User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

For the source you wanted

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

Silverseren^C 04:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the email didn't send properly and was returned to me. Is your email for your account set up right? Silverseren^C 19:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I cannot explain that, @Silver seren:. Everything seems to be fine with my email generally and the settings are correct. Perhaps a brief ISP blip at my end? Thanks for trying ... and what was the error code, if you still have the bounce message? - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Error message is below. Would you be willing to send me an email so I can just send you the source as an attachment more directly?

"SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host mta7.am0.yahoodns.net [98.138.112.35]: 554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See http://postmaster.yahoo.com/errors/postmaster-28.html" Silverseren^C 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I will mail you, SS. I have no idea why that happened - Yahoo are not even involved in my routing, as far as I am aware. Sorry about this. - Sitush (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Attachment sent. I hope it gets to you safely. Silverseren^C 04:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is for but thanks anyway. I tend to ask questions of the MILHIST project (and get great help from it) but I do not write much that relates to it. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Earlier in 2014 you had nominated the article William Beach Thomas for featured status, which it achieved. As we was a war correspondent, he is within the purview of the Military history Wikiproject, which in turn is why you received a barnstar from us. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Beda people

I have thrown in a couple of hooks to try and get this DYK through the door. Illegitimi non carborundum. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I'm really not that fussed right now. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi, when you come across obvious crap like this, could you do me a favour and slap {{copyvio}} on it on Commons or just ping me? I've nuked that one on Commons. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I'm not sure what crap you are referring to but I do indeed usually nip over to tag at Commons, as my history there should demonstrate. Presumably this was an oversight/lack of time or, in my current mood, "couldn't give a crap any more". Someone needs to get a grip of the goings-on here. Until they do, I'm sorry but don't expect me to put myself out for a minute longer than is necessary if I'm already fuming about something: at present, when I spot something here that puts me in that mood, which is pretty much every visit thanks to WP:AE, Rationalobserver, Oranges, Knowledgekid etc, it is best that I just drift away for a while. Leaving something part-done is better in the long run than risking saying something that everyone will regret. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant this edit. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Got you. That caught me at a bad time; times have gotten worse since. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beda people

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I thought this had been dumped around the time I was in hospital. Thanks to whoever picked up on it. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

admirenepal

Who it was?[1] How he is still editing with a new account? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The range is too awkward to block, so he keeps coming back with new accounts. It creates a mountain of clean up every time unfortunately. The account you refer to is now blocked but there was a delay, apparently because I pinged Ponyo at the SPI case page but there is some sort of blip going on whereby pings there are not always being transmitted. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have the SPI on my watchlist, but was away for a few days while I battled an epic head cold. Hopefully the response time won't be so delayed next time (and you know there will be a next time). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IAC block evasion?

Given this apparent insider comment, and the same IP's edit to Aam Aadmi Party, I suspected more block evasion by India Against Corruption. Does anyone agree? Does anyone think it worth blocking, or is it an open proxy? - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding List of Rajputs article

Thank you before for left message in my talk page. I think here is what i can provide as citation regarding Isa Khan. Im not included the link before because i think its not necessary because the primary sources which from Akbarnama, tertiary sources from the Chowdhury and tertiary sources from Banglapedia was already included in Isa Khan page:

“ According to Abul Fazl, a 16th-century historian and the author of Akbarnama:

“ Isa Khan's father was born in Bais Rajput clan. He revolted and was later killed in a battle against Islam Shah Suri. Isa and his brother Ismail were sold as slaves. After the death of Islam Shah Suri, Taj Khan Karrani came to rule Bengal. Qutubuddin, the paternal uncle of Isa Khan, consolidated his position under Taj Khan. Qutubuddin then brought the two brothers from Turan region. Isa Khan gradually solidified his position under the Karrani rulers. ”

The year Isa Khan's father was killed in the battle was 1548. He spent his childhood and youth in Bhati. Furthermore explained that Baghirath, Isa Khan's grandfather was belonged to the Rajput community who came to Bengal from Ayodhya, particularly as explained by Muhammad Abdur Rahim, author of Social and cultural history of Bengal noted he was from Kshatriya Rajputs, indicating his noble background. He took the job of diwan under the Sultan of Bengal Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah. His son was named Kalidas Gazdani, who inherit the post after Baghirath's death. Later, Kalidas convert to Islam and took the Muslim name Sulaiman. Sulaiman married the Sultan’s daughter Syeda Momena Khatun and got the Zamindari of Sarail

”

So do i must include those citations too?Ahendra (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ahendra: thanks for this note and, as I said earlier, it is appreciated that you attempt to source your statements. The main problem was that there was a large-ish edit war going on at List of Rajputs and it involved a pretty substantial addition of names to the list that in many cases were not as well sourced as might first appear. I don't think you added those originally - that was the work of someone who has already had warnings - but you did reinstate them.

