User talk:Sitush/Archive 30

Legos

Well, I'm not sure what is in this particular example, but in general I see it as a BrE/AmE difference. As Lynne Guist says here, Americans play with Legos and step on a Lego, while the British play with Lego and step on a piece of Lego or a Lego brick. So there you have it. I know which I prefer, and I feel that wars have probably been fought over less, but hey. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, interesting thanks. Like I said in the summary, it isn't a use that I have ever seen. But in any case, she is based in Britain and has been since her teenage years, so British English is likely to apply per MOSTIES. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes - I had an ec with you but was just adding this: in an article as British-bent as this one is, I have no doubt that your correction is, uh, correct and that the uncounted mass noun (or whatever the h*ll it is) Lego is the appropriate form here. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

In case there was any misunderstanding; I'm not saying asking for help with AfD is okay, not at all. I'm saying there's no rule against saying "come help me improve this article" in general (presumably, not when it's at AfD). Your points about canvassing within a walled garden are valid, I'm just worried that users like Jesswade and others who haven't done much in the project space are being caught in the crossfire. That's all. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be right but it seems to me to be a cultural thing within that group of people. Cultural is not really the word I want to use but I can't think of a better one at the moment. I'm limited in what I can say anyway but the gist of what I see is a lot of mutual backslapping but not much attempt at guidance, and on the odd occasion I have tried to guide I've been slapped down as a misogynist etc. The fake refs, BLP vios, close paraphrasing, reliance on inappropriate sources etc are common problems and I would expect better, especially from well-educated people as many are. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I can think of several prolific editors for whom those concerns are entirely valid, and many of these refused to try to understand what the basis of these concerns were, too. I've also come across several others whose goal may be to write biographies of women, but who are very scrupulous in their use of sources, and have written some high-quality stuff. I try to maintain the belief that a newbie showing positive intent could be driven in either direction; hence my message to Jesswade. An experienced editor such as the one who provoked that conversation is a different matter entirely, an it's not that I think they're right, it's just one more conflict than I need on Wikipedia right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone involved with WiR is useless etc, far from it. Equally, I wasn't aware that Jesswade88 was a newbie: the article I looked was created in 2017 and the one at AfD rather later. Perhaps I misread the dates or perhaps I should have looked at edit count etc but, again, one of the problems of operating solely within a limited-scope project is that experience, understanding and expectations can tend to be limited, regardless of how long someone has been around. I can't remember the circumstances but I do recall coming across someone who was clearly extremely knowledgeable about, say, mycology, and had been happily editing in that area for years but was completely unaware of something incredibly basic, whether it was notability or verifiability or RS etc: they were churning stuff out but creating a lot of problems and, whatever it was being a fairly niche subject area, not attracting much attention that could have helped them avoid the issues.

Anyway, have you seen the links provided by WBG in the section above? Now that is scary. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

She's a relative newbie: she may have ~2k edits, but only 19 are in the Wikipedia-space. I saw WBG post the link, and I mean to read it when I get the chance. My general feeling about things like DHM is one of frustration; engaging more cluefull and committed content writers is the best way to fix gaps in coverage, but instead these events, from what I know of them, attract only a series of belligerent SPAs. Because of course those were in short supply. C'est la vie. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is much broader than that and DHM is a symptom. (I will be making an INB post about this whole saga, once I manage to connect some of the dots together.....) Discussions does not take place on-wiki, (because they beleive the underrepresented classes can't tolerate open criticism, which is BS) but through a variety of pet mailing lists. Any criticism needs to be extraordinarily polite or you might find yourself mentioned as a harasser in next day's paper. (Whilst the folks of the aforelinked grant did not take any names, they mentioned at a TOI news piece that they were harassed over Wikimedia since they gave a proposal to increase inclusivity. Blah blah.) And, the above links are only some of the stuff, I came across and there's far to it than what meets the eye. There exists a group of perpetual fund seekers, who have not done anything remotely worthwhile over any project over the recent past but attends every Wikimania on WMF funds, claims multiple grants a year concerning mind boggling sums of money and most importantly a solution to every known problem plaguing the society from gender bias to broader participation from all demographics and how to utilise WP to solve them. ∯WBG^converse 10:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that ToI news piece? I can't recall seeing it. I'm getting really concerned about this idea, especially because while it is fine to encourage academics to write about the dalit subject, which we can then reflect, what we've actually been seeing is rather similar to what goes on with yoga articles, ie: various "activist" websites shouting and then being cited in a round-robin fashion that creates a walled garden of notability etc. Sites like Dalit Camera have to be treated with care, and sites such as Round Table India are never going to be reliable for anything other than statements about themselves ... but people do not want to understand this. Similarly, we're seeing citations to ever more obscure "social justice" orientated web news sources, which provide activists with the oxygen of publicity but, really, are just purveyors of press releases and a home for fawning admirers. I'm quite happy to have dalit-related content here and indeed have added more than a bit myself, but we're drifting into a situation where sections of the encyclopaedia is usurped by a paid-for political agenda written and facilitated by people with massive conflicts of interests and an inside track to the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

See this news piece. To quote:-Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit. ∯WBG^converse 14:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any truth to it? That is

“It can range from slurs to having your edits reverted or edited on frivolous grounds,” Lakshane says. “You have to take the trouble of making the edits and doing the research, but also defending them. Some women I know have quit because of Wikipedia harassment which spilled into real life.” Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit.

And what are we supposed to do about

Harini Barath, who helped organise three Indian Women in Science editathons, agrees that the insistence that “notability must be proved with references” often leaves out women scientists who don’t have an online presence that is deemed adequate, leading to pages being flagged or deleted, as in Strickland’s case. “There aren’t many references because women don’t get their due as much as men when it comes to being published or getting recognition for their work,” Lakshane says. “Their work gets appropriated and there is a dearth of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. So if you’re a woman artisan in India, there will not be much to cite about you."

At least the article does go on to acknowledge that the latter issue is nothing really do with WP, although sticking the point as an aside at the end of the thing, by which time many readers will have tuned out, smacks of sensationalised journalism. And the entire piece smacks of being a press release, which ToI routinely print without thought. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs

• Read this PDF report. Pages 12-18 deserves special mention.

• It is by a movement-affiliate who regularly coalitions with WMF (and has former WMF employees in leading roles).

• Also, please don't be a right-wing-troll. Huh?!

• The observations that you see over the above link will lead to the production of modules, that will be used in training of Indic Wikimedians and will help bring diversity to our project. See Q 15 over this t/p thread specifically.
• You might remember this grant in light of one of those famed friendly-space-warning that made way to your t/p, a year back:-)

• A mind boggling fund, creation of mailing lists; discussing the development on off-wiki closed-websites (despite the criticism from 3 longstanding Indic editors on t/p); zero mention across any Wikimedia wiki all throughout (and then claiming to have done the best to recruit experienced on-wiki volunteers)....All these brings back worse memories....Will wait for the answers, though.

∯WBG^converse 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I recognise some of the names, eg: the perpetual fund-seekers etc who have caused havoc with their social justice campaigns here in the past. It is in some senses meatpuppetry and paid editing, not just RGW stuff. At least a couple of those names were responsible for the hell that was Dalit History Month, as it applied to Wikipedia. Should ban the lot of them. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The first report basically takes DHM as a case study (along with another case) and seeks to establish that we were upper caste moderators who are using WP and it's knowledge to systematically exclude them...... Ours' not accepting caste websites, oral history and stuff about them published by dubious sources reflect the real life oppression and doesn't account for SYSBIAS..... Also, that we don't have a right to define their notability and their RS..... And, that they are now recruiting scholars and publishing houses to write about them, pending which they will resurrect their activism.... Blah blah blah.....

The second grant-related report identifies all those editors who opposed DHM as right wing trolls (they are careful enough to state that as a comment by participant). It then goes on to criticise a 2012 (!!!) BLPPROD (which was too hasty but placed for valid reasons) as an example of our exclusionary activity and how we wish to oppress them..... Assuming good faith is in vogue..... They alone know what modules will be finally created.....

And, the grantee said to me previously that she refuses to opine on DHM, because her grant is not remotely linked with it. Sigh.

I am sometimes sheerly amazed at how some volunteers stake in hard labors to build the encyclopedia without any payment whilst others (who barely stake in a single main space edit a year) , siphons lacs of dollars for dubious purposes......And these folks are perpetual fund seekers.... Taking grants, going Wikimania and all that but nothing significant is reflected in global contributions.

I agree that we need to take a concerted stand against these RGW activism and if necessary, impose draconian measures. Incidentally Tito's organization is quite involved in the latter grant and I have asked him for his perspectives.... Let's see.∯WBG^converse 15:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

When he does, I think this needs to be raised at WT:INB, unless it has been raised there previously and I've missed it. It has the potential for yet more massive disruption caused by WMF do-gooders who have in the past admitted they do not understand the caste system etc. The last time this blew up, I'm fairly sure they told me that all was ok because they were just facilitators! - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm, what about the bit on p 18 that says

However, Wikipedia’s rule is that when a person becomes notable because of their death, their article will be titled as if the death was what made them notable, rather than their life.

Is that even correct? Yes, we certainly do have articles titled Death of ..., which is what they're objecting to, and the two articles that they mention fit that schema but I don't think it is a "rule" and those articles usually originate with editors from India rushing in contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, which rather undermines the global, white etc stuff they're rabbiting on about. Am I wrong? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And it strikes me from that talk page that I am the right-wing troll and they're determined to run me off the project. They seem to be idealistic nutters with little idea of how the real world works, or even the Wikipedia world. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Winged Blades of Godric, I've also just come across the Dalit Camera article. What on earth was a global North, white, upper-caste, right-wing troll thinking of when they created an article about a Dalit YouTube channel? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said below, I am still trying to connect some of the dots, that are not yet comprehensible to me and once I get over that, I will approach the INB.

Nope, that's not a rule and if it exists, I claim ignorance. I can provide ample articles that are a misfit to the claimed schema and there's far more in our naming policies (to judge in those situations).

And, hush....... You don't dare bring facts; when the season's for story telling.

Now, a query for you. One of the 3 grantees has a net-total of 40 edits over 2 projects; 8 of which are over meta-wiki (and 3 of them in relation with the grant) and the remaining 32 are over en-wiki which includes creating an article about a person who was involved with DHM in flowery language. She claims to have organised many editathons to address gender gap in the recent past in India. Any ideas? ∯WBG^converse 13:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Could they have had another account before the SUL thing was introduced? Or otherwise legitimately operated more than one account? If not, it does seem weird that someone with so little experience has been deemed suitable to run/organise editathons etc, and it might at least in part explain why so much of the output from at least some of those events ended up being deleted for copyvio reasons etc. Meta strikes me as a dangerous place, where a lot of stuff happens and flies under the radar of people like me who are actually doing the damn work. A cosy little club, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

SUL; no. She created her meta u/p in July, 2014 wherein it was mentioned that she had been editing only recently. Her first global edit was on en-wiki in March; which tallies with that observation. She had two renames but everything seems to be in order; as shall be.

Legit alts; maybe but they shall be disclosed prominently. Let's ask her ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver

I appreciate your sentiment but the overbroad nonsense that is WP:NFOOTY is never going to be reformed if you vote keep, even if regretful. It'll take some AFDs ending in a consensus for deletion or at least no consensus to show how it needs an overhaul. Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92:I registered my protest but the fact remains that the consensus is there. I do understand the motivation behind trying to overturn it through achieving deletions at AfD but my own experience has been that it doesn't tend to work. Many SNGs have similar problems but the very nature of them - a large caucus of people with vested interests in maintaining them and a common project space - means that they're virtually impossible to overturn even via an RfC. Witness all of the perennial attempts with school notability, for example, and don't get me started on the National Register of Historic Places stuff.

If I had my way, it would be GNG alone, with all SNGs scrapped. It would also be the case that a "no consensus" result at an AfD causes deletion, not retention, because after all the burden is on the creator etc to prove notability, not on those questioning it. A lot of no consensus outcomes seem to be the result of perennial inclusionist lawyers who procrastinate and throw out walls of policy acronyms almost by rote, eg: Davidson. They know that no consensus is enough for their ends. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:Pang

No worries. Thanks for your edits.Paul 1953 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please could you review my suggested changes to a biography of a living person?

Hello Sitush, I'm not sure what happened to my previous post (I'm new to Wikipedia editing!) and would be grateful if you could have a look at Dona Bertarelli's biography which hasn't been updated since some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona_Bertarelli I've suggested quite a few updates with sources. You'll see from my user profile that I work for her, so I hope I'm doing things correctly. Please could you let me have any feedback? Thanks a lot, Mia MiaNorcaro (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look today. Thanks for letting me know. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@MiaNorcaro: sorry, I will look, I promise. I've had something crop up in the real world and things may be delayed because of that. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thanks for letting me know, good luck in the real world and look forward to hearing from you soon! MiaNorcaro

Don't forget.

