User talk:Sitush

I can understand that people want to feel special and important and so on, but that self-obsession seems a bit pathetic somehow. Not being able to accept that you're just this collection of cells, intelligent to whatever degree, capable of feeling emotion to whatever degree, for a limited amount of time and so on, on this tiny little rock orbiting this not particularly important sun in one of just 400m galaxies, and whatever other levels of reality there might be via something like brane theory  ... really, it's not about you ... Do try to get a grip of something other than your self-obsession. How Californian. The idea that at all costs, no matter what, it always has to be all about you. Well, I think not.

Iain Banks

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

Somanth Bharti It is same somanth bharti. He owns Madgen Solutions both as per his election affidavit and ministry of corporate affairs. His photo also was published in one of the newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.176.9 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbirtrary heading

@sitush:- Hi dude, I am new to editing, I am from mumbai and belongs to koli caste(native east indian of Bombay).

I can see my post has been deleted by you from koli people page with some reason that I don't understand why?. I am giving some reference here for my post. If possible please add this in to this page. If not possible please give me clear picture for same. Here is my statement :- "In Mumbai, Native Christians include East Indian Catholics, who were converted by the Portuguese during the 16th century, are also koli people". Reference for same is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai#cite_note-257" And "http://www.east-indians.com/" And "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zC62JNVUuo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the YouTube reference because it may be a breach of copyright (see WP:YT, for example) and equally it may be unreliable. Unfortunately, I can't hear it but you could always ask at WT:INB or on the article talk page. I don't think that the article has that many watchers, so WT:INB might be a better bet.

I have to go out but I'll look at the Mumbai thing later. As a general rule, we do not use another article on Wikipedia as a citation (see WP:CIRCULAR) but it may be that we can re-use the citation in the Mumbai article at the Koli article - we'd just need to check that it is in fact accurately cited in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Try as I have, I cannot see the Baptista source that is mentioned in the Mumbai article. Can you? Or are you just assuming that because it is cited there then it can be cited somewhere else? - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you SIR for your valuable input, i appreciate. I am giving some ref also please have some comment also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indians#cite_note-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indians#cite_note-10

while googling i found this. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=7j2QUtb7BofqrAfO4YCoDg&id=MFjRAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Elsie+Wilhelmina+Baptista%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=koli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1064

Anyway I will not give up, I am an east indians and belongs to koli of bombay/mumbai, will give you another ref too.

Thanks -Prashant

@Prshntsathe:, what exactly is it you want the article to say? That some members of the Koli community are Christian? Or that some of the Koli community in Mumbai are Christian? Do you want to mention that they are specifically East Indian Catholics rather than generally Christian, which is a broad church? - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush:, This link "http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1064" explains you every thing. I said "NATIVE" Christian who were converted from hindu to Christian. And I don't think my statement gives any wrong information or a wrong statement. wrt to provided link If you want to 'EDIT' this statement please go ahead. anyway really thanks for considering me for adding statement in wikipedia. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 07:33 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have to try to work it out myself. I did look at that article but it didn't say what journal it was published in. I've managed to work that out using JSTOR - James, V. (1977). "Marriage Customs of Christian Son Kolis". Asian Folklore Studies. 36 (2): 131–148. JSTOR 1177821. - and will now have to re-read the thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

	Hello Sitush, Hafspajen has given you some lovely Halloween dogs , to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Pumpkin Halloween dog ! Enjoy!

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Valentine Williams may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{citation |title=Peacemaking, 1919 |first=Harold |last=Nicolson |authorlink=Harold Nicolson |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hari Singh Nalwa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• north-west of [[Rawalpindi]] in Pakistan, to commemorate Guru Nanak's journey through that region.{{sfnp|Khan|1962|p=17|ps= He had donated the gold required to cover the dome of the [[Akal Takht]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kwagga Boucher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• His regular position was [[Hooker (rugby union)|hooker]] or [[prop (rugby union)|Prop]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sarugby.net/playerprofile.aspx?id=52270&category=&leagueid=0 |publisher=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sardar Buta Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• PhD. He worked as journalist before joining politics. He fought his first elections as an Akali Dal]] member and joined the [[Indian National Congress]] in the late 1960s at the time when that party

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin

Could not understand the comment of your last revision of claimants of Brahmin Status, I quoted from a book written by Dr.N.R.ray translated By John Wood ,Orient Longman::I have no account in Wikipedia.117.194.203.68 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a lot of socking going on at that article and some related ones. I cannot divulge why I was concerned that you might be another incarnation of User:Buddhakahika but I am prepared to tell an administrator by email. In any event, what you added said

The results of anthropological measurements and computations concerning the Namahśŭdras are quite remarkable. As far as bodily characteristics go they are of the same line as the Brāhmaņs of north India.

and your source was this. I cannot see that source but there are evident problems:

• The wording looks like you may have just copied the text from the source and is certainly not neutral
• The author, Niharranjan Ray, died in 1981 and the book itself dates from sometime before 1949 - that is old
• Anthropometry has since been rejected - it gave rise to such bizarre schools at scientific racism

• The whole Namasudra issue has been causing problems on Wikipedia for years because of POV-pushing by members of that community. If what you said is to be included then we're going to have to balance it with what everyone else says, which would be fine if Ray was reliable for the point.

