User talk:Sitush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.


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

If you can source stuff then feel free to add it. Otherwise, don't bother. And please do not confuse the city with the district - that (and copyright violations) has historically been the main reason why various people have removed material, not just me. The festivals stuff was just ridiculous: two sentences would have covered it, with links to the main articles. There didn't appear to be anything extraordinary regarding the manner in which residents celebrated the things.
Sultanpur is impeccably sourced. I understand that you may not like it, since it is a Muslim name, but that isn't my problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
i may not like it since it is a Muslim name? my god,, how can you just say like that, seriously, this is pathetic. Once again a blind judgment, may be you dont like them but not me. Whatever, now i dont want to make a mess about that, but the city was never named as sultanpur, dont know where you got that source, but that is absolutely wrong. Orugallu was its first name and later changed to warangallu and presently warangal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, they are in Hanamkonda, which is said to be a suburb of Warangal. I am not sure if there is a riff between Hanamkonda people and Warangal, but UNESCO recognizes Warangal as a world heritage city. So, I think it is ok to put them on that page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a suburb when it suits people and a separate city when it suits them. That is the big problem, and the Municipal Authority issue doesn't help matters. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

About the authenticity of amateur historians/colonial ethnographers[edit]

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

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

Article deletion. please do not delete[edit]

Respected sitush sir

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

with regards Manas tiwari

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


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

@Abecedare: I have done what I can with the thing. I suspect that Gorava is the same subject matter - they appear to be Lingayat priests/temple servants but I can't be 100 per cent sure that it is synonymous. I have had to make heavy use of the Bapat source, which concerns me slightly because I'm unsure regarding his expertise: I suspect he will pass muster but his is not the type of background that I would usually rely on, which is a mixture of Hindu priest and academic scientist. The big positive for him is that he is published in a Taylor & Francis work and in the Asian Studies Review, as well as the less well-known International Journal of Hindu Studies. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I had forgotten to watchlist the page, and completely missed your edits till you piged me. Great job! And Bapat is perhaps as good/neutral a source as one can expect to find on such a topic. Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arvind kejriwal[edit]

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

The proviso to WP:CAN However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.. As a known biased editor for India topic articles, kindly respect policies and disengage. ShoeMacneil (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You are a sock, almost certainly of WP:LTA/IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Reference errors on 18 April[edit]

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

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

Kudos to you[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your particularly excellent work in developing Gurav from practically nothing into a fine article! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That one was right up my street! - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
+1 on the kudos.
Also glad to see that your efforts were not met by complaints of ignorance, bias etc. May be there is hope for wikipedia, after all. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello your comments please[edit]

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

Hi, our policy regarding reliable sources can be found here. Keep away from things that date to the British Raj era because they are generally useless; similarly, websites etc associated with the tribe will almost always be useless for this type of information. Something modern and academic is best. If you want, you can list here the ones you are thinking of and I will comment on them. Would that help? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks. The information here about reliable sources is very useful indeed and I will read it carefully, then I shall share the references/sources here, that I was thinking of; and would be grateful for your comments and guidance about them. Many regards (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Hilda Khan
(talk page stalker) Hilda, see also WP:HISTRS, which provides good guidance about history related sources (can be extrapolated to fields of sociology, anthropology etc). Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April[edit]

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

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

Jat Sikh[edit]

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

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

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


Here is wiki page listing just surnames in punjab . Make it trivia too. I CAN FIND HUNDREDS OF PAGES WHICH TALK JUST ABOUT SURNAMES

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

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

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

Croydon Fire Company[edit]

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

No problem. I make that mistake at least once a month, so you probably have some catching-up to do. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
HAHA!!! I feel much better then. :-p Hope you are well. Have a wonderful Monday. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pathans of Madhya Pradesh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Your View[edit]

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

I and others have asked you to desist from adding or removing scripts because you are repeatedly making a mess of it, one way or another. You agreed but still you continue to add/remove them and still you are making a mess of it. You remind me very much of someone else who was blocked not too long ago for doing this sort of thing. You've been warned and next time it happens I suspect that your fate will be the same as theirs. Whether intentional or accidental, you are becoming disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, since you have avoided the question previously, it might be a good idea to confirm that you have read WP:SOCK and that you are not Sumedh Tayade (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