Howdy. Ya forgot to sign you 'statement' at the Arbcom case you've requested :) GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. I've got more important things on my mind but done it now, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

The request for arbitration Fæ has been declined by the committee and archived. If the issues presented in the case have not yet been resolved, the involved parties are encouraged to pursue other means of dispute resolution. Bradv🍁 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No probs, thanks. ArbCom wasn't where I wanted it to be discussed anyway but since people had raised privacy concerns and stuff had been oversighted, I was advised that it was the only route. Discussion is now ongoing elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hopefully working now? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not had time to check fully, Nikkimaria, because something has cropped up in the real world. However, I've certainly seen 4 papers and there didn't appear to be any banner suggesting that I had a quota of six for the month, which is what was happening previously. I'll confirm asap. Thanks for your help with this saga. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you confirm whether the Citoid engine is working properly? I was writing, minutes back and Citoid is unable to auto-pull the fields from a JSTOR url...... ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Citoid the Visual Editor thing? I don't use VE and I am becoming fed up of having to clean the citations that it does produce. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

charan page

do you know hindi language. Lalit Jugtawat (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry. But I know people who do use it as their first language. Why? - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Then please ask them that chah (चाह) and ran(रण) means in hindi and then redo my edit. Also ask them how the union of two different words is done in hindi which is called "sandhi". So the word union of chah and ran means charan and that would means 'the one who loves battle'. You can confirm it from your friends who know Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit Jugtawat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be original research. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please respect the purpose people have for editing Wikipedia

Hoi, I noticed your exchanges on the talk page of Jess Wade. What you fail to appreciate is that people may edit for their own reasons. Some are interested in Pokemon characters others are more involved in science. For Wikipedia as a project the bias in its reporting is staggering. There is not enough about India, there is not about female scientists. When people take up such a topic it is not canvassing, it is working on aspects of Wikipedia where it falls short.

Your personal story, being deaf et al is no justification for attacking a concern that is fully justified. For Wikipedia to be balanced we either do not allow new male scientists or we allow for people like Jess to focus on our short commings.

Given that you indicate to be a scientist, give me your ORCID identifier (by mail) and I will make you your Scholia... That is what I do, as well as having worked on many subjects relating to India all in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood but will try to explain better here when I return. FWIW, I've never claimed to be a scientist nor even "indicated" it. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Study at Oxford? That is what I remember you wrote.. I hope you understand what I am saying.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge - the city of perspiring dreams, not the one of dreaming spires. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There are some things related to BLPs that can be tricky to deal with. The classic example is sexuality but others include religious belief and caste. In those situations, we ask that the article subject has self-identified in some rock-solid souce. I don't see that issues dependent on skin colour are any different. Yes, it may be self-evident that someone is black/person of colour/African-American/whatever the correct terminology may be, as in the case you refer to, but to repeatedly stress that point requires that they make a "big thing" of it themselves. As I said, I am profoundly deaf - I can't hear anything without the most powerful hearing aids, and nothing below 110db even with them - but it does not define me, despite the daily discrimination I face; similarly, a black person may choose not to be defined by the colour of their skin etc. Unless they do - for example, because of being an activist - it seems wrong to overly emphasise the point through multiple mentions of it. Oddly, another person attended Oxford shortly after me and claimed to be in a similar position: she trumpeted about it, got on TV shows because of it, was claimed to be the "first" at Oxbridge, got a job as a court interpreter because of it and was then exposed (not by me - I've never wrote about her until now - but by her employers) as a fraud on many levels, including the extent of deafness itself.

Regarding ranking people etc, a first is very often a notable thing. In some circumstances, such as winning a bronze medal in the Olympic Games, even a third may be notable because it is a formally recognised achievement. However, when we start mentioning someone as 10th or 100th or 1000th, things often become more problematic. Where do we draw that line? And when the information comes from an advocacy group, it is often of dubious reliability: such groups are usually considered at WP:RSN to be reliable only for statements about themselves. Furthermore, it is possible to create ever more precise definitions/standards in many lists, just as athletic races have been timed in seconds, then tenths, then hundredths etc. Where is that line drawn? At what point is it actually significant rather than, for want of a better term, geeky? And at what point does a phrase such as "one of the first" or "one of the earliest" become vague?

With regard to the specific article, I have no doubt about worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contributor, though, had made quite a few significant errors in another of their recent creations that might in fact have significantly embarrassed the subject (eg: mis-stating her qualifications, her role in a large team and, IIRC, a claim that she was the first African-American to discover an element). They're on a mission to improve coverage of similar people, which is fine, but we need to be accurate and we need not to overegg the pudding with poor sourcing, misrepresentation of those sources or making a fuss about something of which the article subject might not themselves be making a big deal. For example, I acknowledge that the person in the specific article sits on the diversity committee for their university, but it would be wrong to say or even suggest that she does so as a representative of her ethnicity unless that is indeed sourced, and the suggestion might arise if we have inappropriately "banged on" about it beforehand. People sit on committees for all sorts of reasons, occasionally not even willingly as has happened to me.

These issues often arise when someone gets too close to a subject and/or when their experience of contributing here is confined to a very narrow topic area. I suppose it is a sort of "can't see the wood for the trees" thing. My advice to new contributors would always be to edit broadly, not narrowly, but I do appreciate that some people only have a limited area of interest and obviously especially so when new (one article!). But once you've created, say, a couple of dozen articles in one area, it is really, really useful to look at how things are done in another and then revisit your own creations. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@GerardM: - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I've just googled "twitter clarice phelps" and if you do the same you will see just how quickly our misrepresentation of that person has spread. There will also be all of the mirror sites etc. It has the potential significantly to affect her career and we should be appalled if we are the originators of it. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The person who wrote the article was awarded by her peers for writing Wikipedia articles about female scientists. Implicit is that the notions you subscribe to are largely invalid. There has been substantial underreporting of female scientists there have been and there are enough documented instances of this. This is such a case.

As a consequence, your notions fail reality. Your notions preserve a bias in Wikipedia. it is why I reject your premisse. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yours is not really a valid argument. You haven't addressed the concerns and I rather suspect that "her peers" haven't checked the articles and are a part of the problem. Certainly, that was evident in the AfD for Clarice Phelps. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Hello Sitush, I am sorry for saying this thing about nationalist. I think I was wrong, it is just confusion over stock but I learned by looking at more sources that it does not matter if stock or water is used. This does not change based on different nations but either can be used, so it is a factual error, contradicted by multiple sources, but it is not nationalist and I apologize for my mistake to say this. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. However, I think you need to slow down and discuss things properly on the article talk page. I think you mean well but it takes time to learn how Wikipedia works and you're rushing around trying to change things without fully appreciating what has gone on before and how we actually do things here. You can learn a lot from people like Fowler&fowler, even if sometimes you disagree with them, because they've been here a long time and have much experience of dealing with the tricky issues surrounding articles related to India etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit this article because it is about India. I unfortunately follow this article to make a pilaf with stock and because the article explained this poorly, it was the worst pilaf I have ever had. I am not involved in any conflict about India, I am only trying to fix a major factual error in an article. The sources supporting this are crystal clear. Pilav can be made with stock or water. This type of thing effects the reputation of the entire encyclopedia. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin please

Will some passing admin please block Mynameiskautilya3 - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Done by Widr. Thanks, whether you saw this or not. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

-Gazal world (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi

This person is a sock pupet of the person banned from Wikepdia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.137.66 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been watching them but was not 100% certain. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've filed a report at WP:SPI under the sockmaster's account name, Astore Malik. You'll see another one up for checking there, too, although I'm now damn certain they're ducks just from analysis of the article cross-overs. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Khatri

Why? Why should the latest peer-reviewed science not be used on a topic that is very relevant to it? It's not" too variable, too small in sample size, usually speculative and based on a fast-developing new science"

You are obviously very ignorant on how SNPs are sourced, sequenced, compared and an admixture is determined for a population group. It's literally based on our DNA and is very accurate. Give me one good reason not to add genetic peer-reviewed science other than it upsets you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not ignorant of the consensus and have explained it on your talk page. Please do not do it again - I'll leave you another note. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, after the reading the guidelines it makes some sense. I still have one question -- the race nd ethnicity guidelines say From "a modern scientific standpoint, ancestry comes down to haplogroups." this is what the study i posted was based on. Is that wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've no idea about haplogroups. It doesn't matter for caste articles because genetic studies are not going in them, as I have already explained. Whether haplogroups are an issue or not somewhere is irrelevant in the specific context. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note at WP:BN

Hi Sitush, I made a general reply at WP:BN related to your comment, but didn't ping anyone. As you had not yet commented at Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards, I wanted to let you know that it was running and would be the best place to discuss potential changes to the admin activity policy. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Xaosflux. I had not seen the RfC you link but have just now scanned it. The thing seems to be more concerned with the potential for compromised accounts. I'm more concerned about competence and, well, bad faith. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the drafters "hook" was account security - but policy changes would have impacts on other components as well (general expectations for activity). Like most things, it is a "discussion" so if you think the answer to questions like Should the minimum number of required edits/actions be raised to ten, in order to demonstrate at least marginal engagement with the project? is "It should be 100 edits per year" - feel free to make your voice heard. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will have a think. The example in question is just so egregiously poor form that I suppose I hoped common sense might apply. It may do yet: as I've just noted at BN, if they actually bother looking during the 24 hour window then they might reconsider. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux - I've read all of that RfC now and it is pointless. Quite obvious that current admins are circling the wagons and then, in reverse, at BN saying that the rules are the rules. They're protecting their own but there isn't much point in me wasting my time trying to break that cartel. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussions can be frustrating sometimes! Just wanted to let you know. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux one more query, if I may. Bureaucrats have a discretionary role at "close" RfAs. Do they not have any discretion at all for resysops? Even when the RfA was years ago, the community has churned, the policies have changed and the requesting admin has essentially been gaming? Are bureaucrats called by that name precisely because they cannot WP:IAR, nor accept the idea of WP:NOTBURO? - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have historically only acted within the strict limits of the policy to re-grant administrative privileges, thereby allowing the community to define how they should act. If the community wants to give them discretion, it has to write that into the policy. Additionally, since there have been failed RfCs to increase the inactivity standards, no bureaucrat is going to ignore the thresholds at this point.isaacl (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Striking the last part, as one bureaucrat has chosen to go beyond the disqualifying criteria listed in Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. It isn't likely to start World War III; if anything, the opposite. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Most people have the expectation that bureaucrats will follow policy strictly, so... at a minimum I think there's going to be some discussion (again) about the appropriateness of this. But since there are numerous bureaucrats who do interpret policy strictly, it may not result in anything. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I realise that. Nonetheless, someone needs to make a stand for common sense in extreme cases such as this one. It does the admin corps no favours to be so rule-bound for egregious examples of, well, bad faith, frankly. If someone wants to be an admin, at least they should show some interest. They can always re-run at RfA. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The community has not granted us much discretion related to activity contrasted to the wider discretion in determining if a resignation was "under a cloud". We can reject if we have cause to question the identify of the requester. No 'crat is required to act, but that is normally the limit that discretion will stretch (e.g. 4 crats opt for 'no action' vs outright 'denial' - but then a 5th one comes along and approves) - in theory if every 'crat opted for no-action the request would fail, but some crats are strongly opposed to allowing such pocket-veto type activity. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It's weird that the community, and especially admins, quite frequently invoke IAR but the 'crats are not allowed to do the same. And judging by participation at that RfC, the "community" is actually mostly the admins when it comes to such matters. Disclosure: I've been talking with Bishonen (talk · contribs) about this on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Authority control

Can someone explain to me the utility of the Authority Control template, please. I've just looked at Karl Lagerfeld and it has generated a massive number of hidden categories. Then I clicked on some of the entries in the template and I'd say that roughly half of them point to nothing in particular, at least one appears to be circular, some are not in English, and another (the WorldCat one) is effectively a duplicate of the VIAF one and actually says so! Seems like pretty much a complete waste of space to me, and certainly was a complete waste of my time. Is this all being driven from the crazy WikiData project? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The theory is that the links identify the subject, providing a unique identifier in case there are other Karl Lagerfelds. I agree you would need to be very much a specialist to find them useful, but they are encyclopedic information. The hidden categories are a PITA and have pretty much no purpose as far as I could tell when I edited the module that generates them. However, those of us who enable the preference to see hidden categories are supposed to suck it up. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds to me like we're sending most readers down the rabbit hole but fair enough. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I add it as sort of a prophylactic edit - if I add it I can hopefully avoid much more of wikidata leaking into en.wikipedia ...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it! But how do you know that it links to anything? Do you add it and then do a preview to test a link? Somehow, I don't think it will stop the WD aficionados in the long run but I see your point. WD as a whole is so arcane, so "understaffed", so circular etc that I'd rather it was just blown up. Apparently, I have made a fair few edits there but I'm not sure how because I've never done so deliberately and don't want to be associated with it. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Made changes to Etymology in Vanniyar

Made changes to Etymology in Vanniyar. Please check once and modify as required Reason being some are already mentioned in history section and also Etymology would be usage and meaning of words.