I hope that this goes some way to explaining the issues. Feel free to raise it on the article talk page (Talk:Brahmin), where it might be seen by other people. Also, it probably would be advantageous for you to register an account: it isn't required but given the problems being caused by Buddhakahika and the unfortunate similarities between you and them, it might help to offset any possible future claims that you are in fact that person. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I am the same user ::

Haplogroup R1a1, which has originated either in South Asia[22][23][24] or Central Asia[25][26] or Eastern Europe[27] is the most prevalent haplogroup amongst the Bengali Brahmins. The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent. A very high percentage of 72.22% among Bengali Brahmins which is also one of the highest found frequencies within world groups hints at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group.[28]

Is this not Scientific racism in a new form ?What does this sentence , "The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent.",convey? Is it not scientific racism? If this is true for a community banned for 1000 years due to Hindu Apartheid , then the data are unreliable!!! 117.194.203.137 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea where you got that quotation from. As a general rule, it is best not to get bogged down in details about genetics in caste-related arguments. They tend to be used selectively, appearing used when a community wants to claim a high(er) status but not when it would be adversely affected. For that and other reasons, such as the often-speculative/small sample/highly qualified nature of the studies and the fast-moving technology, I'm always opposed to using them. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am the same user ::

Not only that when PNAS monitored the % of R1a1, was maximum 40% amobng Indians , and then it sored to 30% high for .......communities when indigenous studies began, same thing happened to anthropological studies also (under B.S,.Guha) and these data are used more often for these communities than not. Yes this is the Bengali Brahmin page of Wikipedia(they never mention their mtdna).Of course they are more advanced but I do not think it is for what they are claiming so; your logic is quite clear, but what is the use of screening a particular community then!!!::117.194.202.119 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me here, sorry. Are you saying that you think the content should be removed from the Bengali Brahmin article, are you saying that what exists there somehow permits inclusion of the Ray stuff in the Namasudra article, or are you discussing some sort of generality? Apologies for the confusion: genetics stuff, in particular, can tend to make my eyes glaze. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am The same person::

Considering everything , I just added the book of N.R.Ray in reference.117.194.204.234 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you and am copying this thread to the article talk page, which is where it should have been in the first place. If you wish to discuss further, after reading WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, then feel free to do so there. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am The same person::

The discussion had been copied to talk page : It is nice: 117.194.216.144 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am The same person::

I do not know who You are and vice-versa but why can not you raise the issue of Scientific racism for the page "Bengali Brahmin" , what is the problem? Every one knows that authenticity is not above hegemony.I want to see you raise the issue at least once.117.194.198.252 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am The same person::

The Page "Nair" has started with some anthropologist's comment ; then why an acknowlwdged Historian , Anthropologist and Socilogist , Dr N.R.Ray's reference cannot be used in wikipedia , I do not understand your logic. If anthropological categorisation has become obsolete, then why is it being used there? 117.194.207.242 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC ^^^ refrence

That is Dohakoshpanjika by Adwaibajra , given in Bangla Sahityer Itihas by Sukumar Sen : I think you are an Indian British .Use your connections to know it:

^^^ Hello Sitush,

Your Integrity that is what I was interested about and you failed.I still doubt you are a British, your forefathers must be from India , Kolkata , probabaly One of Bengali Brahmin origin.O.K.The matter is closed here.I never believed , definitely heard about it, there are purposive concerted and hidden POV regarding Caste Apartheid related issues of Hinduism. In respect of Genetic data it was proved without any doubt.Thanks .Best wishes for your future activities of Hidden and purposive POV.Good Luck.May Jesus save you117.194.203.234 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Deletion Of The Chandalas::

Hi Sitush, a great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolpurbatabyal (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr Batu this is a very objectional language U r using here:Bengali Chhotoloke (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguated: warrior class → Kshatriya

Hi Sitush! I wonder why you reverted my edit to Varna (Hinduism)?

I would think it should point to the Hindu relevant page not to the warrior class disambiguateion page-therefore my change.--DadaNeem (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Because Kshatriya is already linked in the article and the term is explained at that first usage. You added two further links to the same Kshatriya article and this is not recommended. As I said in my edit summary, WP:OVERLINKS is your guide. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then perhaps the best thing would be to remove the links altogether, not to have them confusing matters. Reviewing the article I see that the first "warrior class" (in the intro) refers to "estates of the realm" where the corresponding term used there is nobility. Would you agree to that change? ie "a priestly class, a warrior class, and a class of commoners" --> "a priestly class, the nobility, and a class of commoners" --DadaNeem (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is a mess. Someone with little apparent knowledge but a copy of Louis Dumont at their side has made a bit of a hash of things. I've just had a run through it and will return in due course. We really need to be placing weight on sources such as Susan Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India and perhaps M. N. Srinivas/G. S. Ghurye etc rather than the ill-informed philosophical ramblings of Dumont and the politically-charged agenda of Vivekananda & the Divine Life Society etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Y do u remov these conents madly?

Some sources shows that, the two Kakatiya chieftains, namely 'Kapaya' and 'Prolaya' were from the Durjaya clan of Musunuru family belongs to 'Kamma' caste. And 'Prolaya' was the blood relation of Veera Pratapa Rudra. They were called as Musunuri Nayaks. Kakatiyas were also called as 'Kakatiya Nayaks' (or) 'Karma/Kamma Nayaks'. Among them Beta-I (1000–50) was the earliest Kakatiya Nayak. Gonka I (first king of Velanati Chodas), was a Telugu Kamma Nayak who rose to be a Viceroy.

Have you checked the article talk page? Ranga is about as reliable as I am for the history of the dynasty and POV-pushing of the Kamma caste is common on Wikipedia. The article is poor, yes, but adding poor sources will not improve it. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this...