The treatment of caste identity is a particularly awkward issue on Wikipedia and I am hoping that you have now read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. While there are people who will say that if the linked article is sourced then you do not need to repeat those sources in the lists, the reality is that there are so many instances of poor sourcing and even misrepresentation that it is in fact much better to make the list entries self-contained rather than reliant on the link, where the information quite likely will change anyway.

I can see some problems in the specific instance that you give above. The first is that the primary source (Akbarnama) is simply not acceptable, as I suspect you already know. I cannot read the Chowdury source but it is well-known that the quality of history writing in India can be pretty poor (not always, obviously) and we do not even have a publisher's name that might give us some confidence. I also cannot read one of the Banglapedia sources, while the other one doesn't seem even mention the word Rajput.

Rather than add a large number of entries in one go, it is probably better to add, say, five at a time and only then when you are absolutely sure. Wait for a while and see if anyone challenges, then add some more. Better still, if there is even a remote chance of doubt, just stick the person's name on the article talk page and list the sources that you have - almost certainly, you will get some responses and it will save a lot of unnecessary back-and-forth on the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay i'll wait for a while, regarding to re edit now. However i want to ask about the Sources. maybe the other secondary source from Michigan university which published by Superintendent government it contain same information about his rajputs origin could convince you:

https://books.google.com/books?ei=IlLXVObgNuXXmgWRtoGABw&id=gBTMAAAAMAAJ&dq=Final+report+of+the+settlement+operation+in+five+thanas+of+the+partially+excluded+area+of+Mymensingh,+1938-42&q=kalidas&redir_esc=yhttps://books.google.com/books?ei=IlLXVObgNuXXmgWRtoGABw&id=gBTMAAAAMAAJ&dq=Final+report+of+the+settlement+operation+in+five+thanas+of+the+partially+excluded+area+of+Mymensingh,+1938-42&q=kalidas&redir_esc=y Ahendra

about the tertiary source Banglapedia i forgot to tell there's english version of it. and here is the List of editors of Banglapedia which consisted from numerous Bangladesh University if you would care http://www.banglapedia.org/english/editors.htm

As for Akbar Nama i honestly dont really know the particular reason it deemed acceptable, Banglapedia themselves has cast some doubt regarding Akbar Nama for place name chronology but not for the historical figure like Isa Khan.

Please tell me if there's more doubt regarding Akbar Nama. as for the List of Rajputs page i think i will leave it for while, the Edit war seems cant be helped for now unless administrator step in http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/B_0531.htm

(talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ahendra:, we do not use the Raj era sources (which is what the Michigan University digitisation happens to be). I'm not aware of any problems relating to Banglapedia, although it is often inaccessible and I think was in fact taken down for a while. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Samba

[2] It was unclear to me why the text was removed. The article had many good references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Global Vision is a mirror. Some of the sources were primary. Others were obscure Raj sources that tend not to be reliable. The spelling of the name was changed throughout. There were other reasons, too, but I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Only 1 ref is Global Vision. I see many solid references: e.g. Vettam Mani (1975). Puranic Encyclopaedia; Tourism Department, Government of Orissa; Baij Nath Puri. References like [3] are not considered primary, as they have commentaries. There are Raj sources from prominent Indologists like Lionel Barnett and Alexander Cunningham, which I will regard RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, put it back. You're better at Hindu religious articles than I, although generally speaking we also try to avoid stuff from the Govt of Orissa because they're wacko pov-pushers also. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Caste edits review

Sitush, can you review my reverts (([4] and [5])) to Sisodia and Paramara pages ? The IP who made the original edits appears to be a typical caste-glorifier, and he changed some information that seemed to be sourced. On the other hand, the source he was citing by Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi may be acceptable (or may turn out to be another untrustworthy caste history). Your expertise would help! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw you do those reverts and I agree with them. It is quite common to see Gurjars trying to muscle in on Rajput articles - there doesn't seem to be much love lost between the two groups. Munshi was something of an all-rounder rather than a specialist: I'd rather see support from someone who has a relevant academic background and is unconnected to the subject matter. Ideally, someone whose work has been cited by other academics also, which (unsurprisingly) doesn't really seem to be the case for Munshi.