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

@Ashuyadav974:, it is not sufficient that you exist. I exist but you will find no article for me here. Article subjects have to be notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, otherwise this thing will just become a massive list of names that means almost nothing to most of the world and which will include thousands of people with exactly the same name, with little chance of distinguishing them unless we include very personal information.
I didn't delete your article, merely your repeated entry at List of Yadavs. However, if a subject is not sufficiently notable to justify having an article here then it is not going to be notable enough to be included in a list either. See WP:NLIST for some background to this. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


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

He has a reputation for strident nationalism. That's what I meant to say and that's what I've amended while you were writing here. The display is positive but I'm not retracting the statement: the concern always was that the BJP activists on Wikipedia would be encouraged by his election victory and that is exactly what has been going on. Probably not in that thread, but more generally. If even he doesn't have a problem with our usage then we are pretty safe. No way is Modi going to take on the WMF anyhow - he'd lose in manners other than the strictly legal. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, my disdain for politicians is pretty much universal. I know a fair few very well, I've met a lot more. It is one reason why I have never voted. As a generalisation, for politician read con artist. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Churachandpur district[edit]

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

Hi, I'd grade your edits as "harsh but fair", which is where I sometimes end up myself.
Taking one aspect as an example, I do not do a lot of work on articles about places but I have seen the argument "well, you could go there and see the newspapers on the stalls etc" for WP:V. Personally, if a newspaper is published in a place and can be shown to be then that is worth recording; if it is merely capable of being bought there then it is rather trivial. In this case, aside from V, there was also the problem of unverifiable circulation claims, which really had to go. I think India might have something similar to the Audit Bureau of Circulation but I don't know how deep it extends re: the regional/district/local news hierarchy.
To my mind, it is never unreasonable to require written verification here on WP, even though V itself merely says verifiability. That said, some of the deleted transport stuff - nearest airport etc - could probably be verified using a map and a set of compasses, or perhaps even this new-fangled sat-nav thing about which that the youth of today rave. Showing my age! - Sitush (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

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

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

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

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

Page 15 quotes in the bottom.

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

Samma Tribe[edit]

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

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

User:Educationtemple on WT:IN[edit]

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

You're referring to this thread. I hinted as much when I mentioned how much hassle Philippe had been getting but I'm not 100% certain, which usually I am when it comes to that particular group. @Philippe (WMF), Bgwhite, and HJ Mitchell: thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Highly unlikely that's he's IAC. He's just an enthusiastic young Indian editor who occasionally goes off at the deep end.  Philg88 talk 12:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I think if it were IAC then they would have laid into me by now but in fact they've thanked me or something similar (I forget exactly what and have to dash). - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I have been wrong on this in the past, fwiw, I too highly doubt it.
A good content editor, who should IMO perhaps be less sensitive to opposing view and drop the stick a bit sooner in some cases, but even that may be more a matter of sincere belief coupled with unfamiliarity with wikipedia norms/editing-environment rather than maliciousness. From their talkpage and editing history, I see that they are receiving good advice from User:W.carter, User:Philg88 et al. Best to avoid biting (which I may have edged up to in the most recent discussion), and give them some time and room. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been coaching him since he came to the WP and I don't think he is part of anything other than himself. He is bright and write good articles, but he wants to do everything at once while not yet quite familiar with how things are done here, and this sometimes lands him in trouble. w.carter-Talk 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kunwar Prithvi Singh Chauhan[edit]

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

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

Edits that you made to topic Khambi[edit]

