User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

Have you come here to rant at me? It's water off a duck's back.

Ernest Lucas Guest

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at FunkyCanute's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

!!

Hi Sitush
I unilaterally disengage from caste articles and any discussions therein with you , for next 2 months . Get well soon : ) Intothefire (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to disengage from anything other than time-consuming collation of perceived inconsistencies. I mean, you might have the time to spare but your success rate is very low and it consumes a vast amount of other people's time that could be better spent improving the project elsewhere. None of us are perfect and if you try to compare, say, something done a couple of years ago with an action from last week then sooner or later you will find an inconsistency: people change, policies and guidelines change, sources change etc. It really is not a terribly productive thing in which to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome ....

... back! --regentspark (comment) 13:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll still be on a go-slow for a bit and it'll take me a while to go through my watchlist. Anyone fancy a wager on how long before I'm reported to ANI for something caste-related? - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to long, I should think. BTW, Blade is giving a talk on 'editing on caste' at a Wikipedia event today that I was hoping to attend but the spouse has stuck me with child care duties. :( --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Although he's likely got a lot of his experience in the Indic aspect via me, I am not going to admit responsibility for any errors! I wonder if he has a transcript - I'd be interested to see it. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I'll pop a note on his talk page and ask. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!

We've kept the cookies warm!

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Sitush. I see that you've returned after a period away and wanted to thank you for your contributions. If you haven't seen them before, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:99.22.29.198 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here again and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome back! Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you the links to decrease your chances of getting in trouble for something :). Very glad that you're feeling better. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

wlcm bck stsh

I doubt that those links will prevent me getting into trouble. In fact, it is those links that cause the trouble: if everyone could just write what the heck they know to be true etc ... BTW, I've never yet looked at Wikipedia:Article development, so perhaps now is the time. Anything to prolong a look at the outcome of the ArbCom proceedings, of which I've heard nothing but really, really could do with avoiding until my blood pressure is nearer to where it should be. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am so happy to see you back! Don't let anything here get your blodd pressure up. It certainly isn't worth it. However, should you ever need assistance with anything, please feel free to ask. I am always willing to help even if we don't often agree. Again, welcome back!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I am aware, any differences that we have had relate to a specific issue that has nothing much to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. It was one disagreement and it was the personal aspect that caused the problems. We'll probably never agree on the relevance of that but it really does not stand in the way of what we are here for and I do very much appreciate your thoughts. I will not be up to full speed for a while yet but have done a bit of editing as a 2.* IP over the last few weeks (I tried to declare it as best I could but probably not as well as I should have done). - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's to your health, Sitush! (Lifting invisible glass for a toast to you.) --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you are still with us. That is good news, indeed. I hope that the invisible glass contained actual liquid. Thanks, Orlady! - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, Greetings from India as well ← Abstruce 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome back! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm late to the party, but I'm also glad to see your return!! LadyofShalott 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thanks, all. Given how the "Arbitrary heading" thread below is developing, I may be back on the cardio ward before too long :( - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Hello sitush, do you have any recommendation regarding a page that i can go to on how to do categories? Also regarding Raju page, not exactly sure what you mean. I'm pretty well versed on the topic as well as other communities from AP and am working to make it a better page, with citations. Not exactly sure what a sockpuppet is but I have not made any changes that would be regarded as unconstructive or unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can it wait until tomorrow? I rather thought that you might ask this question about categories and I'm sorry not to have given you some links in the first place. They are complicated beasties and sometimes seem almost to be in a Wikipedia world of their own. I learned what little I know about them the hard way - by looking at what others do and checking the odd guideline or policy - but they are not my strong point. I do know that your attempts are largely (but not completely) the wrong way to deal with things but I need to find some decent explanation, especially for how overcategorisation is frowned upon. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found the article: WP:Overcategorization should hopefully go a long way to explaining the issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what a "reliable" source is in your expert opion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's major policies is that statements in our articles must be verifiable. Verifiability is ensured by using reliable sources. With some exceptions, there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding what is or is not a reliable source, at least in part because we operate on the basis of consensus and so things can change over time. An example of something that is (and is likely always) going to be considered unreliable would be an open wiki such as jatland.com: anyone can edit that, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia, and thus there are inherent problems regarding the authoritativeness of the content. Similarly, we do not cite our own articles, although that is primarily because it would create a circular reference.