All of the above said, the two articles are currently sourced to this, which is at least as bad and probably even worse! I'll see what I can dig up in the way of decent sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check. The problem, as usual, with the caste articles is choosing between no sources, poor sources, and worse source. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi Sitush, do you know this user? [6] Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall any dealings with them. Their notion that the District Gazetteers are reliable is not a good start, if only because of sanskritisation. Furthermore, in most cases the caste of a person simply is not relevant to their notability or even their life: it is almost always a form of fan-cruft and tittle-tattle. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it might be a caste war. The Category:Chitpavan Brahmin seems to have been almost entirely populated today! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Brahmins and Rajputs are the worse for doing this. Perhaps not surprisingly, the "lower" castes tend not to advertise the fact unless there is some extreme glorification to be gained from it. Are you aware that the number of castes more than doubled over a period of 40 or so years (roughly 1900-1940) and has increased further since? That's sanskritisation for you. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, see User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. The entire sequence needs to be reversed. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

how dare you call KM Munshi to be unreliable and all slanderous names?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.77.227 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush sir

Hi Sitush sir i am saryupareen brahmin from a village of name matiyara in Basti district of uttarpradesh. My village is nearer to bastion city just south east of city and 3 miles away from city. In basti district saryupareen brahmins and bhumihar brahmins marriage still happens from ancient time. and also their is mention about bhumihar or bhuinhar brahmins of kaashyap gotra in kanyakubj vanshavali , and those bhuinhar brahmins are kanyakubj brahmins this all is true god promise. if you don't believe see the matiyara village of basti and also their are 12 more villages: and also see kanyakubj vanshavali this don't destroy our bhumihar brahmin brothers we want to save them by telling the real truth. for god save them. they are unaware of these fact please sir donot delete it please sir please. you have to save the truth for god and for our bhumihar brahmin brothers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas tiwari (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The campaign for recognition of the Bhumihar community as Brahmins has been conducted on Wikipedia for years. The problem is that we need reliable independent sources and in fact all we seem to get is repeated references to the work of Sahajanand Saraswati, who was the primary campaigner for being recognised as such and was himself a Bhumihar. Sanskritisation is the underlying problem here, sorry, and there is no point in trying to turn Wikipedia into another soapbox for that cause. We exist to reflect the sources, not to make history. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sisodia Rajputs

Hello Sitush donot delete facts from sisodia rajputs article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamburningdesire (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Suryavansha

Hello Sitush i want to say that you have edit Suryavansha article and thier also you deleted do not change Suryavansha article also

Aam Aadmi Party

Hello Sitush Sir, I am glad to know that you have given lot of relevant information to Wikipedia from over 7 years but please don't alter the regional name of Aam Aadmi Party i have edited in the mentioned article. The reasons behind that are Hindi is the common language among all Indians and Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, the founder of this party has addressed to the Delhi People in Hindi, All his manifestos and promises are almost in Hindi language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hindi is not "the common language among all Indians". Plenty of them cannot read, write or speak it. In any event, please see WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mertia Rathore

Candidate for AFD? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another mess: Satha Chaurasi --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will have a dig around my books etc but things do not look hopeful on the face of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I can find only this in relation to the Mertia, and it really only refers to one person in passing. The exact same text appears in another book from the same publisher. There are plenty of passing mentions of the Ghanerao that it refers to but nothing that seems directly to discuss the clan. I suppose the article could be redirected to Rathore for now, since the clan clearly does exist. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tidied up Satha Chaurasi as best I can but I cannot do much about the Hindi sources and I suspect that the Indian rebellion section is really just local glorification. I think it is notable as a name for a region but it would be good if someone could specify the villages that are referred to by the term, thus turning the thing into a list with a short explanation of significance. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil environment

You asked me to define a civil environment. I'll define what it isn't. A civil environment doesn't have people disrespecting each other, nor does it have people who intend to harm others or their work. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition begs more questions than it answers. And that really was my point when I asked: people have different interpretations of civility, of what is or is not disrespectful and/or harmful, of what constitutes work that is valid for this project, etc. No-one disagrees with the gist but drawing the lines is nigh-on impossible.