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

@Chaudhri: Please review WP:No original research. Personal interviews constitute original research and are not a permissible source per reliable sources. Wikipedia policy is to look for published sources.
Also, since this was your first edit, how do you know about the situation in the article—or the source of the material? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred. You mean published works like HA Rose,s Glossary of tribes and castes of the Punjab and NWFP? and other colonial works? From what i understand and what i have read on this site you do not accept those works either. I wrote that article few years back but could not remember my username/password or what email i used hence i registered again. Actually there is a book in Urdu that can confirm much of what sitush deleted i shall find the info for you. And as i stated earlier prior to British rule there was no tradition of writing history on individual towns and villages but the history of tribes was recorded by the village bards who would memorize the family ancestral history and they would recite these in poetic forms during weddings and annual celebrations. So what we know of the history of Khambi is authentic and confirmed by village bards and elders, which i wrote in that article and should be accepted by wiki. Chaudhri (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Chaudhri:, you have unwittingly hit upon two issues that are known to experienced contributors to Wikipedia's Indic-related articles. The first is that the Wikipedia model of verifiability is not suited to societies where, even today, oral history plays a prominent role; this is arguably an instance of our systemic bias. The second is that H. A. Rose made no attempts to check the oral histories, which often contradict each other and have flaws of improbability that result from being handed down over centuries - that is one reason why he is not a reliable source, although there are other reasons also. I would be extremely surprised if your Urdu source is any more reliable. I suppose you could compare the issues of village vs town/city history with that of peasants and women vs great men - the Subaltern studies idea. As things stand, and with some notable exceptions, villages do not get a great deal of attention from historians.
All this said, there is no deadline on Wikipedia and places of habitation are inherently notable. One day, someone might write about Khambi using modern standards of research, fact-checking etc; at that point, any relevant information could be included. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Whats Wrong Why did you removed contents of Rajpar[edit]

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

The only sources there were not cited. More, one of them was a blogspot-hosted website, which we do not usually consider to be reliable, and the other was about a village that as far as we know just shares the same name. We get a lot of problems with caste-related articles and it is usually better to remove content that is not obviously verifiable rather than let it fester. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I've taken another look and it seems likely that the article will be deleted at some point. I can find no reliable sources that even mention the community. I am sure that it exists but it doesn't seem to be notable, sorry. I'll leave it for a while to see if you or anyone else can find something but it isn't looking good. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Charles Haigh-Wood entry[edit]

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

@VictorianPainter: are you familiar with our attitude regarding original research and primary sources? The Charles Haigh-Wood article is chokka with those issues. I do realise it is arguably an uncommon name but citing early Victorian street directories etc is pushing things beyond the limit. I am actually familiar with the directory in question, living not too far away from that library and having done my own research on Walter Whitehead (as in the monument by Bury town hall). Almost the entire article seems to rely on sleuthing and interpretation of primary sources rather than paraphrasing of reliable secondary sources etc. The latter is how Wikipedia is intended to work most of the time. Primaries can be used but only in very restricted circumstances.
I've not really tried to find sources for the article thus far but I will see what I can dig up. The best line of enquiry may well be to follow the Royal Academy trail. As things stand, it probably is a borderline deletion candidate. You could, of course, do your own thing and get it published in some peer-reviewed journal etc. Someone else might then spot your research and paraphrase it here on Wikipedia. I'm not so sure that you could do that paraphrasing yourself, however: this is exactly the conundrum that I'm experiencing with the Whitehead stuff.
Being father-in-law to T S Eliot, by the way, counts for absolutely nothing because on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've dug around without any real success. I have sent the thing to WP:AFD. For whatever it may be worth, User:Sitush/whitehead might interest you, if you like local history. I have yet to finish polishing that draft, and the polishing will involve some removal of material for similar reasons to those I describe above. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hayer clan[edit]

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

I explained in my edit summary that reverted you, and there was also a note on the article talk page regarding whether this thing is actually a resurrection of Heer clan.
Pre-independence British ethnographical sources are not reliable: they have been discussed extensively across literally hundreds of articles and noticeboards. So frequent are attempts to use them, almost always by cherry-picking members of which ever caste the article concerns, that Abecedare has recently prompted me to develop User:Sitush/CasteSources. If the ethnography says something detrimental, of course, the same people are keen to omit.
You might find it interesting to read about James Tod, H. H. Risley or similar. Such biographies can sometimes provide a relatively simple "in" to the myriad of problems that exist in sources such as these. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a brief look at the articles you mention and I see what you mean about being unreliable sources. The topic is not of interest to me and I will leave it alone and get back to my biological realm! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, biology. That is proper science, unlike scientific racism. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)