Thanks very much

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Will do but it will most likely not be before next week. I've still got some draft stuff to add to that article myself, when I get my head in gear. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi Shaikh

Is there actually such a thing or is it a mis-spelling of Sheikh? None of the references seem to bear out the existence of a Shaikh over a Sheikh.--regentspark (comment) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No idea. I've seen both spellings but couldn't tell you where, other than obviously on WP. Might be archaic? - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't "Shaikh of Araby" a jazz standard? - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sheikh of Araby apparently. If Shaikh is just another spelling of Sheikh, and if Sheikh is just a sort of "respectable mister" rather than an actual title, what would the definition of Punjabi Shaikh be? Not an ethnic, cultural, royal, or religious group for sure. We should junk that article. --regentspark (comment) 22:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shaikhs in South Asia, as linked there. I've never understood it. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just started pruning the chaff, at least, but see Category:Shaikh clans. - Sitush (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And I think most, perhaps all, of these are going to be creations by that Waltham chap who has long gone away after causing chaos here. However, one source mentioned in one of those articles is this. Not read it through yet, just glanced. - Sitush (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Beatles recorded The Sheik of Araby on January 1, 1962 in an unsuccessful audition at Decca. The recording was released in 1995 and I listened to it a couple of months ago while driving. It is charming. See The Beatles' Decca audition for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields - "vandalism" to me, but possibly "art" to someone else. Does WP:NOTVANDALISM apply?

Sorry, Cullen328, I missed your comment. I spend a lot of time in Liverpool and I'm afraid it tends to jade my view of The Beatles. Among the incessant plugging of them for tourist/heritage reasons is a primary school attended by McCartney that looks nothing like it did at the time. The fact that not a brick or paved area remains, and even the boundaries have changed, doesn't seem to put off the tourist buses, whose occupants sometimes add graffiti (although nothing like the mess at Strawberry Fields - see photo).

I remember the spelling as The Shaikh of Araby from well before then. My dad had a lot of jazz and similar 78s, one of which was definitely spelled that way (perhaps by Fats Waller?). It may have been a misprint. Aside from jazz, dad was also a fan of quirky stuff such as Spike Jones and his City Slickers and The Goons. Some of his stuff would probably be worth a few bob nowadays but, alas, mum had a spring clean - that's always fatal! - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Though I am married to a profoundly deaf woman whose parents mocked The Beatles, I am a kid who listened avidly to the mop tops during school recess (play time) back in 1964, when I was 12 years old, on a cheap Japanese transitor radio. And I still love them. I never saw them perform live though I did see John Lennon perform with Yoko on 10 December 1971 when I was 19. As for your Liverpool tourism, I wish that tourists would visit San Francisco to study the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Big Brother and the Holding Company and Santana. But no. As for your dad's jazz records, they must be in the same secret place that my mom sent my collection of Superman and Batman comic books. How does a bob relate to a quid? Inquiring American minds want to know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm profoundly deaf, so music has never been a big in my life, although I had my moments of extremely loud record-playing. I do understand why The Beatles were so special to those of your generation, though.

A bob was a shilling in the pre-decimal currency. 12 old pennies = one shilling, and 20 shillings = one pound/a quid. To say a "bob or two" is to say "has a decent value" or something similar. I'm old enough to remember pre-decimal and, indeed, being taught at school when it changed. There's lots of slang still knocking around relating to the old coins: a tanner was a sixpence coin and to give someone a "fourpenny one" was to hit them - don't ask me why! there used to be a fourpence coin - the groat - as well as a one-quarter pence coin, the farthing (fourth-ing). "Half a dollar" is 2 shillings and 6 pence and a "dollar" is five shillings (there were coins for these values - the half-crown and crown, respectively - and the dollar reference has something to do with the UK/US exchange rate way back in time, probably when we were on the gold standard). I'm sure our articles will explain it better than I can.

The myriad of coins in pre-decimal often did allegedly have some sense in mathematical terms: there are more ways to divide things based on 12 than on 10. Hence, farthing, halfpenny (ha'penny), penny, threepenny (thruppence), groat, sixpence, shilling, florin (2 bob) etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As for Liverpool, the city has been much in the news this last week, mainly because of a brouhaha surrounding Derek Hatton. Liverpudlians have always had a decent sense of humour, and Hatton is often called "The Mouth of the Mersey". One famous protest banner from his heyday said something like "Hitler destroyed only half our city - Hatton has tried for the lot!" - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm reminiscing now: "keep your hand on your ha'penny" (the haitches are silent) was an old saying in my part of the UK. Advice from a mother to their young daughters to protect their chastity. I wouldn't like to speculate where the valuation came from, nor even if it was a valuation! - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

See/hear this, although I cannot. Also, "daft ha'porth", again with the silent "h", is an old local term referring to the halfpenny, used when twitting someone (nothing to do with Twitter). - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And, blow me, we go almost full circle. The Scaffold, whose membership included Macca's younger brother, Mike, were involved with the publicity for decimalisation, according to the Decimal Day article. I remember the band - "Lily the Pink", "Thank U Very Much", "Goodbat Nightman" etc - but wouldn't have heard a word of it back then and, of course, there were no TV subtitles. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)And of course "Spend a penny" - still in common use as an alternative to "nip to the loo" or whatever ("I must just spend a penny before we go ..."). PamD 10:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good example, PamD. And it is one that is easily explained, unlike mine. The penny had to be put into the door locking mechanism. "The penny dropped", anyone? - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Vettuva Gounder

Vettuva Gounder one of the caste using Gounder title.But you are redirect to Gounder.why? In Tamilnadu Gounder title using castes are Vettuva Gounder,Urali Gounder,Vanniyar etc Jkalaiarasan86 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it seems that although no-one disputes that the Vettuva exist, we haven't had sufficient decent sourcing to sustain an article specifically about them. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Khokhar Confederacy

Am I right to be feeling a strange sense of deja vu? --regentspark (comment) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can't quite put my finger on it yet, though. Need to get brain in gear. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. This is the person who created a war that didn't exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

AE

Hello Sitush. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Highpeaks35. There is some reference to a discussion at User talk:Highpeaks35#Indian subcontinent in which you participated. So you might know the background to some of this. If all the claims about Highpeaks35 are true, some admin action may be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cantar

Long time. Hope you are doing well and feeling OK. Sorry to bother. An editor called Xenani is consistently trying to add OR stuff to Nadar pages. If you are free, please look into it.Nadar climber talk. I am not sure what to do with this guy. Cya later. TC Mayan302 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've had quite a few problems with Xenani, too. I think they're mainly interested in stuff relating to Sri Lankan castes but it has cross-overs to the Tamil castes of South India.. They tend to use quite obscure sources, which doesn't help, and although they say that they have those sources and are not relying on snippet view, I've not yet managed to verify it. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. TCMayan302 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Muthuraja

I have written on the side of Muthuraja.Kudiyaanavar tamil meaning is Farmer.Jkalaiarasan86 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#WP:INCOTM.
Message added 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Titodutta (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Why deleting my articles

I don't know sumant singh jhala Tripathijidubey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Caste in articles of Deceased Subjects

Sir, a living person needs to self-identify his caste but what about the deceased? For example Nanji Kalidas Mehta and Mahadev Govind Ranade. Kindly enlighten. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is living people where the policy is particularly strict. However, we'd still need a decent source. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In Nanji Kalidas Mehta article, his Lohana caste is probably supported by this source which seems decent, but I can only view snippets [1]. I know offline sources can be valid but too but is there a other way to verify? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Many Gujarati Lohanas emigrated or were forced to go to Kenya. The article has a quote from that source and it also appears in other sources, eg: here. Seems fine to me unless you have sources which say otherwise, in which case we should show all variants per WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the source provided by you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There is constant vandalism in article Maravar

There is constant vandalism in article Maravar. Please put a Edit restriction on the article. Verified contents are being removed, please help Sangitha rani111 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Sangitha rani111

(talk page stalker) Sitush appears to be away. I've semi-protected the article and reverted back to the last Sitush version. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sangitha rani111 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Valmiki Caste

Hi Sitush, in the history of this page. I found the removed content interesting and was a real research. Can I add it back. MRRaja001 (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

G. Chockalingam and G. Chokkalingam

Hello Sitush. You created both articles which obviously are about the same person. The article G. Chockalingam is more detailed so I propose that the content of that article be preserved. Both articles can be merged. It seems that the kk spelling is somewhat more common. So if the final article about this person should be found under G. Chokkalingam, then the best procedure may be to have the current two sentence stub at G. Chokkalingam deleted and then to move the current article G. Chockalingam to G. Chokkalingam which would leave G. Chockalingam as a redirect. If on the other hand this person is better known as G. Chockalingam, then that article should remain and G. Chokkalingam should be turned into a redirect. --Proofreader (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Jat Sikh

Sir, would you kindly check the recent edits? I've removed the Indic script and re added some content reliably sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Pandey

how are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.68.236 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There's

a whole lot of reviews (and some more, which are not mentioned), as to the People of India (ANSI) volumes and I guess that's more than enough to grant a stand-alone article to the series. What do you say? Needless to say, the reviews are almost always negative and highlights on a vast range of issues :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I got accused of creating a hit job so backed off a bit. If we opt for standalone then we'll need a dab page and I think it would be odd because the other two uses of the title aren't likely to be much expanded. But I'm basically past caring, so probably not the best person to ask. - Sitush (talk)

That's so sad to hear; you were one of the best editors in these topic areas:-( Accused of creating a hit job -- that's entirely new news for me! I agree about the DAB and the related conundrum. ∯WBG^converse 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

One reason I am not around

Fed up of the professionally offended. The likes of Fae should take note of comments such as those highlighted by Joe Lycett here. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Sitush: it has been a while since we chatted. Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about your situation here, and that it is (appearantly?) drawing you away from Wikipedia. I won't try to offer advice unless you want it. For now, just condolences to you. Hopefully you will be able to come back to Wikipedia, because we'll miss you! Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Come back when you feel able and then contribute to the articles/areas you find pleasurable (and feel free to ignore inevitable requests by people like me to "Please take a look..." ).

PS: The breadth of your contributions on wikipedia continue to amaze and amuse. Just now I realized that you are the top-editor to Maratha Empire, with a net contribution of -724 bytes. Knowing the article history those stats deserve a medal! Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Returning to my opening remark, an apt description is here - "much ado being made by the people who make being offended a way of life". I find it tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Caste from Personal/Official Websites

Sir, can castes be quoted from personal websites of the subject. This article seems to be using this website for this purpose. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, assuming the site is indeed controlled by the article subject. It would be self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A potential issue with the specific website that you link is that I can find no useful confirmatory data using whois searches, which hide the registrant info etc, and that it has seemingly not been updated for years. The latter seems odd for an active state politician. - Sitush (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodgy AfD close?

Non-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saranya Bhagyaraj might be dodgy - 2 x delete, 1 x keep, 1 x draft doesn't look like the sort of AfD a non-admin should be closing, whatever the merits of the various comments. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: posted on my talk page letting me know that he had posted here. This seemed to be a pretty clear cut no consensus after being relisted twice and, well, not having a clear cut consensus. I'm open to other opinions. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Sitush. I hope all is well. As I am sure you are aware, the best place to raise such concerns (about a closer's judgement) is either in discussions with the closer or by filing a deletion review for wider engagement. I have not fully reviewed the close and will comment back here if/when I get the chance (or DRV, should one be filed), but my preliminary judgement is that I don't have an issue with the close.

Sitush, were you referring to WP:NACPIT #3 about NC closes? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor and Dusti: yes, #3 but also #1 in that same section. I'm well aware of DRV, thanks, but am pretty sure that I have raised this issue with Dusti in the past. Basically, unless it is a SNOW situation, I would be extremely circumspect about NACing an AfD. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: My question, I guess, is - if TheSandDoctor had closed this as No Consensus would we be here? I'm not the same editor that I was back in 2013 when we had a discussion about AFD. I would appreciate any feedback that you have, as I'm not attempting to be contentious or hard headed. I do disagree that this would be a dodgy close and I've asked @TheSandDoctor: to review the close and they've agreed that it was no consensus. I agree that not all discussions are appropriate to be closed by me and I've purposefully and pointedly avoided them. In clear cut no consensus cases like this, and in clear cut keep cases, I've gone ahead and processed those. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Idar State - baby with the bathwater

Hello @Sitush: I great admire you as an editor but noticed you recently made wholesale edits on Idar State rolling back - appropriately so - a bunch of poorly sourced changes. However, your changes also have rolled back a bunch of minor edits I and others have made along the way, which you probably would not have an objection to. For example, your rollbacks now again refer to Idar as a princely state, which it was only during the British Raj. In its long history before the Raj, it existed as a sovereign state or in vassalage to other states like Gujarat Sultanate.

When I started working on the article, it was in very poor shape (and it still is) but I decided to make positive, incremental changes. Unfortunately, your wholesale rollback has undid some of my work.

I wouldn't mind if actively-engaged editors made challenges to my edits in somewhat proximity to when I made the edits, so I can discuss and challenge them. However, you seem to have stepped in long after the edits were made, and unrolled a whole bunch of edits including mine and succeeding edits, so that it is hard for me to actually have an pinpointed debate about one or another change.