Chitrakoot Colony. A recent edit changed something...when I went to look...the article appears to be without a single source and may not meet our standards for notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple issues here but notability is - alas - not one of them. It is obviously a populated place and therefore is inherently notable. A summary of some of the issues:

• According to GMaps it is called Chitrakoot Scheme in Jaipur and is indeed surrounded by the places named - Vidyut Nagar etc.
• GSearch for Chitrakoot Scheme places it inside Vaishali Nagar rather than adjacent to it, although GMaps does show it to the south. There are 60k hits for "Chitrakoot Scheme" versus 12k for "Chitrakoot Colony" - not all of the Colony hits relate to Jaipur but a random selection of the Scheme ones suggests that those do
• GMaps also indicates that there is a Chitrakoot Colony at Bhilwara in Rajasthan. That is the one that is near to Ajmer Road and its near neighbours include two places sharing the names of the Jaipur neighbours but at different co-ordinates (they're south-west and still further south-west, rather than N, E and W)
• The Jaipur Municipal City and Bhilwara District Corporation official websites make no mention of either Chitrakoot Colony but searching for the Scheme variant does turn up some hits on the Jaipur Development Authority site ... but it is barely functional due to issues with their SQL Server database.
• So far, I've only found one passing mention of any note in a news source and that is undated - see this. sod's Law says that one does call it Colony!
• To further complicate matters, there are numerous other places with Chitrakoot in their name.

So, I think what we need to do here is:

1. Move Chitrakoot Colony to Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur - WP:COMMONNAME etc
2. Create Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara, redirecting it to Bhilwara pending information that justifies a standalone article. Leave a note on the talk page giving the coordinates (I'm useless at figuring out coordinates but hopefully you or someone else can do it)
3. Create Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation), holding Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara and Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur. Leave a note at Talk:Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation) linking to this thread
4. Create a disambig page - Chitrakoot (disambiguation) - listing the articles where that name appears first, ie: Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot Dham (Karwi), Chitrakoot district, Chitrakoot Falls, Chitrakoot Colony, Bhilwara, Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur
5. Add Chitrakoot (disambiguation) to Chitrakoot Colony (disambiguation) as a "see also"
6. If we can't find anything significant about Chitrakoot Scheme, Jaipur in, say, a week then redirect that to Jaipur.

Or something like that. It's a bit of a mess, eh? I've not long since woken up and now feel like I need a brandy rather than a coffee! - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow....the issues are like 5 times longer than the actual article. Just now having my first cup of coffee (I slept in very late today)...but am wishing I had more than a drop in that brandy bottle in the cupboard now.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I brought this to your attention, I will endeavor to make these changes shortly. Thank you very much for you assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Miller:, do my proposals look right to you? Probably best not just to take my word for it because it is complicated. If you can think of an easier way forward then I'm open to suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

They are different locations, but the subject of the article right now may just need a redirect at the moment [1] and the suggested subject that you stated appears to be a larger community which may at least indicate that is more notable [2]. I like the idea of a disambig page - Chitrakoot (disambiguation) but not sure we would need one for Chitrakoot Colony. Also...I am in no hurry at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

While picking up dinner at the grocery store, it dawned on me that we could just blank the current page as a redirect, preserving even that small amount of history and then create the new article fresh.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dayananda's criticism of religion

Regarding the dispute at Talk:Criticism of Jainism, can you take a look at the source ([3] there is a preview at google books that might help) and comment on its accurate representation in the article Criticism of Jainism? --Rahul (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see it, sure, but the idea of using an evangelical Christian publisher (ISPCK) as a source for stuff about Hinduism or Jainism rankles with me. I don't think that we usually permit them in situations such as this, just as we don't usually allow mentions of the Joshua Project except in reference to themselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So would it be OK to remove the claim and the source? --Rahul (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue for removal of the source but you'll need to get consensus unless you added it yourself. There may be other sources for the statement itself. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Would be helpful if you can say that at Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism. I have already placed a note at talk pages of WP:INDIA and WP:RELIGION for a consensus. --Rahul (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Sitush:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputes about Austrian economics

Hello Sitush. Regarding your ANI comment. Speaking as an admin who has seen the goings-on but is not tempted to do anything at this point, there are some reasons:

1. Admin action has to be taken for some reason. Is there anyone who can provide a neutral summary of what's actually happened?
2. Are there any content workers who are relatively neutral and can give perspective? You played this role in the caste wars, since you knew the material and you were trying to improve the article sourcing.
3. Is there actual misbehavior that would be easy for outsiders to check, once it was pointed out? It helps if there is a smoking gun or a problem that is easy to see if a couple of links are given.

The sanctions at WP:AEGS improve the incentives for admins to be involved, but they don't solve the problem of knowing what to actually do. Any admin action would be controversial and would need to be defended with good arguments. Nobody wants to spend hours searching through partisan diatribes to find enough facts to justify a block or topic ban. A request for admin action that was focused on a small set of facts would be worth considering. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Imma let Sitush finish, but I'd like to say a few things in response to your questions.

The core problem with the Austrian economics articles is that the field is fractured into mutually hostile camps. There's a particular faction, following in the footsteps of Rothbard, that is pretty much the only source for information about its own members. Not surprisingly, its writings about its own are deeply biased in their favor. On the other hand, when these people are mentioned by external sources, which is rarely, it is scathingly biased against them. With no truly neutral sources, everything becomes a battle.

