscription 2.Ancient Poem's and etc. Because The ancient things only have the true matters. Now a days news papers and books are written only for money making purpose. So I can explain you if you understand the Tamil authorized poems. They written the poem about the "Why gounder title is given to the particular community". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobugounder (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Inscriptions and old poems most definitely are not reliable, just as the Bible and Koran are not reliable. There are certain circumstances where it might be justified to quote them but you would need to find modern sources that discuss them in the context that you wish to use the things. WP:RS explains the situation, and you can ask at WP:RSN for a community review of specific sources that you intend to use for a specific purpose at an article. Peer-reviewed academic papers and books published by university presses are generally the most acceptable things; newspaper articles can be ok but it depends very much on the circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thankyou. I have updated gounder title with Vettuva gounder as per Wikipedia proposal. shall I remove the vettuvar from gounder page and Kongu vellalar does not have gounder title in Indian government caste gazatte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobugounder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vettuva gounder in gounder title

Dear Sitush, Why you did not accept the vettuva gounder in gounder title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobugounder (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The article already mentioned the Vettuvas, your edit summary was grossly misleading, and you are continuing to be disruptive despite being informed of WP:GS/Caste. Another example of your disruption is your use of outdated population statistics in village articles etc in order to assert that the Vettuva Gounder are "dominant". Please remove all those statements and then I think you should try editing something unrelated to the Vettuvas for at least a while, otherwise you are likely to find yourself topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Gobugounder (talk) has vandalized a lot of pages with the same content which has not been stated in the source. I have reverted edits on Demographics of Tamil Nadu, Namakkal, Karur, Tiruppur district, Coimbatore, Erode, Perundurai, Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam, Gobichettipalayam and Velirs. Please help in taking it to the attention of appropriate notice board. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pixarh (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Watch out for the boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, there are enough eyes on the ANI report. I believe you can safely "unwatch" the discussion. If you want to bang your head for some useful purpose, can you figure out what's going on with Thakore and Thakera? Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

already unwatched. I should have done so when McCandlish stuck his oar in. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, I think I have sorted out the Thakore etc problems. Thakera was originally a redirect to what is now at Thakur (Indian title) and was subsequently hijacked, although probably unwittingly. Thakera does not seem to exist as a spelling for the Thakore caste, nor could I find it as a spelling for the Thakur title, although I did ponder whether it might be a gendered version. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I have tried to merge the history of Thakera and Thakore, since the latter was moved to the former title back in May and then a new version created in August. Hope that fixes the attribution issues although given the the number of times the page has been blanked/moved/rewritten, that is probably a fool's errand. One minor remaining task: Caste system in India has a link to Thakera (look for the sentence, "In 1911, the entire Dharala [a Rajput caste]"). Can you figure out if and where it should link to, now that the Thakera page has been deleted? Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thakore mentions them and appears to be sourced, although not very well. The source used in Caste system in India says that the Brits had problems classifying them and seems to be saying that they were Koli people - see here. It looks like I'll need to read that source in depth if I can get hold of a copy. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to sort out, for my head already hurts from trying to keep these in line. Btw, would a

Not to be confused with Thakur.

hatnote be useful at Thakore? That's a genuine question; not a suggestion/directive in question form. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sort of dabhat is needed. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have access to Peasant pasts through Muse. Let me know if you need any pages/chapters or the whole book. It received a good review in Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, especially for its coverage of the Dharalas. Abecedare (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As it happens, so do I ;) I just hadn't got round to looking there. I know some people object to The Wikipedia Library doing deals related to paywalled content but my view is that I'd rather have the access than nothing at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaud vs. Goud

I've reverted myself pending further review. It looked OK at first blush, but I take your point. Sorry for the trouble. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You'd stumbled into a minefield. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

New discussion forum

Register here. Your contributions would be welcomed. Forum not intended to compete with Wikiopediocracy, which is for criticism only, but rather focuses on getting like-minded people together who want to see improvement. Peter Damian (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Darkness in El Dorado#Neutrality and un-encyclopedic tone notice removal?

Could you weigh in on the synthesis question under discussion there, if convenient? Charles Matthews (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)