I am frustrated because I consider myself a reasonable editor and often ask for and accept your advice and that of other editors. However, the nature of indiscriminate edits makes it difficult for me to trace back my edits and separate the good edits from bad edits. It is discouraging me from positively engaging with Idar State.Deccantrap (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deccantrap: please read Census of India prior to independence and note that articles on specific Raj era census operations (1901, 1911 etc) have long since been deleted at AfD for reasons which include those given in that article, ie: not reliable. I haven't been editing for a while and my first major session since then included the Idar article and was inspired by the need to clean up a whole series of Koli-related crap which has been the subject of sock activity etc over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks as always for the informative response @Sitush:. Given that (virtually) all pre-1947 census records are Raj sources, is it WP policy to not use pre-1947 census figures for India? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it can be "policy" in the Wikipedia sense of the word because WP:RS is a guideline and we're basically using RS as a justification for removing/not using the information. Also, I think if a more recent academic source comments on population statistics from the period then it would be ok to use that as the presumption would be that the writer had used their expertise to ascertain the acceptability of those statistics in that specific case. The caveat with that approach is we really, really must not rely on snippet views in Google Books etc because very often the modern academics qualify their use and that qualification could be several pages distant from where the figure is actually given. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.Deccantrap (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey there

So nice to see you editing, Sitush, and removing so much crap! Bishonen | talk 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC).

I second, third, and fourth that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Jats

Sir, can this and this be used to support that Virendra Sehwag and Vijender Singh are Jats? They didn't self identify explicitly but said it indirectly. I've removed a lot of entries from List of Jats article added recently by a sockpuppet of User:Dahiya1208. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes they are jats

First one is fine; I'm not sure about the second because the mention of Jat is not in English. Presumably you can translate the relevant bit? - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Vijender Singh said "She is also a Jat" referring to Mallika Sherawat. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that's fine, too. You might want to add the translated quote to the citation. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Checking my reading skills

Do you see anything over this source that supports :- Washuta says she is praised for her numerous essays such as " How Much Indian Was I? My Fellow Student Asked". ? ∯WBG^converse 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; the above stuff was incorporated by a sysop who transformed a violation of WP:INTEGRITY to a clear violation of WP:BLP.

And, non-surprisingly it's (again) the Twitter-route to article. ∯WBG^converse 19:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Another former committee member of WMUK. Another about whom there was a huge uproar. Co-founder of WiR, I think. But we all make mistakes. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello why did you delete all the reference ?

Why did you delete all the reference from British regime book ? You have created lots of spelling mistake in the article ? I've complained about you. And where is it written that citation from British and before can't be given. PerfectingNEI (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I will reply on the article talk page in a moment. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well.

Seems we got to the end of the 159s, except for the new additions that keep popping up. Congratulations on all the hard work. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Reyk. You did much to ease the burden - by no means all my doing. I made a start on the indikosh ones a few days ago and have been desultorily removing some census2011.co.in, of which there are/were around 24,000 !! I reckon one person, around July last year, accounted for well over half of the 159 citations. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Baisla

Yes in the article some part is copy pasted but I give you different references so what is the problem with you I give different sources for this article so how can you deleted it. If you have any problem with peragraph you can fix it but pls do not delete the whole article.

Flowery? What can you mean?

I thought of your recent remarks on my page about cultural differences in national discourse when I stumbled on this userpage description, now deleted. I've redacted the name of the institution and shortened it a bit:

X College, one of the most illustrious tuition centers in Y has always astonished and impressed people with its unique teaching style, better facilities, counselling sections and its way of interaction both with parents and pupils. Since its establishment in 1972, it has taken special care in moulding and transforming students into better citizens, making them a part of a vibrant society and thereby promising them sparkling morns ahead. Not-only does it coach but also instils courage, confidence and knowledge in young ones. […] X College has already contributed a lot and will continue to sustain its glittering victories in the days ahead too. (Straight off the institution's own website.) Bishonen | talk 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Ha, flowery or garlanded with self-praise? What a thing to make my first read this sparkling morn. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

South Coast railway zone

South Coast Railway zone was announced officially, but continue to function as South Central Railway zone till date. The page and its railway articles got changed zone name. The references still say south central. What should be done?--Vin09 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Is it just a change of name or also a change of boundaries? This sounds like it might be similar to when Telangana emerged from Andhra Pradesh - we still have loads of sources that refer to places and social groups as living in AP but people are changing the articles to say Telangana because of the new boundaries. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The boundaries were also reformed, but officially the administration and even rakes of railway are still SCR. As of now, the a new railway division was announced, but it to function completely, it may take some time.--Vin09 (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Damn, it is a change of boundaries - On 27 February 2019, AP part of Waltair Division, Vijayawada, Guntur and Guntakal divisions were merged into newly formed South Coast Railway zone. I'm not sure what to do but each article in the new zone certainly needs to refer to the move. I'll ping BrownHairedGirl for advice regarding categories. - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush

If the scope remains unchanged, I recommend a renaming at WP:CFD.

If the scope is different, then I suggest:

1. Create and populate the new category.
2. Decide whether the old category should be kept for historical reasons. If not, then nominate it for deletion at CFD.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BrownHairedGirl.

Vin09, I've had a think overnight but remain undecided. It would probably be best if you punt this over to WT:INB, including the thoughts above about dealing with the categories (which seem eminently sensible to me). The problem with delaying things despite As of now, the a new railway division was announced, but it to function completely, it may take some time is that we may never know when the "some time" is over. I would tentatively suggest that we should change things in accordance with the official announcement that was made but that is likely to present a sourcing issue, as with the AP/Telangana bifurcation. No easy answer that I can see, I'm afraid, so it will be best to seek a wider consensus. You might also want to notify the Railways Wikiproject of the discussion at WT:INB because I suspect they will have dealt with this type of thing before. Sorry I cannot be of more help. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Jats

Sir, an editor tried to include 2 entries which I think is unsourced/original researches or unreliably sourced. While the Hoshiar Singh Dahiya's entry isn't supported by the sources (one is reliable but doesn't mention caste and the other is unreliable), I am confused on Jat Mehar Singh Dahiya's entry. The source used A doesn't mention his caste but uses the word 'Jat' as part of his name. It uses terms like "Jat Poet Mehar Singh". Another article B similarly mentions his name as "Jat Poet Mehar Singh" or "Jat Mehar Singh". Even the Wikipedia article uses the word "Jat" as a part of his name. So I've removed it as per this quote I might be called Nair, for example, but I can assure you that I am not a Nair; and Helen Reddy was not a Reddy here. Was it a good decision? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think so, yes. There is some ambiguity in those statements. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government. Vin09 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment on Arbitration Workshop page

This is a warning that pseudo-threats like this are not only inappropriate for Arbitration, but Wikipedia also. Further statements like these will result in a block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll email you a justification: my so-called pseudo-threat has resulted in your actual threat, which is ironic. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am curious to know the particular sitting arb(s) who asked you to issue this real-threat. ∯WBG^converse 06:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: did you get my email? Couple the external link I gave you with stuff already found/raised on-wiki in other articles created and I think we need to find some way of resolving what is clearly quite a significant issue relating to BLPs because the problem seems to be growing by the day. Note this, this and, most significantly in terms of the alleged threat, this.

I have no idea how the issue can be dealt with without a ruckus arising but dealt with it must be and I would appreciate your thoughts on that. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I can see that you have been active since I posted the above. It seems poor form to me that you should issue an inappropriate and actual threat then, prima facie, ignore the response. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, it's been a rough week. My comment is not a threat, simply a promise. Regardless of that, I have passed on the concerns to be dealt with, but can't comment much about what is being done about it because of the nature of the situation. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rough weeks happen, so sorry about that. Your semantics regarding threat vs promise do not stack up: it amounts to the same thing in this situation, it was misguided and it would have seriously concerned someone with less nous about people who wield the tools than I have.

I have no idea to whom you have passed the information nor why "the nature of the situation" prevents it being discussed. As I see it, the only issue is whether to post that external link on-wiki or just actually deal with the problem it raises and which, I promise you, is just the tip of the iceberg. Or is the issue that you as scared of bringing down the wrath of the clueless among the Women in Red participants as I am? No contributor of that degree of experience should be making so many factual errors in any article, let alone in what is probably hundreds of BLPs and it is only the accusations that get flung around regarding perceived misogyny & systemic bias that are protecting her. I'm tempted to go for it. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit and reverting

Please look into the page of Samajwadi Party. A certain person is again and again labelling it as caste based political party, however I don’t agree with this. Without any declaration of any kind, we cannot call a party that has been in power of the largest subdivision for many times as caste based. Kindly look into this, and if only we can call this caste based, we should actually call every party as caste based because they all do caste based politics. The ref attached is from a book that somewhere denotes that the party started as caste based but that doesn’t mean it really defines it’s main heading. Please look into this Sitush. Thank you !!

I will take a look later. As far as I can remember, it began as a Yadav-centric party and so was definitely "caste-based" in the purest sense of the word. However, I think it now appeals to a wider range of people than just the Yadavs, meaning that it still gets involved in caste politics (like most Indian parties) but does not draw its support solely from one caste, nor frame its policies solely for one caste. It is OBCs, Dalits and the like now, rather than just Yadavs. Mulayam practically reinvented it to gain power. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Exactly. I meant to express the same. Thank you very much.

As you will probably have seen, I left a note on the talk page. Someone else has now removed the claim, although the talk page comment has not yet had a response. I do think that the article should say a bit more about the early history of the party and cannot understand why it does not ... but that is something for another day. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush :)

Bunt (community) and Shetty

Hi can you please have a look at recent edits by an ip on these pages. I have checked the sources and they seem to reflect a different community than the one mentioned in the wiki articles. The obc list also is confusing as there are various castes under shetty name. Linguisticgeek (talk)

Will do. I have been watching the back and forth these last few hours but not really checked the detail. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Linguisticgeek: I've opened a discussion at the Bunt article talk. Let's flush it out, one way or another. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@sitush: The following article “http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/shetty-brother-in-a-bind-over-false-sc-certificate/958780/“ clearly states that shettys & Bunts of Karnataka come under Backward class. Infact, Bunts of Maharashtra come under Scheduled caste. So, why are you removing it? To add further proof, let’s look at the Bunt community name, as cited in the stable Wikipedia version. They are also called “Nadava”. The “Nadava” community comes under OBC list as given in the official Indian government website “http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/cl/karnataka.pdf” So, clearly all the shettys including the Bunts come under OBC category as cited in Official Indian Government Websites data.

Your language here, in your earlier discussion with “Linguisticgeek”, ”Let’s flush it out one way or another” clearly shows your bias. Look at the facts, I presented & make the edit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.14 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not discussing this here. That is why I opened the threads at the article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: above anon is obvious block evasion by 107.77.206.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t make the edit, then it’s fine. You are clearly too close to the subject & are therefore resorting to nonsense threatening tactics. This is highly unacceptable in a civilized society. I think you should get some etiquette classes. Anyway, I will take this up in court. In a week, I will get a court order, get this changed & get you banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.14 (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. You are not helping your cause. All you have to do is discuss the issue in the correct venue, which is an article talk page. Then consensus comes into play. I have no particular axe to grind on the subject, am not Indian and not in India etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have degenerated quickly. Looks like this IP is not only evading the block but also seems to have some axe to grind against this particular caste/social group. Making legal threats against long time wiki editors shows this guy is not here to build an encyclopedia but just push some POV. Linguisticgeek (talk)

• (Responding to Sitush comment of 08:25) Yes, block evasion but the block has expired now. I have advised (again) on my talk page that this should be discussed on the article talk page. The legal threat is an empty one but the escalation in rhetoric is unhelpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi Hindus lead section

Hi Sitush! I am a member of the Copy Editors Guild and also a recent changes stalker. The Punjabi Hindus article came up with some potential vandalism, which led me to check out the page and also the talk page. It wasn't your changes that flagged the article, btws. :) Just noted that I saw your comment about adding back in some content which, in your own words, is "although unsourced in this article, there does seem to be support for it at Sikhism#History."

Going forward, please don't add unsourced content to articles, or add BACK unsourced content. If there is support for content at any location in Wikipedia, please do the needful and obtain, then provide the citation. Otherwise, you are kinda just expecting someone else to clean up that mess for you. If the content isn't important enough to you to provide a source for it, then really, who else will do it? :) :) :) Thanks for understanding. Your help going forward in keeping Wikipedia well sourced is appreciated. Curdigirl (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

!! - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that ranks very low among the problems with that article, and at least I noted the point. Still, your message inspired me to do some copyediting and remove excess tagging etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Curdigirl, please note that the Wikipedia criterion for content is verifiability, not the provision of sources. Even though I would agree that it is a good idea to always provide sources, I also don't believe one should make an issue of it unless the content is controversial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That may have been around the time I wasn't editing much & so didn't follow through but I left the note on the talk page and check my edit summary. All resolved now + a lot more cleaning up done. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Needing review

Hi Sitush, it looks like we need to review these edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a source used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted them at one article in the last hour or so. I'm slightly concerned that this may be a return of one of the old sockfarms. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Btw, Kautilya3, it looks like Highpeaks35 is on another run of changing article leads so that they refer to Indian subcontinent rather than whatever they previously said. In the past, this has been shown to be at best pointy and sometimes downright wrong. But I can't spot where this was said - can you remember? An example was their change today at Randhawa, which was simply wrong. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There has not yet been any resolution to the issue, but some background material has been put in WP:ISA.