What makes it worse is that, to anyone who doesn't have at least a working knowledge of economics and a general familiarity with these factions, it's very hard to figure out where the neutral point lies. Those who do have this knowledge are almost inevitably biased towards one side or another, and attempts at compromise have had only mixed success, partially due to personalities.

In short, it's an inherently difficult topic for Wikipedia to handle due to policies that privilege passionate amateurs above competent professionals. I think it's simply going to have to go to ArbCom, even if that results in mutual assured destruction. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think that subject knowledge is a pre-requisite when people are repeatedly toying with the boundaries of WP:BLP, warring and sometimes adopting a policy of silence that does seem to smack of being co-ordinated to stifle improvements etc. As I said in an ANI post of around the same time, it could well be that I'll throw some diffs out there at some point. But if I did then we'd most likely end up with just two of the present group still able to edit and I'm loathe to see things swing that far. Rightly or wrongly, there does seem to be a campaign of denigration going on right now but there'd be no-one left on one side at all and that would be taking away an arguably necessary check.

Personalities are certainly a big part of the problem, Miles, but "passionate amateurs" is not a description that can typically be applied to even non-notable professionals who hold PhDs in the subject matter. Nor is it at present the case that any knowledge of economics is required for determining neutrality/reliability/verifiability at most of the articles in the menagerie: most of them don't even discuss the principles at stake and just seem to be attempts to smear or "big up" people by one means or another.

As for the alleged failings of Wikipedia, well, happen I have faith in Wikipedia generally to do what its community wants: we don't claim to be telling the truth here, although hopefully we do for most of the time. If what you want is different, if you really don't think WP can handle AE or you think that it will always handle it in a manner that you dislike then the solution is to take your views and arguments somewhere else, not to prolong them here without any chance of resolution. As long as articles are not violating core concepts such as BLP and copyright, it's perfectly ok for everyone at present involved to leave them alone and let others take up the slack at a later stage: you are under no obligation to fix perceived problems. As for ArbCom, be careful what you wish for as I guarantee that you won't like it if it happens and I'd wager that you would end up with a complete topic ban, perhaps worse. ArbCom generally seems not to concern itself with good intentions. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, please don't polarize the issue more than it merits. There are calmly critical third party sources, and also happily praiseworthy third party sources. For instance, Joseph Thomas Salerno calmly criticizes the Rothbard position in his book Money, Sound and Unsound. Thierry Aimar calmly cites Rothbard in his book The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination, without judgement. Mark Skousen is quite praiseworthy of Rothbard in his book Economic Logic. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bink, those sources do exist, but they are the exception and not the rule. Moreover, it should be noted that it was I, the "biased" anti-Rothbard source, who added Skousen's praise to the article. ("Biased" Miles and SPECIFICO did not object to the inclusion of this glowing, RS assessment of Rothbard.) Finally, please note that Salerno is not an "RS" but a long-time friend and co-worker of Rothbard's at Rothbard's Institute. (Your mistake here underscores the problems that inadequate knowledge about this subject/economics generally pose.)Steeletrap (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, can you please try to be more specific regarding what you consider to be "smears"? (A most unfortunate tendency of WP is for users to make bare conclusory statements "That article is biased" without any corroborating evidence; that such statements are considered to have merit is indicative of the mob-rule mentality of WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, the day that you and your tag team co-thinkers stop smearing other Wikipedia contributors is the day when I'll pay some attention to your preachings, I've said that I am not willing to see either side get into serious trouble at this point: I just want to see everyone calm down, stop being stupid about petty issues (such as "historian" or not), stop edit warring, stop forum shopping and spend more time understanding the policies that they refer to etc. Is it really too much trouble to invoke WP:DR after a reasonable period of intelligent article talk page discussion? you are, after all, seemingly without exception intelligent people. That said, you comment is a fairly typical misrepresentation of the type I noted was favoured by MM in the ANI thread: I said "smear or 'big up'" above but you have chosen to ignore a part of that juxtaposition, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has been following the issues. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Sitush, with all due respect, I don't think you realize just how much hostility there is between Rothbard's faction and, well, the rest of economics, including many non-affiliated Austrians. Anyone with an education in economics is more than aware of the fact that this particular faction prides itself on excluding the mainstream acceptance of the scientific method, to the point where its relationship to economics is akin to astrology's relationship with astronomy. Without understanding the issues, it is impossible to figure out what constitutes a BLP violation as opposed to a statement of the mainstream viewpoint.

Now, you see what I just did there? I shared an informed opinion, but it came across as completely non-neutral. That's because objectivity does not lead to neutrality when reality is biased. We're supposed to follow an objective point of view, not a studiously neutral one: that's why we are obligated to focus on mainstream views at the expense of the fringe. But if we scrupulously followed policy here, the articles would be no more pleasing to fans of Rothbard than Evolution is to Creationists.

Imagine if someone were to rely on Creationist sources for describing the views of other Creationists. That's the sort of thing that (to pick someone involved in this discussion) Bink has done in the past. He is not neutral or objective, and he's also not well-informed. If ArbCom bans us all, people like Bink (though not Bink himself, naturally) will be the future editors of Austrian economics articles, leading to massive disconnect and bias. People like you, who admit to not understanding the issues, will be the unwitting enablers.