More usually, the reliability of a source often depends on the purpose for which it is being cited. For example, a self-published source would be reliable only for basic facts in an article about a living person: we want independent, neutral sources and not ones that are likely to have bias because they are written by the subject but it is usually safe to accept, for example, the subject's disclosure of when and where they were born (although, yes, sometimes they do mess around with their own ages!) On the other hand, a recent book written by an tenured academic and published by a university press is almost without exception going to be considered prima facie reliable for, well, just about anything that it deals with.

I am unsure of the context that gives rise to your question but hopefully some of the links in this reply will help. We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard for assistance with any protracted problems but even there you will not get a specific answer to your question because there is no context. RSN is also, in my opinion, something of a last resort: issues should first be raised on article talk pages etc.

Feel free to ask a more specific question here. For example, what article are you thinking of, what source and for what statement(s) in the article? I'll try to help you although, as I say above, it is more usual to raise the issue on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your info, Is a court ruling with it's rational for the ruling not considered reliable information. Is the court of public opinion considered more reliable than the court of law? If not by what intellectual logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem - glad to help. Court rulings and similar legal documents are primary sources. We are not qualified to assess/interpret them and therefore they are unreliable in the Wikipedia sense of the term. This issue has cropped up on several Indian caste articles in my time on Wikipedia and the consensus has always been the same. In particular, the Raj courts were known for weird and contradictory rulings, among a myriad of cases relating to sanskritisation (or "usually puffery", if you want the cynical term). Find a secondary source of good standing that mentions the ruling and you may have a chance, but the primary source itself is a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1984271/?type=print. It is the court ruling from the Andhra Pradesh High court. It was brought to contest an election petition by a member of the Raju community. It gives a detailed account of the rational for the ruling. You don't have t interpret it, it tells you excatly why they ruled for it. The candidate who did not want to be designated as a Kshatriya used many of the sources wiki deems as valid to argue his cause, yet the court found they were not legitimate sources. It basically states anyone belonging to the Raju caste has to acknowlege themselves as "Kshatriya" for the purposes of procuring an election seat or a reservatio seat. It makes no sense to argue about a castes varna status without citing this ruling. Basically in real life, if a Raju tries to get a seat in school, or run for an election post, he must apply or run as a kshatriya or they will lose their seat for fraud. Now the only logical way to present this is to have a section stating thier legal status and then a section of how they may have gotten thier status using the existing citations that have been deemed "varifiable" by wiki users. Do you not agree? On a side note, do you seriously feel there is a consistant, understandable flow to the existing article, I personally think it is mess.99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already read it and it is not reliable. As for the article, well, it is poor. Most caste articles are so precisely because of people using unreliable sources, no sources at all, poor English and all the usual other issues. Don't blame me - go fix it. Provided you operate within the constratins (sometimes maddening, I admit) of our policies. I must say that I am still very concerned that you may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, however much this may appear to be a lack of assumption of good faith. There are some odd things going on around the Raju topic (not just the main article itself) at present and there is a history involving a proven sock. I realise that you have said you are doing your own thing but even in the last hour there have been some peculiar patterns. I really do think you need to take this to the article talk page and gain consensus because otherwise you could get tarred with an inappropriate brush due to the actions of other IP editors who are currently showing up. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

From wiki: A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets.

How am I in anyway going to fall in this category. Every time I have made edites i have included sources, we may debate how valid their are in your opinion. Is it your opinion that I am trying to make a puff piece out of this? I have made an effort to show all sides to the story, I haven't removed any of the contrary citations, how can that be the actions of a sockpuppet? As far as having a discussion, you have stated that what is deemed varyfiable and not is arbritary, and even your link about primary sources doesn't deem court rulings as not valid. When having these discussions, who is the final arbritator about what is a concensus, you?99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying any more here. It is the wrong venue and I am fed up of repeating myself when it comes to issues such as this. I hate to say it but I will: these court documents have never been accepted as a reliable source on any caste article or at WP:RSN. Go to Talk:Raju and get more opinions. Then you will discover what consensus is, and it will not be in your favour. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So basically you will not allow any information that you don't approve onto this article. Anytime i make an edite you will undo it. Nevermind, this is a waste of time and a joke, but enjoy your wiki.99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to me. I've explained how things work. - Sitush (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Genetics - Iyengar article