Highpeaks35, "India and Pakistan" was perfectly fine at Randhawa. Why was there a need to change thing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I added it to help new readers and prevent anachronism. I did not remove modern nations, just removed a duplicated content at the end; as the wrestler was already mentioned. But, I will make sure to be more careful moving forward. My apologies. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 there was no need to "prevent anachronism" and Indian subcontinent is certainly not just India and Pakistan, as you said in your edit there. You've been in trouble for this before and my suggestion to you is that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, you forget that the term Indian subcontinent exists. Just leave it alone because one more occasion and it will be a trip to ANI or, more simply, me just calling on some admin to impose sanctions. Your edits of that type are utterly bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I will be careful moving forward. Will read WP:ISA throughly, and follow it moving forward. Again, I want to thank Kautilya3 for being such a supportive editor to me and many others, who is willing to work with us, and assuming good faith. I was only trying my best to help this project. Again, I will read WP:ISA, and follow it. Thank you both, and again, my apologies. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

No, forget the term exists. It causes you nothing but trouble and there is something very odd about your persistence in wanting to use it. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I gave you my reason: It is anachronism. Don’t know how that explanation is “odd.” Please give me a chance to read WP:ISA. I will use that as my guide moving forward, after I finish reading it. I have to go back to my daily grind; thanks for your time. Again, apologies for my edit on that article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

There is nothing anachronistic about "India and Pakistan" and, in any case, you left those two names in when adding "Indian subcontinent", so you haven't actually fixed anything. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly. That is why I am saying, I made a mistake and apologized for it multiple times. Again, I will read WP:ISA throughly. Will use that as my guide moving forward. That way I will not make these mistakes in the future. Thanks again for your time. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

WP:ISA is an essay reflecting one person's understanding and points of view. I have added a disputed tag to it. Best not to use that as your benchmark, unless you want to get in more trouble. My advice: stay away from further messing with either topic. You have done enough damage already. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Rajputs

Sir, the List of Rajputs article has a lot of entries without self-identification. Please take a look at it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh gosh, not again. That thing needs permanent semi-protection or something else that limits the clueless. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely needs permanent semi-protection. It seems all these entries were made by 2-3 users as can be seen in this diff. Should we revert back to IronGargoyle's edit dated 27 March 2019? Although some seems self-identified. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page is indefinitely semiprotected, guys. Ever since 2012, actually. So the clueless additions of recent years have all been made by autoconfirmed users. Mostly recently autoconfirmed, or not very active — the redlinked usernames are a bit of a clue. I've now raised the protection to extended confirmed, also indefinite. But I'll leave it to you guys to revert as needed; I think you have studied the individual additions more than I have. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

PS, thank you for the thankyou, @Fylindfotberserk: that was quick! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you and welcome sir. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: looks like you should add me to the list of the clueless to whom I referred above. I really wasn't thinking when I wrote what I did. @Fylindfotberserk: unless you want to wade through the lot, I would be inclined to revert to the last known decent version and let people expand it again in small amounts. THere's just too much for me to check this time round but, as always, there will be a lot that fall short of our requirements. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready to revert it back to IronGargoyle's version now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox population fields

Based on this edit and recent ones, got a doubt on adding pop_est field? Please check if that field was correct.--Vin09 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Seemed fine to me in theory. The actual population is usually meant to come from the census. But whether we actually need both the actual from 2011 and an estimate from 2017 is something I'm not sure about. I can see the use where the boundaries have changed that cause a massive change from the census figures and which then affect public works that we are describing, such as transportation projects. Whether it is useful when there is little change is another matter but I'm not an expert on using that infobox and the documentation for it doesn't seem to say anything other than what is supposed to be inserted there. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

dude just don't erase the pages okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahanjhon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram

My only activity here will be in relation to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram until such time as the matter is resolved by either (a) clear and reasonable justification from the WMF for their actions relating to it, or (b) a reversal of those actions. I'm effectively withdrawing my efforts to build and improve this thing until then. I hope that others will, too. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Thanks for drawing my attention to this mess. PamD 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No probs, PamD. If anything, things have got worse despite an attempted explanation by the Lead Manager for Trust & Safety on that page in the last few hours. As one of those who definitely has a multitude of detractors, I'd guess I am now in the WMF firing line even though they haven't explained their new standards and seemingly have no intention of doing so.

There are very few competent people working in the India topic area (especially caste), and one less since SpacemanSpiff went. If I and a couple of others pull out rather than face the humiliation of being "disappeared" by people who almost certainly will have no clue about it, we know from experience that the area will rapidly deteriorate from being at least minutely neutral and encyclopaedic into a hopeless mess claiming to represent the lives of 1.2 billion people. We few competent contributors to it shouldn't be indispensable but unfortunately we are because most of the rage about systemic bias concentrates on women & LGBT, rather than being spread more evenly to include all the other areas that attract insufficient (at least reasonable-)quality edits. But how can we operate when we don't know the standards, let alone make a judgment of whether we feel those standards to be reasonable. Everyone is now a guinea-pig in some unexplained WMF experiment.

Right now, I feel little trust and no safety in contributing here. That's ironic. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been spending too much time reading that page in the last couple of days, including seeing Jan's post and the replies thereto. I just wikignome around and rarely get into controversial areas, but can imagine how difficult it is in your position where you're trying to uphold encyclopedic standards surrounded by a sea of POV-pushers and less competent editors. Good luck. PamD 07:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Swakula Sali page

Hello status ji..

I have more details for this page ... kindly contact me to my email address

Thank you SakarayShankar (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not contributing to Wikipedia at the moment - see User_talk:Sitush#Fram above. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Are Gujarati Sources are not reliable on Wikipedia ?

My edits are being removed by user @HinduKshatrana on @Chudasama_dynasty page, he is saying that sources which are in Gujarati are not reliable , is it so ? If Hemchandracharya's Sanskrit sources are reliable than what's wrong in noted poet Zaverchandmeghani's Gujarati sorces , Kindly protect my edits ,please help. Raakuldeep (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not contributing to Wikipedia at the moment - see User_talk:Sitush#Fram above. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct. ∯WBG^converse 10:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm neutral sources...

I've seen you comment on the notoriously unreliable caste articles and their sources, and I thought of you just now, as I ran into this, Siege_of_Cawnpore#Bibighar_massacre. It reads like Christian hagiography of martyrs thrown to the lions, and this is the source. Many of the sources in that article are pretty old; I wonder if modern sources exist and if they might not present a more neutral assessment. BTW I got here via Joseph Rooney (priest), which is pretty interesting. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Arain

Can you (when you're back!), or one of your talkpage watchers, take a look at this article? I raised its protection level on spotting a 3RR report but can't judge the merits of the recent stream of edits that removed/added several kb of content. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Im one the guys who added the several kb of content.:) But I'm ever so slightly annoyed at its removal. All the gotra (sub-castes) I added were taken from either H.A.Rose or Noor Arain and Ishtiaq Ahmed. Its not my own conjecture on the issue. I'm wasn't sure if Arain are Rajput or Arab and to that extent I represented both sides of the coin and I also created the infobox currently on the page reflecting both opinions (although someone has recently changed that too). As of recently I have shifted more towards the view that Arain are Suryvanshi Rajput -as Ishtiaq Ahmed mentions this as one of the oldest theories, based on the genetics work of the Harrapa Project which I've reflected on the Arain (delhi) page its also due to this genetics work that I wrote down the Raja Bhutta oral tradition (which is also present in the works of H.A.Rose and not my own conjecture] since it would seem to have the most evidence behind it (but i still added the fact that they had higher amounts of baloch genetics than other punjabi castes in an effort to be as impartial as possible). I also added Arain to the suryavanshi page and put their infobox caste as suryavanshi.

I also think that its crucial to have the "Sutlej vs ghaggar vs hissar arain section". Because previous users seem to be very confused about the status of Arain as either zamindar or market gardening or Malis and i think that the heading is essential to explain the sutlej arain as a landowning caste and all other arain to be occupational appropriations as mentioned by H.A.Rose. Again this isnt my own conjecture. Indeed it makes little sense to declare arain as not being landowning (as the version before me did) when they owned 33% Jalandhar (see gazetteer). I understand other users adding the market gardening reference and compering Arain to Malis but its poor research on their behalf when this only applies to Hissar Arain and Arain of non-sutlej areas as H.A.Rose describes.

Another thing that annoys me is that my addition of Arain being "to a man mohammedan and orthodox" is for some reason always removed even though I've taken it directly from H.A.Rose. But i think that its an important point as it helps differentiate arain from Hindu Sainis and Kamboj to whom they are often compared (although the genetic testing has shown arain to be distinct from them)

Anyway It took me a lot of effort to write down that content and would appreciate if it was kept there, especially due to the fact that most if not all is backed up by sources. If there are indeed legitimate bones of contention then i dont mind seeing it removed but otherwise I find it annoying to see it removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

I welcome the block on the page as necessary but its also locked me out too so i can't revert the edition to my own.

Anyway thank you for your time -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits of concern

I know you're not editing content right now, but in the hope that you'll return, I wanted to bring these edits to your attention. I hope they don't make you less likely to return, but I know you've dealt with far worse. I simply don't have the time right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Some more here, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention in upcoming issue of The Signpost

Just wanted you to know your name is in a sidebar about striking editors for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Commented here. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What's your opinion on ...

This opinion piece on the BBC as well as the guy's book The Truth About Us: The Politics of Information from Manu to Modi? I have no desire to dip my toes into caste issues, but do try to stay abreast of most major historical developments... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unsolicited opinion, FWIW. As far as I am aware, there is a fair degree of evidence for the idea that the British Raj helped create the rather simplistic four-caste model. However, I don't know how many genuine historians would buy the argument that "it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature"; there's far too much evidence of substantial caste hierarchy from pre-colonial times. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Another unsolicited opinion. A controversial question but his opinion is largely true.

Caste is largely a meaningless western term (which in this context, equates with varna). The classical varna-scheme was primarily meaningful only to those, who self-considered themselves as Brahmins. The system was remarkably fluid and concepts of any strict hierarchy were hardly any observed.

The current caste system (as we know of it) was near-entirely developed during the post-Mughal period, that also corresponded to the establishment of the British rule (~ late 18th and early 19th century). Varna-consciousness grew immensely during these spans, (partially) as a result of the nonsensical creation (!!) (and listing) of castes by amateur ethnographers and their censuses and also because of the inherent bias present in the translation of the oriental texts by the selective employment of Brahmins. All along, the Britishers introduced significant vigor into the system by providing state-backing and they nearly ritualized it within ~ 100 years. ∯WBG^converse 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've stayed away from commenting, but, since this seems to be becoming the Village Square, a tribute no doubt to Sitush's cordiality, here's my two cents. Bluntly, the Hindu caste system in India is the oldest, and the most culturally entrenched, system of apartheid in the world. Make no mistake about it, it is not more generally "Indian," or "South Asian," though Muslims and Christians in South Asia are to considerably lesser degrees affected by it; it is not even Hindu in the Caribbean, for they are more forgiving of infringements. You only have to read a poignant description by Faxian (a Chinese visitor of the 4th century) of an outcast man standing at the village gate, sounding a pair of wooden castanets to announce his imminent entry, and warning the caste Hindus to get out of the way—to know how old and demeaning it is. The Brits were not idiots to make it up out of thin air, to then do an about face, and idealize the very newly minted low-down castes such as Kurmi, Jats, Kachchis or Keoris—the agricultural castes or the market gardeners, which, in British estimation, were imbued with a work ethic to match the Protestant—and at the same time to anathematize Brahmins and Kshatriyas—the two highest castes, who found physical work polluting, and whose men deemed the open air itself to be polluting for their women. Anecdotes abound of British land revenue (tax) officers, who, as they approached a North Indian village, could correctly spot the Brahmin and Kshatriya fields by their unkemptness and by the tell tale absence of women. Some of those behaviours were created in the wake of British or Mughal interventions (as the Baylys, Christopher and Susan, have described in their books), but broad "caste-like" behaviour is old. Peter Robb has written about it.

Many Indians who are now aware of a larger more egalitarian world in which they live, not to mention a culturally more influential one, have latched on to this new form of scapegoating. "No, no, it wasn't us. It was the Brits (or the Mughals)" To which I say, "For heavens sakes, if it wasn't you, how come you haven't been able to shake it off for 70 years (or the last 200), since they left (or were made powerless)? To be fair, India has to some degree shaken off the stratification, especially the economic one, implicit in the traditional system; but as a form of endogamy, the caste system in Hindu India is very much alive and well. (See the results of a 2014 survey, here) I've heard Indians say in response, "Well it is no different from inter-racial marriages in the US." In once sense they are right. The caste system, most likely, did begin as a form of walling out the indigenous (and often darker skinned) races of India by the Indo-Aryans. All the professions that had little stigma, and even some pride of place, in the Indus Valley Civilization, for which the Aryans had no history of skill—the potter, the carpenter, the mason, the jeweller, the weaver—were gradually turned into low-castes; the sweepers who maintained the IVC's vaunted drainage system, had it worse; they were turned into outcasts. The cobblers, whose existence depends upon a cow being skinned, had it no better. And that is how it has remained for the most part. To sum all this, the British might have polished the rungs of the ladder in different stains of hearsay varnish, but the ladder of discrimination is ancient. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PS The rules of endogamy and of subordination of castes are described in the 1687 Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant, volume III Indies, 1687 AD, page 64 long before the British had had any opportunity to affect Indian behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So... what would be a good college-level introduction to the whole of Indian history? Or Indian and South Asian? I'm wary of getting sucked into a Hinduvatu/a apologetic. I can generally pick out the crap from the good stuff with most subjects, but am at a bit of a loss on India - and my library lacks a good introduction to Indian history. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, this's a nice write-up.