On a side note, your barely-veiled attempts to intimidate me into giving up on these articles are an example of the sort of aggressive, counterproductive behavior that characterizes interactions. This is a serious issue, and it will not be solved by bluster. Stand down and sit up. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to intimidate. There is a commonly-used formula here when faced with contributors who don't like how Wikipedia works and that formula is "your options are to accept it, to try to cause a change of policy at WP:VPP or similar, or to walk away and say what you wish to say somewhere else on t'interweb". No-one is forcing you to do anything. As for your opening paragraph, it is full of misunderstandings:

• Any hostility of a general ideological/theory nature is basically a matter for the core AE articles, not individual biographies, since there are basically two camps, ie: pro-LvMI/Rothbard etc or against
• Talking down to other contributors doesn't gain you brownie points but, again, your comment about "this particular faction" seems to be an issue of relevance usually to the core articles rather than individual bios
• A "mainstream viewpoint" is one expressed by a person who is reliable and is expressed through a medium that is itself "mainstream" - not a blogged character assassination, a second-hand passing mention in an op-ed etc. If these two camps want to spend their time taking pot-shots at each other using blogs and obscure newsletters etc then good luck to them, but such things should not be used in BLPs. Economics is a serious academic disciple and has serious publishers involved in it: stick to that sort of thing when you want to demonstrate the "mainstream viewpoint". - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed this because it contains yet another example of someone using a diff out of context, and it is a usage that they've been told about before. Feel free to rephrase. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum to Miles' point: did you know, Sitush, that Rothbard rejects (in principle!) the application of the scientific method -- including statistical methodologies, econometrics and indeed all data -- to economics? Without this information, it's difficult to evaluate the "neutrality" of Rothbard's entry. Steeletrap (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is it difficult to evaluate? I don't understand why your parentheses matter unless you're trying to engage in semantics but if he rejects those things and has said so then our bio article should say so. What is the big deal? - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Astrologers reject, even in principle, the scientific method. That's why they're not astronomers, despite some overlap. Alchemists likewise reject, even in principle, the scientific method, and that's what prevents them from being chemists. The fact that Rothbard's faction rejects, even in principle, the scientific method puts it in the same fringe category.

This simple fact is absolutely vital for understanding what constitutes a WP:BLP violation on this subject. MilesMoney (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. What constitutes a violation of BLP is something that violates the policy. Unless you can provide verification of Rothbardians' rejection in accordance with that and other relevant policies (V, OR, RS etc), it is a BLP violation. I've not looked at the article talk page recently: has the verification been given in this manner? - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the scientific method, I think the Austrians are just naming the elephant in the room. Economics is an inexact science, if you haven't heard. (Sir Guilford Lindsey Molesworth said as much in 1885,[4] and he was no Austrian.) Those clinging to the scientific method as a talisman against the Austrians should look to their own camp and see just how imprecise and unpredictable the whole field can be. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

When I was a grammar school in the 1970s, Economics was classed as an arts subject - its academic classification has long been moot. I'm fairly sure it was a part of the humanities faculty at university also. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, my economics degree is a Bachelor of Arts, so I guess Sitush is right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your censorship of my comments is unacceptable. MilesMoney (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable to whom? Have you noticed that I left a diff in there? Did you bother mentioning the thread that caused my remark? Have you not learned a thing since you last tried that trick? Your charge is a bit rich coming from you, a person who has banned a fair few people from even commenting on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And can you remember this thread? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Or your comment here in this thread (and referring to this one) that caused me to respond with this? You appear to have a tendency to overegg the pudding. I do hope that you are not exhibiting a similar tendency when using sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And now you have done this. How many more times must people revert you and otherwise correct your misunderstandings relating to WP:BLP? - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And this, too. Given my past sightings of your problems in this area, I'm wondering whether you need to stop contributing to anything that you or someone else considers to be a WP:BLP-related matter and take it up again in a few months when you have gained a better understanding. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions here also demonstrate a lack of understanding about the very policy you refer to - ie; WP:SYN - and possibly an inability to read sources correctly. That is another example from today and, as is common, you've kept arguing the point, regardless. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of this seems unnecessarily point-y and was never going to get anywhere. You are frequently referring to what you consider to be bad admin decisions - if you think that so many admins are so bad then perhaps the problem lies within you? I mean, there are other people who adopt such a course but they, at least, tend also to be substantial and constructive content creators, copyeditors par excellence etc and I'm not seeing that here. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Another example of battlefield stuff, which has also spread to related articles. Not Aust. Ec. on this occasion but MM really does seem to like a scrap and really does like to insert criticism seemingly just for the hell of it. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to be building a hit list against me (in violation of policy, naturally), I'll politely point out that this is proof that you're still stalking me, and you have been ever since you threatened me on my talk page. As part of your ongoing attempt at intimidation, you followed me to Liberty Flames to edit-war against me to remove cited material.

Essentially, your attempt to build a list of out-of-context "incriminating" diffs to use against me amounts to nothing more or less than an admission of your own crimes. I suggest that you remove this hit page immediately, especially since it violates sanctions on Austrian economics. But, hey, it's up to you. MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not stalking anyone, so please retract that absurd accusation. I've got WP:NPOVN on my watchlist, having not long since referred a query of my own to that board (it is still visible on the page as of now). I saw some back and forth there about the Rfc for Liberty. However, if you mention that diff of an alleged threat once again without putting it into context and/or make other unfounded accusations then I will shove this lot on ANI and you will find yourself blocked. You are nothing but a disruptive nuisance, even when you might have a valid point - is there any chance that you can control your excesses? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, having a jolly time reading and only wanted to comment on "pro-LvMI/Rothbard etc or against". One doesn't have to agree with the most questionable things a subject of an article has ever said or done to think that a) policy should be followed regarding BLP, NPOV and RSN and b) the article should not be used as a coatrack to discredit anyone who has ever been associated with Rothbard/LvMI or libertarianism. That's all I have to say. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I think that you are stating the obvious, Carol. Given the toxicity presently surrounding Aust. Ec. articles, it is probably best to say nowt unless you can develop a point - you'll just attract more heat onto yourself. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