I can prove that the other user(Mayasutra) is just uncomfortable with the contents of the genetic sources, coz i feel that he is opposed to linking iyengars with europeans. It is a very clear circumstance in this case. Playing down all sources related to genetics just because one user is uncomfortable with it, is sad. I feel that(in my opinion) he may be toying around in the talk page, & i can prove it to you with his varying/self contradictory comments. Anyhow, this one is a clear case. Hari7478 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, don't bring article disputes to user talk pages. Keep them on the article talk page. And just stop the sniping and personal attacks. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Jat people

Hi there,

Thanks for your message regarding Jat people. You've done great work maintaining the article - but I have a few doubts about the recent addition of the Nijjar source. It seems to me as though the book is attempting to perpetuate the author's own view of Jat origin; asserting a certain origin theory based solely upon the writings of colonial administrators. Now, although the addition is accompanied by valid citations, I'm sure you are aware of how contentious this issue can be, and often filters into other articles related to Jat people on Wikipedia, most often in ways that are unconstructive and reek of WP:OR. I think the article would benefit from the omission of the Indo-Scythian mention, as this often becomes the focus of edit wars and 3RR etc.

It is a subject that interests me, however, and I've done a bit of digging around on the genetic basis for such assumptions, which seem to disprove any genetic basis for perceived separateness of Jats from their surrounding populations. I encountered a website yesterday which seems to be dedicated to the genetics of South Asia, by testing the DNA of various South Asian populations to determine genetic affinities. Two infographics I found also include Jat participants and it is clear that the genetic makeup of Jat populations is overwhelmingly similar to their surrounding populations, which disproves any idea of a separate Scythian origin of Jats, speaking of which seems to have arisen as part of 'divide and rule' colonial policy and could therefore be considered as conjecture. I am also not sure how the Nijjar reference complies with WP:PUS, as it appears that his text is merely taking the opinions of colonial administrators as verbatim in order to assert his own view that Jats are Scythians; something that I'm not sure is any better than what the likes of 'jatworld' and their ilk seek to perpetuate.

The links that are of interest are here: [1] and [2] and I was wondering if you felt that it would be appropriate for this information to be included on the Jat people page, maybe as part of a statement affirming that there is no genetic basis for the Scythian origin theory of the aforementioned community. I think it would be refreshing to counteract dubious colonial claims with genetic evidence; definitely something of encyclopedic value. I would have liked to have found published journals with genetic information on Indian communities but it seems like the Harappa Ancestry Project is the only source for such information right now.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks, ^TheSuave^©

I do not care for Nijjar and have said so on the talk page, where I also said that I included him for reasons of neutrality and because he is an modern academic source, however poor I consider his Origins book to be. I also said somewhere (perhaps an edit summary in the last few days) that the Indo-Aryan claim was as unproven as the Scythian one. The bizarre World Jat Aryan Foundation goes so far as to claim that the people of Serbia are in fact migrant Jats from India! Nijjar is not the only modern supporter of the Scythian theory, by the way.

I am not keen on including genetics papers in caste articles, period. There has been a row rumbling on for several weeks at Talk:Iyengar concerning just this issue and it has gone on elsewhere in the past. Basically, they are primary sources, they are magnets for POV warriors, their conclusions are often based on very small samples and they make huge assumptions about the static nature of caste identity that simply defy historical evidence. And, after all that, they produce arcane information about "clusters" and similar that simply cannot be related in a meaningful way to any caste article. The outcome has always been the exclude the information when such rows have occurred in the last couple of years, but that might reflect my participation!

My own preference would be to remove all such claims of origin from these articles - even Brahmin ones, since some claim that the Brahmins were originally Dravidian while others say Indo-Aryan - but I doubt that can be carried. So, in the pursuit of neutrality, we end up in the unhappy state of either saying that we are all descended from apes or having to include all viable opinions shown in prima facie reliable sources even when some seem likely to not far from WP:FRINGE. I seem to recall that I've raised this issue at WT:INB but if I did then it is some time ago. I certainly queried the reliability of Nijjar there quite recently and was astonished to discover that he was an apparently respected academic. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you do not care for Nijjar, and I think it is admirable that you are including said source in the article even though you are not convinced of the merits of it, for the sake of neutrality. My issue is this: whenever there is a source mentioning colonial theories of origin on the Jat page, it acts as a wrecking ball that bulldozes through large numbers of articles relating to specific Jat clans, Indo-Scythians, Sakas etc. Suddenly you begin to notice dubious insertions on a large number of pages, as some editors think that they are qualified to link Jats to all sorts of (mainly European) groups since the main article mentions a colonial theory linking Jats to Scythians, which is a dubious theory in itself.