But, whilst it's undeniable that the system is well-ancient (pre-colonial Bhakti poetry is another locus to argue from that aspect), ain't polish an understatement?

Dirks, Talbot et al have documented about how the different tiers of the caste-system varied from place to place in widely diverse manners, how the members shew remarkable fluidity and how, barring the topmost and bottom-most tier, there often existed a lack of definite criterion for the middle tiers. Most importantly, the caste-system was hardly the sole axis of social identification and was only one of the many pluralistic (and differential) ladder-systems. In many regions, it was not the dominant one, either. Fukuzawa et al have detailed as to how the creation, enforcement and subsequent maintenance of a rigid caste-order in Maharshtra was the outcome of a (Brahman-led) state-regulated social-reform.

The caste-system was obviously not invented by the British but IMO, their political and legal instruments, unarguably reified the multitude of locally diverse forms of social structure under a common banner and legitimised the Brahmanic ideologies and institutions. An oppression-based-hierarchy, (that stemmed from rank in society), was a distinct and pervasive feature of Indian history but tying that in particular to a henceforth-rigid caste-system was almost entirely the efforts of colonial rule. ∯WBG^converse 14:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up Sitush's talk page, but, briefly, by the time the Indian censuses began to itemize caste in fine categories such as "clean Shudra," from whom the Brahmins could accept water and food cooked in clarified butter (or some such), and "unclean Shudras," the Brahmins had already lost much of their shine in Indian society. (Their success in seeking out education for advancement, is a different story, with different roots.) For the period also overlapped with the foundation of the Kayastha-, the Yadav-, the Kurmi-, the Jat- and other middle-caste associations, each proclaiming their higher caste status. As Periyar, the anti-caste nationalist from Tamil Nadu had wisely observed, "In the south, we rejected caste itself; in the north, they rejected only their low status within caste." Also, people tend to confuse the orientalists's kowtowing to the Brahmin Sanskrit scholars a la Benares- or Calcutta Sanskrit Colleges (founded by the Company mid-way through its rule) with the censuses of a hundred years later. People such as Risely, overreaching though they might have been, were not just talking to the Brahmins, but actually collecting "field reports," of caste- and tribal practises, howsoever dubious, from all sorts of sources. The nau, the village barber, whose traditional colorful role in high-caste weddings, for example, as a spy for one bridal party, for ascertaining in advance the looks, the character, the reputation of the other; his other role as a "brahmin/priest" himself in performing low-caste weddings, were not stories made up by the British or by their Brahmin informants. Those are old. And fascinating.

Some of the Indian caste classification had already begun to appear at the time of late Company rule. In the law courts, and especially, in early censuses of the North-Western Provinces, people were asked for their full names. Most people did not have any second name. Over a fifty-year period, the adding of caste names, with more and more Sanskritized versions, e.g. from "Pandit Mahadeo" to "Mahadeo Chaubey" to "Mahadev Chaturvedi" began in India. By the time Risely's notorious 1901 census came around, the fine honing of caste was already happening widely in Indian society. It was a traditionally hierarchical society's response to modernity. The change would have happened in India without the British. You can see the old names, frozen in time, in the present-day Caribbean Hindu names. The change never happened in the Caribbean despite the British. Anyway, I have to run. Some other time. Some other place.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are two, both available free on the internet (at least for now), both written by famous historians of India, and both downloadable:

• A History of India by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund
• A History of India by Burton Stein (Of course, they can also be bought on Amazon)

Two others that are slightly older, but also written by famous historians of India Romila Thapar and Percival Spear are also available free:

• Penguin History of Early India (Thapar)
• Penguin History of India, volume 2 (Spear)

For what's its worth, while I'm at it, here are most of the remaining currently popular books:

Some popular textbooks on Indian history

Asher, C. B.; Talbot, C (1 January 2008), India Before Europe (1st ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-51750-8 Nicely written, not intro level though; lots of art and architecture asides; covers the period: ca 1100 to 1750 or thereabouts. Bose, S.; Jalal, A. (11 March 2011), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (3rd ed.), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-77942-5 Bold and NPOV, but not beginner level. Husband and wife team. He however becomes unreliable when the topics involve Bengal, and especially his great uncle Subhas Chandra Bose. She's neutral. Brown, J. M. (26 May 1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9 Was once a great book. Now slightly dated. By famous historian of the Cambridge school. Insightful. Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (1 August 2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0 Discussed above. Ludden, D. (13 June 2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9 A somewhat unorthodox approach by a UPenn historian. A hidden gem of sorts. Might not be the easiest introduction. Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 A popular classic, but not intro level, by American husband and wife historians of South Asia. Carefully, and neutrally written. Readable. Robb, P. (2001), A History of India, London: Palgrave, ISBN 978-0-333-69129-8 A book by a historian at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London. Non-traditional in organization, and therefore, not really intro level. Always has insightful observations. Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9 This is a beginners book, perhaps even high-school level. I find her somewhat unreliable. Not Hindutva even remotely, but still a tad nationalistic. Stein, B. (16 June 1998), A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-631-20546-3 Discussed above. A classic by a brilliant historian. Thapar, Romila (2003), Penguin history of early India: from the origins to A.D.1300, Penguin Books, retrieved 13 February 2012 Discussed above. Landmark book by preeminent historian of early India, and winner of the Library of Congress's Kluge Prize. Resolutely anti-Hindutva. Wolpert, S. (25 December 2003), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1 A breezy, sometimes slightly unfocused, but always readable book by another famous old historian of India

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I concur entirely with F&F's assessments of Metcalf & Metcalf, Spear, and Thapar; they were some of the earlier texts I explored as a serious reader, and I found them excellent. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I am not contributing at the moment (see section further above) but would encourage you to take a look at some of the suggestions even if you have no intention of editing in the topic area. It's fascinating stuff and, of course, has a direct effect on over 1.2 billion living people. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ealdgyth, Our own page on Caste system in India is about the best writing on the caste system available in the English language and I would highly recommend it.

Most 'History of India' books are quite clueless about the caste system, with the exception of Thapar, but Thapar stays at a fairly abstract level without giving specifics.

The caste system was quite fluid through history and so most generalities are usually false. Suffice to say that the caste system was well-defined at the top (Brahmins and the ruling clans) and the bottom ('untouchables'). These these two ends were constant throughout history. It was the middle (constituting about 80% of the population) that was fluid. At the time the British founded Fort St. George, Madras, "modern castes" were emerging in the middle, driven by competition for power in the ruins of the Mughal Empire and the Vijayanagara Empire. This is what the British saw, and then institutionalised it. They also mixed it up with varna (part of Brahminical ideology) to make a powerful cocktail and then threw it back at the Indians. The power the Brahmins enjoyed under the British rule was unprecedented in the history of India. We are still trying to deal with the fallout, including Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to parse the ideological battle above, it occurred to me that there could be an issue of semantics going on. So, looking up the OED, I found this:

Caste 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; the members of each caste being socially equal, having the same religious rites, and generally following the same occupation or profession; those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another.

The original casts were four: 1st, Brahmans or priestly caste; 2nd, the Kshatriyas or military caste; 3rd, the Vaisyas or merchants; 4th, the Sudras, or artisans and labourers. These have in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude, almost every occupation or variety of occupation having now its special caste.

This is now the leading sense, which influences all others.

I have to say kudos to OED for capturing the British POV so perfectly. There are about ten quotations given, ranging from 1613 to 1875, all British, including James Mill's History of British India. (I guess I have to read this book some day.)

The Indian usage of the term is not covered by the OED. But we have other sources. André Béteille writes

The English word "caste" corresponds more or less closely to what is locally referred to as jati or kulam. In addition to jati and kulam, many of the villagers, particularly the Brahmins, are familiar with the concept of varna. Although the terms jati and varna refer normally to different things, the distinction is not consistently maintained. Varna refers to one of the four main categories into which Hindu society is traditionally divided; jati refers generally to a much smaller group (see Srinivas, 1962, pp. 63—69). The English word "caste" is used to denote both, not only by foreigners but also by villagers who are familiar with English. It will be shown that there is no real contradiction in this, for the word jati has a series of meanings, and by extension it is applied to what, according to traditional usage, should be designated as varna. Thus, it is quite common for a person to say that such and such an individual is a Brahmin, or even a Kshatriya, by jati. Within a given context such usage is intelligible, and does not generally lead to ambiguity (see Béteille, 1964).

Béteille gets it almost right except that he jumps to the conclusion that the talk of "Brahmins" and "Kshatriyas" necessarily means varna. But these two groups are also jatis. They have been so from the beginning. Only if they use terms like "Vaishya" and "Sudra" can we be sure that they are talking about varna. A remarkably lucid Christian book explains it as follows:

The one English word 'caste' has long been used to translate two different Indian words. One of these is varna, one of the 'castes' described in the Hindu law-books. ... The other Indian word translated 'caste' is kulam. This is the endogamous social unit usually following one traditional occupation. The kulam is sometimes described as a sub-caste within the varna, but this is a misleading attempt to relate the two terms, for it is the kulam which is the actually functioning social unit, governed by its own 'caste' council, and there may be sub-castes within it.

So the ideological battle is underscored by a battle for language. The Indians want to use 'caste' for jati or kulam and they essentially refuse to use it for varna. On the other hand, the British want to use it for varna and refuse to use it for jati or kulam.

So this seems to be crux of the matter. Even Susan Bayly, who is quoted in the BBC article, is using the term in the British sense when she talks about the "people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance". She cites "Bengal, the Punjab and southern India, as well as the far northwest and the central Deccan plain" as examples, which are all places where the varna order did not exist.

Finally, I might point out that OED shows how the British owned up Brahmin fundamentalism 100%, with phrases like "from time immemorial been divided", "those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another", "in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude". A Brahmin traditionalist from the 17th or 18th century would not have written anything differently. It is also ironic that this kind of pseudo-history should make it into the OED, because perhaps without the peudo-history, the British sense of the term cannot be understood! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but advertising: Fowler&fowler's scholarly tertiary sources on Caste with their references, which I compiled in 2012. It includes a piece by Beteille. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Undiscussed moves, original research and unsourced edits.

I am aware you’re not editing at the moment but can you or any of your talk page watchers investigate this? @FlyingSimurgh: is making undiscussed page moves to various articles including The Solar Dynasty, The Lunar Dynasty etc. As you will see, he is adding fake coats of arms and pushing castecruft nonsense. Literally all of his sources are snippet views, Raj-era sources and other wikis. If anyone could take a look, that would be very helpful since it’s getting quite ridiculous.213.205.240.130 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The moves were me lining up the khsatriya dynasties with each other and to better correspond with the lunar dynasty which was already called that. Fake coat of arms are indeed fake, but actually if you see the various branches of suryavanshi dynasties they use exactly the same "sun in splendour heraldry" with a face on it and i already captioned the image as "Sun (in splendor) features heavily in the coat of arms of the dynasty and its branches" so as not to mislead anyone. Same thing with the chandravanshi. Honestly it was just my attempt to make the infobox look more comparable to the infobox of western dynasties like bourbon, saxe-coburg etc. I don't think I've ever used another wiki as a source but definitely I'm guilty of using raj-era sources. Honestly I had no idea that raj-era sources are off limits. Sorry for that. Feel free to change the pages as you like. But I don't think the version should be reverted entirely. Because my key contribution of the branches and castes are generally sound. Thanks and sorry for any mess - I assure you it was un-intentional. Regards -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Arains and any other of the Pakistani groups you have added are not Kshatriya unless there is an actual ACADEMIC source stating as much. Raj-era sources are absolutely useless and should never be used on Wikipedia which Sitush agrees with. There is also very little actual modern academic work on anything called a “Pakistani Rajput”. Using fake coats of arms is also dishonest and amounts to falsification of history. I’d advise you to revert your edits before an admin gets involved. It seems to me as if you’re trying to push your own POV caste agenda.213.205.240.130 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright mate, take it easy, I'm new to wikipedia so honestly I don't know the rules and I've admited as much above. I'm not pushing my own caste agenda, I'm neither Arain not Rajput and really I mostly started off with editing pages for Mughal related stuff and princely states.
I think its completely unfair to call Arain a gardener caste, I think it just shows a lack of research on your own behalf. I can even site peer-reviewed stuff to show you that SUTLEJ Arain have been considered to be one of the landowning castes. After all they owned 33% of Jalandhar during the Raj-era. Mali's of other provinces often appropriated for themselves the caste of arain but as the raj noted these were not real arain (although as you've pointed out raj sources aren't accepted), not dissimilar from hindu sainis (malis aka gardeners) claiming rajput ancestry (and their status only changed during the raj era). I wonder if you guys have a bias because, for some reason no one on wikipedia has a problem with Hindu sainis or even Bhonsle being on that page but everyone is up in arms about Arains . As for Arain being Khastriya the political scientist Ishtiaq Ahmed says and I quote :"It is worth mentioning however that some early Arain accounts claim a Surajbansi Rajput origin". As far as I recall, suryavanshi is one of the major Kshatriyas Lineages.
Now as for being dishonest, that wasn't my intention, Ive tried to provide sources on everything from the genetics stuff to the history stuff on that page. I've gone back to the page but it seems you've made all the edits anyway. On the talk page for Arain, I've registered my opinion and differences and have always been completely objective.
Frankly it was unknown to me that the Indian section of Wikipedia was run as a Jagir by a clique who's verdict on things from raj-era sources being blanket unreliable to Hindu Sainis being khsatriya but Muslim Arain not, seem quite un-democratic to me and even biased. But anyway I'll make it a point to stay away from the caste stuff incase it rustles "the clique's" feathers. In my eyes its just arrogant snobbery. You guys make swift assumptions like calling Arain "a gardener caste" yourself and seem throughly upset when anyone counters it. I've personally always tried to be reasonable and understanding and humble when it comes to my own faults.
Thank You
-flyingsimurgh

Offline Source of Information

Can i put statements on wikipedia which are based on BOOKS which i have read offline and are a reputable source? i will provide the page number, ISBN no. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikhilPatelReal (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes you can, in general. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

Woohoo

Hey, Sitush. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

... saw your respons to Boing! - the perfect day, Kafka's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda and Mjs1991. As I said in the thread on Boing!'s talk page, this could be the anniversary of my last edit as well as my first. I need to think. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Greetings, and good wishes.