How is the logo unfree? Why choosing PNG over SVG? --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How is the size the issue? Can you link me the discussions? I can't find it at WT:NFC, unless you were referring to WP:NFR. --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was typing an explanation on your talk page at the same time as you were typing this. As explained there, the logo is at Commons and it was discussed at WP:NFCR and at Commons. I've no idea why one format should be preferred over another - images aren't my thing & seem to create an inordinate amount of confusion - but when two recent discussions + some stuff at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party have determined that it is ok, changing it seems kind of non-consensual. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SVG is a superior format and has higher-resolution than one PNG file. It also creates superior png copies. Download the 2000px version, and... figure it out. Also, the logo is deemed too ineligible for copyright in India, unless you prove it eligible. --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Found the links you are referring: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_33#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png. Am I missing anything else? --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are the recent threads and they amount to a WP:CONSENSUS situation regarding that particular version. Whether SVG is technically superior or not is something I'll have to leave to the reader. Perhaps it amounts to a clash of consensii but one only has consensus at Commons and the other has it both there and here on en-WP. I'm among the vast majority of people who are using a perfectly normal computer display rather than some fancy colour-corrected etc version as used by graphics designers and the like - the existing format seems to render ok. Maybe it is my ageing eyes. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least change it back to SVG? Is image size that relevant to general readers? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have consensus then sure you can but thus far you seem not to have. I've not previously seen the essay that you linked but I'm still at a loss regarding why SVG = "readers first". How many of them want a 2000px image or use monitors where SVG would have an impact? As it stand, you are proposing to replace a 2Kb image with a 7Kb image and I'm not sure that you understand the potential significance of that, which goes something like:

• The political party in question is a new one and is not even a national party in India - at present, it operates only in one region
• In the event that it does well in the elections later this week, it may develop to be national but even then is unlikely to attract significant long-term non-Indian interest until it actually performs on the national stage
• India is a country whose internet capability/capacity varies widely, partly as a consequence of its size and the sharp differences between the (relatively few) cities and the mass of peasantry etc and partly due to issues such as illiteracy and poverty. I wouldn't bank on cheap broadband being available to most people and thus anything that keeps downloads to a minimum without compromising on essential content is to be preferred. The WMF have been doing a lot of outreach in the country & have even reached a (controversial) deal with a mobile/cell operator in an attempt to boost contributions but in there remain substantial lags compared to, say, the US or France.

Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law of India doesn't cover the artwork well. To summarize, #1 covers the party coverage; #2 the notability; #3 the country's technological advancement. Neither point affects the image's unoriginality and copyright status. You're suggesting that I must please those at India, right? SVG too advanced for India? George Ho (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that you need consensus. A recent discussion about the copyright situation determined that it was ok. Why is this such a big deal to you? - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you are ignoring it or something. I assumed that you misunderstood the copyright status thing. Well, other non-English pages are using SVG image right now. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You thought that I was ignoring what? Consensus? I've already linked you to the discussions here and at Commons and you also found those links yourself, the latter of which arose directly out of the former. Those forms a part of the consensus and if other pages on other projects at not following it then that is their decision and is governed by their consensus. This is English Wikipedia and we do things according to our systems, not someone else's. You could argue that Commons is also a different place but since the two discussions were intertwined, I don't think it is a line that is worth pursuing. There was, of course, also discussion at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. And it is not beyond possibility that all the other usages of the SVG are themselves a breach of copyright.

I don't think that there is really anything more that I can say here, George. We'll just keep going round in circles. If you think that the copyright status is wrong then you'll need to change the consensus and explain why what seems to be a derivative work is ok. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)} Gentlemen, you are counting the angels dancing on a pinhead. Sitush makes a correct assertion about bandwidth usage, George Ho makes valid assertions about copyright, none of which it seems that Sitush disagrees with (or does he?). In the global scheme of thing 2k vs 7k is not the same as 2k vs 200k, so there will be no winners or losers either way. George Ho's argument about other items is, as we know, irrelevant. This is a genuine "Who CARES?" moment. We have vandals to fight, dragons to slay, Smurfs to befriend. Ah, no, not Smurfs. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. Consensus is that the logo is fine in terms of copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to the bandwidth issue, do many Indian readers understand English and other country languages to read these articles? George Ho (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh. I think that you need to tread very lightly here, George. You've just been referring to an essay about reader friendliness and now you are querying the linguistic abilities of a 1.2 billion population that was in large part once governed by the British. "A fair number" is the simple answer. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Hello Sir, I changed word 'culprits' because it has more intense meaning. We can use words like 'offenders', 'wrongdoers', 'convicts', 'fugitives' etc if 'accused' isn't exact fit. But 'culprits' sounds derogatory. Thank You. Ashishbirajdar (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the police were running around trying to find people but were not sure who those people were - that sort of thing still happens today. "Culprits" is a word to describe people who committed an act and is entirely appropriate. "Convicts" is definitely not suitable because they were not at that point convicted, just as "accused" won't work because it is difficult to accuse persons unknown - it can be done but it has legal overtones. "Wrongdoers" is subjective: many would argue that they did nothing wrong because they were freedom fighters (this is the "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" problem). I really do not see what is derogatory here: it is a good, solid English word. Can you give me an example of it being used in a derogatory way? Perhaps something is getting lost in translation, just as the word "communal" has a very different common meaning in India to that used in other countries. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone has now found a way round the problem - fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari deleted page review for creation

Hi, I have edited page "Ashok Sundari" which was previously deleted, but with the request i edited the article as a whole as best as i can. The page "Ashok Sundari" has very little reliable and supported content and citations available. I have 2 questions:

• If an article has very little citations and content available, can that article be considered for creation.
• On contacting @Courcelles, i got the reply that the article be moved to WP:AFC for review for creation. Since i am only a autoconfirmed user, i cannot do that, please help me for article be moved for review.