My rationale for the possible inclusion of some sort of genetic study would be counteract such nonsense, since I am almost certain that the inclusion of the Nijjar reference will likely lead to a barrage of WP:OR on pages relating to Jat clans at some point in the future. I also understand that the inclusion of genetic information is problematic in itself, so my view right now is that the Nijjar reference and reference to Indo-Scythian origins should be omitted from the Jat people page, since this information always leads to largely negative effects on a large number of pages relating to Jats, and often become a point of contention and edit warring. The colonial theories are largely based on links made between the cognate of the word 'Jats' and other groups, without any substantive scientific evidence for these links. Nijjar may be an academic (even after looking at your query of Nijjars's work I still don't see enough material to refer to him as a 'respected academic') but his work is largely replicating colonial theories without mentioning any recent research that he has carried out on the topic, and it does seem as though the Jat-Scythian linkage theory has been notably absent in a lot of academic work in recent times - possibly a sign of obsoletion?

Once again, you do a lot of great academic work on here, and it is refreshing to discuss a situation such as this with a knowledgeable editor. I do think, however, that the Indo-Scythian mentions on the Jat page should be omitted, for the reasons mentioned above. I also agree with your omission of the Indo-Aryan mentions on the page too. Many thanks, ^TheSuave^©

User:RTPking

Hi Sitush, this user has been here for around three months. I highly suspect that he is a sock of User:Padmalakshmisx who was known for constant POV pushing in Telugu cinema article. While I started a SPI case before a while, the CU closed the case marking that the account is no way connected with the previous socks. While an RFC is going on in the talk page of Telugu cinema article this edit made by them has increased my suspicion. I'm pretty much sure that the user has shifted to some other place or might be using a new hand for editing purposes. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That edit alone certainly looks like Padmalakshmisx. However, if a CU turned up nothing then we are going to need a lot more stylistic evidence. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are there any linguistic tells? Particular words, common errors, sentence patterns, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am off out for my blood test soon but will try to compile something later if I can concentrate. The stringing of question marks is typical, for sure, but mostly it is gut feeling from having seen so much from them in the past. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

Hello Sitush:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! ~~~~

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion sought

I am eager to have your or your project's opinion about the verification of dates (already arrived/now arrived at on the basis of available astronomical data) using Planetarium Software conducted by B.N.Narahari Achar, whereby he has confirmed the Mahabharata War date as 22/11/3067 BCE, date of Nirvana of Gautama Buddha as 27/3/1807 BCE, period of Mauraya rule as 1535-1219 BCE, date of birth of Adi Shankara as 5/4/509 BCE etc. This has reference to his essay - Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata included in the book - Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes (http://indicethes.org/PROC14.PS.pdf). Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sceptical but for reasons that are difficult to explain and may well be influenced by my preconceptions and also my lack of understanding of astronomy. I am aware that astrology - a different thing - can play quite a significant but generally-considered "hocus pocus" role in matters such as this. I think that your best bet, assuming that you have attempted discussion on the talk pages of relevant articles, would be to refer it to WP:RSN. I am sorry that I cannot really offer any more assistance than this. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sudhirkbhargava recently tried to use a conference report as a reference for earlier dates of Rig Veda. Among the various studies summarized in this report was a study on astronomical dating based on Planetarium Software. Discussions about the report (not the study individually) took place at my talk page, Talk:Ayurveda and at RSN. Please note the WP:Redflag concerns raised at every forum. Fringe theory concerns will also be raised if a study tries to date the Maurya empire to 1500 BCE when they so obviously had contacts with the Greeks. I wouldn't recommend using B.N.Narahari Achar's essay as a reference for earlier dates of anything. It can of course be taken up at RSN. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can not add these speculated dates, howsoever precisely they are calculated with help of any world's-best software, as they are certainly a point of debate and need opinions from other experts. Have these dates been accepted, not globally, but at least on a bit wider scale worth of noting? For eg. Shivaji's DOB is accepted as 19th Feb by various experts and the Government and is thus observed also. Even if they are accepted, you may add these dates, not representing them as a fact, but merely speculation. That too, you may add only if they are backed by some expert of the field, other than the main proposer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Common_Origins_Section.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Common_Origins_Section.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Radical Changes