		A plate of Khichdi for you
		Here is one plate of khichdi for you. Khichdi is an Indian comfort food made from rice and lentils and was the inspiration for the Anglo-Indian dish kedgeree. Khichdi is also thought to be the inspiration for the popular Egyptian dish, Kushari. Thank you. Titodutta (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

--Titodutta (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nai caste category?

Hi just wanted to enquire if you removed nai being Kshatriyas to Sudras interms of their caste category? Out of the 4 options below with 1 highest and 4 lowest ? What are the nai’s Category? Many argue Kshatriyas and some Sudra? Please tell me : 1. Brahmins (Highest) 2. Kshatriyas ( second highest) 3. Vaishyas ( medium highest) 4. Sudras ( mediumish vague lowest but higher than untouchables) 5. Dalits ( lowest) Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Christians

• Saint Thomas Anglicans (AfD discussion)
• Saint Thomas Christians#Notes

Just so that you know: I am not sure whether the people who were citing "Joseph Thekkedath History of Christianity in India" were citing volume 1 of Mundadan or volume 2. And I only got that from a citation in a bibliography in another book, which I think has the wrong year on it. Cleaning up the duplicates shrank the page size by 5%; and there are rather a lot of citations left to clean. "Menachery G; 1973, 1982, 1998; Podipara, Placid J. 1970; Leslie Brown, 1956; Tisserant, E. 1957" for example. And I have no idea what "Chaput, pp. 7–8." is meant to be pointing to. Uncle G (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

In the Signpost thingy - is Fram's RL id known? If not, he's using a psuedonym and the person remains anonymous, so my position remains unchanged. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable that someone here knows Fram's RL id and Smallbones has shown other probably poor understandings of the law, eg; making silly claims about how his emails are copyrighted and so Fram cannot send them to ArbCom.

The nexus surrounding Wikimedia DC and similar friendly spacers is concerning - having tried and failed to change the ArbCom through getting their people elected a few years ago, it doesn't half look like they're now trying to by-pass the ArbCom entirely by appealing to WMF T&S and using other tangential means, such as The Signpost. I could be wrong, of course, but for the issue at hand BLPTALK refers to but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. The ArbCom need to determine whether The Signpost might have risen to that level or attacked (there is no disputing that it was personal from the Fram accounts point of view - NPA applies even to anonymous accounts, or at least is routinely treated as doing so). - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I can certainly understand NPA. After all, human beings are on the other end of the discussion, despite our inability to see or hear them. As for private emails - I have always considered emails to be confidential, and that their contents should not be shared with anyone without explicit permission from the sender...unless harassment or worse was involved. As I said in my comment, I didn't read the article and don't consider myself qualified to contribute much more than I already have. Thank you for the explanation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree regarding passing on emails but on this occasion there is a fallacy in that, too, because Smallbones appears to be upset that Fram has sent the lot to the ArbCom but was offering to send his anyway. The only issues are likely to be whether or not the entire thread of emails has been sent and whether they have been sent without modification - both of which are deeply in conspiracy theory territory. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Interview questions about Wikipedia gender gap

Hi Sitush, this is Bowen here. Thank you for your interest in our project again. My colleague, Sensiblekoala and Modestabcd, mentioned here will post our interview questions to you here shortly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush! I'm Caitlin here with Modestabcd. Thank you for participating in our interview. I want to give you a brief introduction before our interview begins as follows:

We are working on an AI tool to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents. It will create personalized recommendation to editors, specifically targeting the contents that has less coverage due to the gender gap on Wikipedia.

We want to gain input from you, as a community member, in building this tool.

The interview will consist of three groups of questions. Do we have your permission to utilize the messages from this interview in our research? We will keep all information anonymized and only use them in this research project. If you have any concerns, please avoid using names or identifying information during your interview.

Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin? Sensiblekoala (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you can anonymise but conduct this on an open forum. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Anonymizing the data would involve excluding from publication any usernames or identifying information involved in the interview, as well as excluding the usernames of the accounts we are using to conduct the research and excluding any direct quotes. Another option is to correspond over email if this would be preferred for you. Let us know if you have any further concerns. Sensiblekoala (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading

• Jatland (AfD discussion)

You are not writing, of course. I thought that you might like a little reading, though. Uncle G (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:DICDEF comes to mind. In nominating a Jat related article, you're dealing with arguably one of the two persistently most disruptive and self-glorifying groups in the Indian caste system vis-a-vis Wikipedia, the other being the Rajputs. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well we also have Rajpasi (AfD discussion) (2nd discussion), but that already points to a page of yours, and is not such good reading as a discussion where the sources being waved around as reliable and in-depth coverage do not contain any facts about the subject at all if one actually reads them, not even the purported introductory definition of the article. Uncle G (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Rajpasi = Raj Pasi = subcaste of Pasi (caste). There isn't much said about the subcaste but the main community has a reputation for glorification - they're untouchables who want to be recognised as having been degraded etc. In India, if you believe the hype, every community were kings. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Descended from gods, every one of them! Bishonen | talk 08:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC).

Kurmi caste

Sir, isn't the mention of race/physical features not allowed in Indian caste article? Shouldn't we remove mention of Risley's races from the Kurmi article? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. H. H. Risley was the archetypal scientific racist of the British Raj. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

Now that's sarcasm  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• That will be one of those Sitush-comedies. Of course, a real world Edward Kelly Groves (1777–1854 with an entry in the DIB, and one in a Guide to Irish Fiction) is another for User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles, as can be seen from Special:Whatlinkshere/Edward Kelly Groves. Edward John Hardy (Special:Whatlinkshere/Edward John Hardy) is another missing Father Ted, with entries in the DIB and the DUB, but we did at least (sort of) know xem to be missing.

  The DIB also tells us that Edward Kissane's middle name is Joseph and states that xe was born in Lisselton a village next to Ballybunion.

  Uncle G (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yorkshire Evening Post 28 August 1920

Nothing to do with improving articles here, sorry, but does anyone have access to page 5 of the Yorkshire Evening Post, 28 August 1920. Specifically an article about a bloke called Ford who died in a drowning accident at Colwyn Bay? I know about the British Newspaper Archive but I would have to create a throwaway email address etc, which is a pain. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorted now, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RFAR Fram

I think you meant to say "no more infallible" here. (Or maybe "no less fallible".) Bishonen | talk 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC).

Fixed, thanks, Bishonen. It doesn't look like I will be returning to regular editing, does it? There were a lot of people commenting at WP:FRAM who said they knew little about him but objected to the WMF action on principle, and there were others who said they didn't care for him at times but, again, objected on principle. I realise that ArbCom are in a difficult spot here but they couldn't have devised a better way to stack evidence if they tried. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here. I only hope Arbcom realizes that this is essentially a battle over the autonomy of wiki culture, quite a peculiar world, and, in the round, positively distinctive. The premise of the Friscan office is that the global community must follow recent tendencies in US educational fashion. Arbcom does not seem able to cope with that assumption, an assumption numerous critics have criticized as deleterious to education. Most recently,

‘we argued that many parents, K-12 teachers, professors and university administrators have been unknowingly teaching a generation of students to engage in the mental habits commonly seen in people who suffer from anxiety and depression. We suggested that students were beginning to react to words, books, and visiting speakers with fear and anger because they had been taught to exaggerate danger, use dichotomous (or binary) thinking, amplify their first emotional responses, and engage in a number of other cognitive distortions . Such thought patterns directly harmed students’ mental health and interfered with their intellectual development – and sometimes the development of those around them. At some schools, a culture of defensive self-censorship seemed to be emerging, partly in response to students who were quick to “call out” or shame others for small things that they deemed to be insensitive- either to the student doing the calling out or to members of a group that the student was standing up for. We called this pattern vindictive protectiveness and argued that such behavior made it more difficult for all students to have open discussions in which they could practice the essential skills of critical thinking and civil disagreement.’ Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind:How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Penguin Press 2018 p.10

Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

... which can perhaps be distilled as "political correctness gone mad". - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your

anonymity is falling apart, Mrs. Bayly! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• The admin dilemma. Who to ban first: Sitush for COI editing. Or, WBG for outing. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• I can see that I am well behind, and am going to have to cite Constance Bartlett Hieatt more often. In other news;
  • Jatland (AfD discussion) is now into its third week.
  • A new entry in the hilarity stakes this week is Draft:Mandl's Paint, which has stalled as a draft for 1.5 years because it cites an Indian English reference book which mis-spells "Mandl" and the AFC reviewers thus didn't find the subject in the source. I should cite Mandl 1872, p. 600, so that people can at least not find it in French.
    • Mandl, Louis (1872). "Thérapeutic Génèrale". Traité pratique des maladies du larynx et du pharynx. Paris: J.B. Ballière. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, can you not promote the Mandl thing? It came about as part of a craze for iodine-based pharmaceuticals that had begun with Lugol's iodine and later included products such as Whitehead's Varnish (the latter article is a creation of mine). Eg: see this. Paints, varnishes, emulsions - is there a pharmaceutical product called something like "Smith's Powder Coating" or "Brown's Hammerite"?
    Regarding Bayly, well, I met her and her husband a good few times in my Cambridge days and have said so here in the past. I very much doubt she will appreciate Google hosting a comment that I am she. And where I do have even a remote COI, I declare it, eg: most recently Talk:Jonathan Parry (whom I suspect is not notable), Talk:Michael Axworthy and Talk:Mark E. Smith. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah but everyone and their dog have been in the Fall.... I mean, I'm one step removed from him. And its not a big step. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • True, but I knew him from before that time. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A last minute entry. Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford (AfD discussion) has been quietly writing xyr autobiography in Wikipedia for 14 years, since the time that unregistered users could create articles, and someone just noticed. What is the meaning of "I" when I am an IP address? Is the "I" the autobiographer or the autobiographee? Why is an encyclopaedia asking me this? Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Genetic studies in External links

Sir, while genetic studies are not allowed in the caste/tribe article bodies, is it OK to add these in the external links section like in this recent edit? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that has ever been discussed. There is the more general External links guidance but it might be worthwhile asking this question at WT:INB to see what the consensus may be because we know that the genetics stuff can be very problematic and in some cases this could end up creating WP:LINKFARMs. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll open up a discussion at WP:INB - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Your efforts in the tricky and often eclectic area of caste articles are appreciated. Nice to have another collaborative, sensible contributor taking some of the load. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words sir. Although my initial edits in Wikipedia were genetics related, I never liked people making assumptions about castes/ ethnic groups which was kinda common in the late 2000s - early 2010s in Wikipedia articles and talk pages. I've opened a discussion here. Your advice is needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The superiority of Jat people

Hello there. The article Jatland has been deleted, by me. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatland as delete, and removed the backlinks. During that process, this caught my eye in the lede of Sonipat district:

"It is known as Jatland due to the superiority of Jat people."

I probably shouldn't remove it, since I can't read those sources and also since I've been sufficiently involved with the whole Jatland concept by deleting the article, but it's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I checked the history a bit, just to make sure the sentence hadn't been recently snuck in before the existing references (it hadn't). Would you perhaps like to take a look at the references, and, uh, do whatever you think is right with the sentence? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

References

Bishonen, "superiority" probably means "high number" but I'm not prepared to get into this sort of stuff unless someone at T&S (User:Kbrown (WMF), perhaps?) can answer a couple of simple questions: (a) has anyone reported me to them, and (b) if "yes", has T&S regarded any such reports as credible? I feel like I have a target painted on my back at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You think you'll get an answer to that by pinging Fluffernutter? I suppose it's theoretically possible. Anyway, I see. Might that be partly a protest or picket on your part also? Up to you in any case, of course. Anyway, silly me, I should have seen the clue in the "retrieved" dates. It was added here, where it does indeed say "It is known as Jatland due to the majority of Jat people," with the sources added. Then another IP changed it to "superiority".[2] Do you think that was innocently done — I mean just an instance of Indian English? But, in any case, do you think you could take a look at the sources and let me know a) if they're reliable, b) what they say that's of relevance?