Work2win (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found your draft here. I've only glanced at the thing and can't really comment regarding whether or not it is suitable for mainspace - you have quite a few references there (good!) but I don't yet know if they are all suitable. A subject that has few sources may suffer from issues relating to notability.

An alternative to moving it to WP:AFC would be to invite people to take a look at it in its current location. I'm happy to do a bit of work on it and explain the issues (there are some, even at first glance, but those are fixable). - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only one of five? It feels like more than that. Mind you, they've banned more people from their talk page in five months than I've done in several years. I'm still compiling evidentiary stuff but find it depressing - I'll see what I can do. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hey Sitush, We haven't interacted much but I've been watching you for a while on the Austrian Economics dispute, and I appreciate you taking the time to try and be a neutral/moderating voice on that front. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to AE, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note on Afd

I commend you for starting the Stromberg AfD. There are many more poorly/incestuously sourced BLPs of totally unnotable Austrian economists on WP. For just a few examples, see Ralph Raico, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, and Joseph Salerno. Note that they are all affiliated with the Mises Institute, and were created or heavily edited by User:DickClarkMises, a former employee of the Institute who currently edits its wiki. (Kinsella, an exception to this, actually created his own WP page after the previous version (created by Dick Clark) was deleted.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, don't canvass me about these, please. If you want to nominate something then just go ahead and do it. You know that I know of the existence of such "incestuous" articles but I'm not prepared to act as your stooge in the ongoing, highly personalised battle that exists between you, a few others and Carolmooredc etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How specifically is the above "canvassing"? I just let you know of the existence of other similar articles; I did not attempt to persuade or frighten you into taking any specific action. It seems to me, Mister Sitush, that you are committed to being critical of other users. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Stood alone at the back and pug-ugly. Yep, I'm not here as part of a popularity contest or beauty pageant!

It is a pretty blatant attempt to get me to take a look at other articles that you consider to have parallels with the one that I've referred to AfD. Gloss it in which ever way you wish but I don't wish to see it here, whether as canvassing, a "heads up", a moan or even a presumption that I am some sort of fellow-traveller in the ongoing libertarian debates. Sorry, but I am not going to get dragged into the MilesMoney/Steeletrap/Specifico vs Carolmooredc/Srich merry-go-round on anything other than my own terms. I've said this enough times that you must surely have seen it somewhere.

I'm not involved in Wikipedia as part of some popularity contest, beauty pageant or diplomatic training exercise. I call things how I see them on this page, often with lots of typos & mangled phrasing to boot. If you don't care for criticism or are particularly thin-skinned (you are, as I recall, quick to jump to WP:NPA) then this probably will not be a pleasant talk page for you because, alas, I've not been impressed. I've been dealing with POV pushing types, wikilawyers and pseudo-neutral contributors (ie: neutral when it suits them) for too long to be taken in. Then again, I'm always happy to forgive when someone changes tack. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mister Sitush, please try to brighten up. It's the Holiday Season! Flash me a smile from time to time! (I am sure it is anything but "pug"-"ugly", as you put it.) I am making it my mission to de-Grinch you in time for the new year. Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't do holidays either & there's never much cause for special celebrations in my life. So, no cards, no presents, no feasts, no festive piss-ups. Rather than go all false, goo-ey and pleasant for a couple of weeks a year, I maintain a moderate consistency and manner throughout it. Doubtless some think I'm the cynical one but this is me: I'm not asking people to like it but I'm not short on friends, here or in the real world. They get year-round support & consideration from me rather than a fortnight of overload and nothing for 50 weeks. I may have a bottle of Joey Holt's Bah! Humbrew later ... but probably won't ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All I hear is "Bah! Humbug!" Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC) :P Steeletrap (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the wordplay - see the last entry in the list here. I don't need a designated time to give someone a present, tell them they're a great friend or call round for a chinwag etc. Nor do I hold any religious belief. I'm freed of all those marketing gimmicks, social pressures/brainwashing exercises etc. Each to their own, the only awkwardness being that I don't force my views on others but some idiots (notably, at this time of year, the doorstepping godsquads) try to force theirs on me. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Doc. Duke

Good evening, Mister Grinch.