Please dont hack and slash the memon article until you discuss the changes with people who have worked on the article. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

Not required in situations such as this. The article violated WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and so on - this is a well-known issue with caste articles and while I may have got it wrong in this instance, the chances are unlikely and BLP pretty much trumps your revert until youchallenge it. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted edits

Sitush Ji, You have removed an inline source calling it dubious. These are not dubious entries. The sources were duly mentioned (given in Roman Urdu along with English translation) which you have deleted too. Moreover, this specific information was long ago gathered by Zia Fatehabadi’s main biographers, a) Malik Ram and b) Zarina Sani, and is part of their respective works.

a) “Is kii tahqeeq to nahin ho sakii ki yeh khaandaan fatehabad mien kab se aabaad hai, lekin mojoodah muamlaat kii ru se yeh muthaqaq hai ki 1773 mein unke moras-e-aalii lala badal das ke pote llala tansukh rai vahaan maujood the.” (The search as to when this family had come to settle in Fatehabad could not be conducted but on the basis of available information it is evident that Lala Tansukh Rai, grandson of Lala Badal Das, lived there.) - Zia Fatehabadi Shakhs aur Shair (July 1977) by Malik Ram page.9

b) “zia fatehabadi, soni (khatri) khaandaan se ta-aluq rakhte hain… haridwaar ke panditon ke paas jo record mahfooz hai us se pata chaltaa hai ki lala badal das soni ka pota lala tansukh rai 1773 mein fatehabad se haridwaar teerathyatraa kii gharaz se aayaa.” (Zia Fatehabadi belongs to Soni (Khatri) family.. it becomes known from the records with pundits of Haridwar that Lala Tansukh Rai Soni, grandson of Lala Badal Das Soni had come from Fatehabad to Haridwar in 1773 on a pilgrimage trip.”) - Booda Darakhat (1979) by Zarina Sani page.14

Therefore, you are requested to restore the edits that you deleted on 01/03/2013. Thanks.

By the way, whereas a full Wikipage on Dora Annie Dickens, the infant daughter of Charles Dickens who lived for a year or so, deemed notable, is acceptable, but not the page on Zarina Sani, the reputed author and poetess, which was deleted on the ground that she lacked notability. You have found mention of Soni Hindu Kapila Gotra Kshatriya in the case of Zia Fatehabadi objectionable but mention of Nambudari parentage as also of gotram and sutram in the case of Adi Shankara, and of Hindu family and Shakya clan in the case of Gautama Buddha, or mention of Saljuq Turk in the case of Ghalib not objectionable. The Indian Govt. seeks info. about caste and religion from its citizens then why this self-imposed restriction via so-called Sanskritisation. Don’t you find this restriction unwarranted? The relied upon page nowhere debars mention or inclusion of such info in the Wikipages created. Regards. Enjoy good health.Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of GENI site as a citation

Hi Sitush, while this question may sound pointless, wanted to get your opinion on whether the [[ http://www.geni.com/projects/Kashmiri-Pandits-KP/4154 | following GENI website]] may be used as a citation in the KP & Kaul articles. While it uses content from the Kashmiri news network, it provides an interesting insight into how the various Kashmiri Pandit names originated. -Ambar (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The url you give is a redlink - have you mistyped it? - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

FYI. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tags

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove the tags on the Lohara dynasty page and use the talk page! Lets build a better Wikipedia together! (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Don;'t be so bloody stupid. You have failed to explain what the alleged POV is and are being point-y. Just stop it or engage in proper discussion. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please go back to discussion board and re put up the neutrality tags. Thank you for helping me make wikipedia a better place! :) I look forward to our discussion. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I won't (as I've already told you) and I don't look forward to the discussion, sorry. I am expecting another saga demonstrating a poor understanding of our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)