I'm inclined to remove the sentence. T & S may desysop me for persecuting Indian editors if they like. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatland has convinced me the term "Jatland" has no business in our articles. Also, what's it doing in the lede, which is supposed to be a summary? There's no mention of a "Jatland" in the rest of the article.

@Abecedare and Uncle G: do you have an opinion? And if Sitush would rather not be involved at all, would one of you perhaps like to check the sources? My other delinkings of "Jatland" in six other articles can be seen in my recent contributions. Mostly it turns out I've removed Jatland from "See also" in them, so they need no further action, but Sonipat also has the sentence "It is called Jatland due to the majority of Jat people" — not, in that case 'improved' to "the superiority of Jat people". Bishonen | talk 09:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

The sentence is not supported by the sources cited. Of the three sources, two mention the word "Jatland" (or "Jat land"), but don't mention why is the area called so (superiority, higher population, or whatever). This one talks about Sonipat (Lok Sabha constituency), and states that Jat candidates have dominated it, winning 9 out of 11 elections held so far. utcursch | talk 11:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Utcursch. I see you took care of it. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Second what Utcursch said. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would have done the same as Utcursch did, here, and for the same reasons. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

dcw2003

Its ok. Tom Johnson edits. Most of my edits were just to reorganize your document and add more headers. I think it is essential to have descriptive headers in wiki documents so readers can find essential information, like when a boxer took a title or lost one. You might a agree with this, and I'm sorry you couldn't see the utility of this approach. You did a great job of sourcing your information, but left out a few details. I don't think the section "background information" is particularly relevant or necessary, but thats ok, so I put it last. It disrupts the document's sequential flow. Good luck, and I hope you like the box on the right which at least gives quick, essential information for the reader. Wish we could have discussed my changes first.

Best of luck to you..............you did some great research. And no, I very rarely do large edits on other peoples work, particularly those as well researched as yours. I wrote the boxing bio Abraham Jacob Hollandersky, which you will find well written and researched, though I would prefer you not edit it, other than to add information. I recently added quite a bit of info to Daniel Mendoza, which I think you will also find well written, although I do tend to favor more headers than you. Dcw2003 (talk)```Dcw2003 (talk)

I would advise you to find a more descriptive header than "Consolidation"; It is not clear what is consolidated, nor what the section contains.....Two headers for this large section might be advisable. My writing is simpler, and my sources not always beyond reproach, as are yours, but I believe the reader can more easily identify critical information due, in part to frequent use of headers. I added 5' 9" as height to Johnson, and listed him as a heavyweight..........I hope you can keep this information.

Again best of luck...your work and research are exceptional, David

The headings issue is mainly per the guidance given at WP:MOSHEAD. I see that you are regularly preferring to use rather long subsection headings etc, so don't be too surprised if they are removed or shortened by someone. As for your comment about people changing your own work, please read WP:OWN - there is nothing to stop it happening but thereafter consensus needs to be acquired. In the case of the Tom Johnson article, where I have reverted a fair amount of what you did, I gave rationales in the edit summaries. You're welcome to contest them on the article talk page but I suspect that you will not get very far on any of the major changes you made and which I reverted. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're in the neighborhood

there's a post at the bottom of my talk page for which your expertise may be fruitful. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

please answer a query

Sir, I had posted a request on help desk with a caption "To check about reliability of website". An user suggested me your name to ask about the answer of a particular question which she couldn't answer. She told that you can help only. Please! go on the help desk and answer that query (caption provided above). Thank you. (223.230.143.123 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC))

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Bender235's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 09:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Posting here not there

as it sickens me, but when you wrote this, is this what you were thinking of;

Yes, it is - I couldn't find the diff. FWIW, there are some people involved in this mess and the Fram debacle with whom I doubt in future I will be capable of assuming good faith. That doesn't mean I will assume bad faith - I'll just be somewhere in the sceptical middle ground. I've got grave doubts about a whole bunch of them, and one perhaps particularly telling comment is the one where someone said that they know some other people were considering an RFAR when in fact I have been unable to find anyone on-wiki who seems to have been in that position. Maybe I missed it but, if not, it smacks of collusion.

Then again, with the exception of filling out Maheshwari due to an AfD tag, my activity here has plummeted recently. I have somewhere else where I will be welcome and those who are idiotic, ignorant, agenda-pushing etc will not. A place where writing decent content actually means something. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As requested

So again, I am curious. What did you mean by this? PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You're pretty good at dishing it out but without using expletives, as noted on your talk page. You don't like expletives and you intervene when Eric etc are being hauled over the coals for using them. You're arguably just as much guilty of incivility as they are but, like Scottywong, you get away with it. You've been around a long time and should know damn well that the current ArbCom request was out of process so the fact that you support it speaks volumes. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just don't put up with bullshit. I could not care less if someone is swearing, it is about intent. The hand waving, idle threats, and civil implications of wrong doing get so tiring after a while. Your comments on MJL's page particularly are what drew me to comment there with encouragement. Like MJL and Levivich I am tired of seeing new, possibly productive, users driven off by a community that treats them the way they do. Then complains about user retention and slow downs in content creation. Everyone is replaceable and after a while, no matter how good a content creator they are, people reach their wit's end. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't bullshit, and I don't complain about retention or slow downs in content creation. There are two people in that thread right now who do fuck all content creation and, in fact, they're the ones with whom you seem to sympathise. As I said at the top of that thread, you earn respect here just like in the real world, so my advice to them is to get with it and my advice in the past to Eric has been to bite his tongue. It seems to be similar advice to that being offered by numerous other people on that page (not just in that thread), with only you supporting them. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah there are a lot of EC supporters, or at least incivility supporters, upset that things are changing over the long run here. With that kind of behavior becoming less and less acceptable, perhaps it is a case of "if they got him maybe I am next?". But it has been drifting that way even before the whole Fram debacle, which is a good thing and a net positive to the project. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, we definitely differ regarding that. I have no interest in being involved with a project that prefers quantity to quality, nor in being part of some happy-clappy social network or advocacy unit. I'd put money on me already being one of the targets you mention and have said as much in recent weeks here. When people shoot indiscriminately, as MJL did by hijacking the AN thread, we're on a slippery slope; and while I am among the more brusque here and no individual is indispensable, force out enough of us and WP really will be a crappy resource. I could quite easily vandalise dozens, even hundreds, of articles and I guarantee you that it would not be spotted but would make this project's reputation even worse in India and Pakistan etc than it already is; the corollary is that there are very few of us stopping that from happening right now. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You do not get to choose which of the five pillars are important and which are not. Perhaps that is where we differ. What you see as a social club or a venue for people with special needs[3] is just people respecting the principles of the encyclopedia. Just an aside here, the special needs comment is rather unbecoming. Also everyone forced out will be replaced and the pedia will be just fine. I do want to mention though I was not referring to you specifically, I try not to guess motivations of people I do no know. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Which of the 5P do you think I am protesting? Civility? Neither you nor I are any more or less civil than Eric Corbett; there are plenty of ways to be incivil.

As for special needs - that is how the crappy Dalit History Month played out here, it is why certain people want to lower notability standards for women etc. If, on the other hand, you are thinking of it in the British educational sense (which I think is now archaic) then, yep, it might be considered dodgy, although we've rightly thrown out plenty of people because of the NOTTHERAPY idea and, fwiw, I was indeed myself referred to a school for "special needs" due to my deafness. And I receive state support of a sort for my "special needs" even now because I am pretty much unemployable due to disability. Thus, I think I'm entitled to use the term in either sense.

AS for people being replaced, well, that was my point. It is unlikely to happen in the Indo-Pak sphere and retain any sort of integrity that makes WP a worthwhile reference for such topics. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup I was referring to civility, which is why I linked to that one. If you think our conversation here is just as civil as the things Corbett has been saying I think you need to re-calibrate what civility actually is. In regards to losing integrity, I think we will have to agree to disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding civility, I wasn't necessarily referring to this thread but rather our efforts in general. One of my faults, however, is being too patient with people: I waste hours dealing with pov-pushers, trolls, incompetents and the like because it seems that the "system" can't deal with them. I've done it today elsewhere.

Regarding the Indo-Pak stuff, just consider the state that caste articles were in prior to my arrival, how much effort goes into fettling and monitoring them, and how few people do that. And still a lot of them are worthless because there are only so many hours in the day etc. MJL's scheme would not merely lead to me leaving but also lead to encouragement of precisely the elements that caused the topic area to be put under a discretionary sanctions regime ... but this time there will be virtually no checking for breaches thereof. I'd give it six months, tops. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Mentorship

It was voluntary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush. IIRC, Thatcher left voluntarilly; Nixon too. What illustrious company to keep! ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To know about reliability of a website

I want to know that website "Knowledge @ Wharton" exist really or it is fake. Can I trust on the content provided on that website? I found some important information on that website and want it to add in one of the article. I checked about it on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but I couldn't find this website name there. Please! tell me that this website exist really and can I trust fully on its content. Thank you. (223.230.145.170 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC))

• You have not answered my question yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.161.1 (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry. I am not sure what website you are referring to, nor which article you want to edit, nor what material from the website you want to put in that article. You are probably better asking the question on the talk page of the relevant article and, failing that, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Koeri

Hey sitush plz add notables which you removed right now Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as I said in my edit summary, please read the information at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. If you can abide by that, you should have no problems. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear sitush I m new here Where to find your edit summary plz explain Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I assumed that you knew because you came here after I removed the material. Take a look at this page, which is available for every article if you use the "View History" tab that is near the "Edit" tab at the top of the article. Well, it is if using the Desktop version of Wikipedia - I think the layout is slightly different for mobile users. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

dcw2003

Dcw2003 (talk) I think it is essential to say when a boxer wins his primary title. The critical aspect of online documents, even short ones, is to find essential information quickly. This can't be done without titled headers. THe dates in the headers may not be necessary in some cases, I suppose. The most critical event in a boxers life is what title he took, and when he took it. I have written professional bios for many years. The only way to find information in wiki is with section headers. I can make them shorter if you like. All the top articles in wiki, the A and B articles have effective section headers. Readers don't want to search through a document to find essential information. This is a base element of all online documentation. We don't use indexes. I hope you don't modify my work, but I will discuss it with you if you wish, even by phone. Can a reader find the most essential information in your articles quickly? Thanks............I'm not intending to be critical

If you don't want to use headers, you're free not to use them. Thanks

SITUSH=== I will make my section headers shorter, fair enough. But if you check the revision history, I'm writing most of these English boxing bios and adding many, many references. I average an additional 20-30 citations per article. I see your logic, and hope we can reach an understanding.

Please try not to use insulting language,.................like "you're making a hash" of these bios..................I 'm writing most of them, and they are much better with what I've added, I think You'll agree. I'll keep the section headers small.

Those boxing bios are not usually long articles. They do not need a multitude of lengthy section headings, and particularly not dramatic ones. We have a search facility, which is way better than an index. I haen't been following your contributions but if you're really adding that many additional citations to established articles then perhaps I should take a look because it makes me think you may be overciting (as you definitely were at the Tom Johnson article we spoke about at the start of the month). Furthermore, if in your professional capacity you have written bios of these subjects then you could have to tread extremely carefully, eg: citing your own work is unlikely to be acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just looked at Daniel Mendoza. I'm afraid that you have introduced so many problems there that I am not sure where to start in explaining them. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dcw2003:, this edit by someone else fixes some of the issues. There are also duplicate citations, unreliable sources, editorialising, the aforementioned overlong headings, headings that do not match with the content of the section ... the list goes on and this is just one pugilist bio among several that you have edited. I think (a) you may need to slow down and (b) it would help if you first discussed proposed changes on the relevant article talk pages. As things stand, I'm sorely tempted just to revert them to the "last best version", which would basically be the version prior to you starting to edit the things. I know that this would disappoint you, which is why at present I haven't done it. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

dcw2003

Dcw2003 (talk)Please do not revert my articles. The work was lengthy, and really better than the articles were when I started. Most of the articles I started on were STUBS............several sentences. I've done a few of the American fighters who were bareknuckle champions. At least two were only stubs when I started. I would be stunned and disappointed if you reverted these. I have gone back and am trying to make the section headers fewer and shorter. They do match the sections. Please please please do not revert my articles. You will destroy nearly all my work. Please assure me you will not revert these articles. Please stop following my contributions. Please assure me you will not revert my articles.

Help!

I've rolled back most of this on Talk:Ghirth, but what does he even want? To put it all on Ghirth (horrible thought)? I've written to Utcursch to ask him to have a word, but I don't think he's around. And probably you aren't either. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen - they seem to think the status of the community is demeaned. No surprises there, then. They're citing using poor sources from the Raj era etc. I see you have blocked in an attempt to get their attention. I'll add the article to my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

New sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala

Hello, I'm seeing a strong resemblance here and here. What do you think? Tracy Von Doom (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Tracy Von Doom yes, definitely, I would say. Strong emphasis on Koli glorification. Needs to be reported at the SPI case pages. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)