I have a reading assignment for you regarding the little tête-à-tête we're having about "bias" on the Adjwilley page. TFD claims that Doc. Duke had purged the racism from his political agenda by the 1991 campaign (the one Rothbard wrote about fondly). You are ordered, my pupil, to read the Triple-D (Doc. Dave Duke) wiki to learn about the 'development' of his racial views, as this background knowledge is necessary for you to effectively evaluate allegations of "biased editors." (Particularly insightful is the quote from Duke's 1990 campaign manager about how Duke's stubborn insistence on attacking the Jews so much prevented him from attacking the blacks as much as he should). P.S.: I totally don't mean to be condescending with the 'pupil' stuff. I don't think I'm smarter than you (though I don't think you're smarter than me by simple virtue of the haughty (not to mention just plain hot) accent). I just thought "pupil" would have resonance with you, in the event that you attended grammar school in Britain. Steeletrap (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm spending all day re-roofing my house but I'm not likely to rely on what Wikipedia says about Duke even when I have the time to look at it. It'll be about as reliable as a chocolate teapot, as most articles about high-profile controversial people are. I sort of know his reputation but if detailed knowledge of him is required to understand another article then we're doing something wrong at that other article. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pics please! As for Triple D, if you distrust his WP, I refer you to Google and his personal website. Steeletrap (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley's AE pages

Hello Sitush. I understand that you've grown frustrated with the colloquy over at Adewilley/AE. I hope that at some point you will review your decision to drop off the thread there. In effect, Adjwilley's pages are like a WP Petri dish or terrarium which has replicated some of the processes which led to bad interactions in the AE articles. It's no secret that, in my opinion, the departure of Carolmooredc would set the articles back on track. I think this was clearly demonstrated by her behavior on Adjwilley's pages. I don't know, and am not inquiring as to, your view. Maybe you've "seen enough" and have made up your mind about the whole AE mess. If not, and if you decide that further participation would help you to understand the situation better, I hope you will consider returning when Adjwilley reactivates the pages. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point because it is inevitably going to end up with Arbcom. Adjwilley's exercise merely proved that the two sides are unwilling to move on either in terms of entrenched content positions or behaviour. Some things that you said were atrociously out of order, as were some that Carol and perhaps others said: the well-intentioned exercise is thus futile. I've been neutral on the content issues and that's where I'm staying but the real issue is behavioural and there have been few participants other than TFD, Srich and Binksternet who have shown any inclination to keep a lid on things. Frankly, it has been appalling to watch. If I were you, I'd start preparing your diffs now because ArbCom are not going to accept many of the claims that you have made without such things. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of your behavior has also been atrociously out of order, as I suspect you know. I won't disturb you again on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no. If I've done anything wrong then please do tell. Your remark sounds like a kneejerk comment but I'm certainly not perfect. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya

Hello Sitush, Please refer to the discussion between me and Rajkris in the Kshatriya talk page. Have made a point-wise reply to Rajkris on my talk page (please see here). Need your help and guidance in formatting the intro section in Kshatriya article please. Please suggest how the intro should be written..--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sorry to trouble you, but please cud you help archive all content on my talk page before the current topic Kshatriya. I tried archiving but failed (have no clue how to go about it). Many thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi Mayasutra, I'm pleased to see that you haven't given up on us! I've archived your talk page as requested and I've also taken the liberty of setting up autoarchiving with some code right at the top of your page. You can fiddle with the details (how often to archive, how much etc) to suit yourself but I thought that you might find this more convenient - if you don't then just let me know & I'll turn it off. You've also now got a searchable archive box there, so that you get more easily dig out old stuff if you need it.

I'll certainly take a look at the kshatriya thing but it won't be until tomorrow or perhaps even Saturday. Can it wait that long? Is the world going to end before then? Would anyone bother telling me if it was? - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Very many thanks for archiving, setting up autoarchiving. Never expected such a quick response. No prob, the kshatriya thing can wait. Am traveling next week and may not have internet access until early Jan. Please take your time and see how the intro can be formatted. Many thanks again.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ok. I hope that it is a pleasant trip - it reads as if you're off to see the family. I'll drop a note with Rajkris so that they know what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Am going with the family. Just hoping snow does not ruin things....--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hello Sithush. Thanks. I will have a look this WE. I am really busy in my prof life, so not much time to write wiki articles unfortunately.Rajkris (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rajkris, This has been a long standing issue. Previously my response to you (here) went unanswered (I request Sitush to take a look at that response too). Thanks, --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Good that we're all talking. Obviously, the Kshatriya article is quite a significant thing and this is reflected by the number of articles that link to it. You're both aware that I'm not unfamiliar with the subject matter and, yes, it is a tricky one. All this said, there is no rush to resolve any issues that either of both of you might think are present in the current version. It would be great to improve it but we are not (I think) dealing with a situation that involves copyright violations or potential slurs against identifiable living people (the WP:BLP issue). That you're both constrained by real life situations is no big deal: I'll do some reviewing of what has been said and will do some digging myself. When we're all around then we can progress things but until then work and family matters are far more important. And, Mayasutra, don't worry about the snow! - nothing can ruin spending some quality time with our families. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I should have added that the chances are quite high that I will be in hospital for the next stage in my medical saga sometime early 2014. That might throw a spanner in the works but it is all a bit vague at the moment. The person who will make the decision and do the op is someone whom I know from my days playing rugby ... and since I'm also responsible for fixing his computers etc, I think it is in his interests not to kill me off! - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Again? Take care Sitush. Health is most important. Everything else can wait (wiki won't be the same without you around for a while though; hope its not too long). Get well soon.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Sitush : Take care of your health. All the best. - Rayabhari (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

On why I don't want you posting there anymore, except of course official notices. And I don't intend to post on yours anymore unless official notices are needed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think I give a crap? I've not got your talk page watchlisted & have no intention of getting further involved in the dispute. You know both of these things - I've told you before - so why on earth you think that I might post on your page again is beyond me. So this looks like just another screwed-up, point-y post from you, doesn't it? - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)