So why bother? Instead, get back to doing something more useful, more likely to succeed and, yes, less disruptive than the constant clamour, stalking and so on that some aggressively authoritarian people seem mostly to live for here. In particular, the tendency of otherwise obviously intelligent people to favour what amounts in some respects to cultural imperialism is something that I find difficult to understand, especially when those people usually also quite obviously have thick skins when it suits them. If Wikipedia was intended to be first and foremost a social experiment, that should have been stated at the outset and should be prominent in welcome notices etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you view the complete rejection of civility as "cultural imperialism"? Aren't you trying to force your standard on everybody else? Wikipedia is by definition a social experiment, it need not be explicitly stated; i.e., all collaborations are social, and all new and developing communities are experimental. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't advocate a "complete rejection" of civility, so I have no need to answer that. Mine is not a standard as such but rather a laissez-faire approach. I don't need or want a book of increasingly specious rules for so-called civility and, by and large, this place functions perfectly well without one, so live and let live. If anyone here is aiming for a Utopia then I'll give them the names of a few psychiatrists because that is where they need to look; if they want to sing Kum Ba Ya then I can direct them to a few churches.

I didn't see anyone taking a pop at HJ Mitchell for recently using words such as "fuck", "bollocks" etc but if, say, Eric Corbett uses such words then the vultures would descend. You need to recognise that the real issue is personalities, not civility, and that calling people misogynists (as I and others have been called) when the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise is at least as potentially offensive as using some word that some arguably prudish sub-culture has deemed unacceptable. Some of the most "toxic personalities" on this project have never written anything here that would ever appear in a list of proscribed words.

Get over it and get back to improving the content, I say. You've got to see the big picture, and in that the occasional twat (use of, person who sometimes act like one) can be tolerated. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But you are advocating a complete rejection of the civility policy, which is really what I meant above, not that you are never civil to anyone, just that you don't want a policy to dictate behavioral standards. When you suggested that I was part of a secret off-Wiki cabal, I said it was bullshit, and you asked me to not call you a liar. While I wasn't really calling you a liar, I was calling the claim a lie, you did indicate that it was unacceptable, which implied you do expect a certain level of civility, at least when it comes to you and your friends. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, it's not "secret", I saw that you're referred to by name on a certain off-wiki mailing list. EChastain (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I chose those words carefully, not in anger. For example, in my conversation with Giano I was well aware that Giano wouldn't take offence at my use of the word "fuck", and some people respond better to brutal frankness than to verbose explanation. And if "bollocks" is even mildly offensive these days I'll apologise to anyone genuinely offended, but euphemisms would not have been sufficient to convey the stupidity of the remark I was responding to (not linking because it would be unfair to the person who made the remark; observers, please take my word for it). I'm not disagreeing wiht your point, but noting that Eric's reputation is not entirely unfair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that you did choose them carefully, Harry. But one of the problems is that people get upset by proxy, ie: you might have known that Giano wouldn't mind but someone else could jump on that bandwagon. The day that someone blocks Jimbo for his repeated attacks etc is the day that I might consider criticisms of Eric to be at least in part justified. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But that sounds like your issue is more with parity, not civility in general. After all, how can you criticize Jimbo for making personal attacks with one breath while condoning EC's attacks with another? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Really, I don't have an issue: the status quo regarding civility enforcement seems about right to me, ie: we know it exists but we accept that often it is subjective and/or not worth getting in a tizz. De facto, it is those campaigning for a more strict enforcement of civility who have the issue, and I'm really just pointing out the inconsistencies and illogicalities of it all. Like I said, most of the civility-related stuff here is really about personalities (and it is often long-held grudges etc). Hit the articles, forget the crap. Oh, and ask Jimbo to close down his talk page and/or redirect it to Meta, which for reasons of his role and systemic bias is probably where it should always have been. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)