User talk:Sitush

Jag är Ikea. This user stands with Sweden. Je suis Ikea.

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

Indian village stubs again

Hey there Sitush,

After a bit of a hiatus I'm starting to remove the 159 stuff from Indian village stubs again. I've got a question about naming. A few times I've come across villages with names like D.Velampalli, with no space after the period. Is that an error, or is there some kind of naming convention for the space to be omitted? If it's wrong, I'll start doing page moves as well.

Cheers, Reyk _YO! 09:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: sorry, I was not editing much for a couple of months. The spacing issue has cropped up from time to time at WT:INB. Some sources use it, some do not, some use both on the same page! That's Indian official sources etc, so it is a bit of a mess. I think the consensus was to add the space, mainly for reasons of legibility and because when the abbreviation is used it does in fact refer to a longer word that, if fully written, would definitely be spaced.

And before you ask, we're not always sure what the longer word should be! - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Hello Sitush: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Ambalavasi

As you suggested the content have been moved to talk page of the article. Please add comments. पुष्पकः (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability?

If Periya Puranam is not reliable and Thurston is not reliable , Mangalore university is not reliable. Who is reliable? A thousand lies won’t cover a truth. Grow up man Chekaun (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Periya is an ancient primary source; Edgar Thurston is not reliable per longstanding consensus of the Wikipedia community - he is one of the worst examples of amateur ethnologists of the Raj era. Not sure what your "Mangalore University" is referring to. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

All the historical things are realized only from ancient works, inscriptions and materials collected by archaeological excavations. Periya Puranam was written by Sekkizhar a minister of Chola Empire. You cannot say it is rubbish. Chekaun (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY. It isn't me that says it is unreliable, it is the Wikipedia community in general. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in Channar (surname)

Hello, I'm Chekaun. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Channar(surname) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Chekaun (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do read Periya Puranam and learn some Tamil before editing unnecessarily Chekaun (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

See my reply to you above. And please do not call my edits vandalism, as you did in your revert. See WP:NOTVANDALISM. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Channar (surname). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chekaun (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Read Periya Puranam. Get an English copy if you don’t know Tamil Chekaun (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

How many more times do I have to tell you that an ancient primary source such as the Periya is not reliable - I even linked to the reason why this is so in the preceding section here. You've just reverted me yet again and you're going to end up blocked and probably topic banned if you keep this up. You have made barely one edit worth retaining since you turned up and you're argumentative style here is not going to help matters. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You have reinstated the Lulu Press book in that article, too, and that is something I've also explained on your talk page. Please read WP:SPS. At least one of the other sources that you have reinstated doesn't even mention the term - I gave my rationales in the edit summaries and, frankly, for someone who only started editing a couple of weeks ago, you seem to have a fairly decent grasp of templates etc and thus I suspect must know how edit summaries work (you have even used them yourself). - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:DRN Chekaun (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Chekaun, please do not use {} in places where [] are needed. see, wP:WIKILINK--DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chekaun - Do not waste my time or that of Sitush by Yelling Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year.

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

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

Edit war

It is applicable to you also. WP:DISENGAGE WP:CONTENT-DISPUTE Chekaun (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't reverted you again but you've still not justified reinstating that material and there is absolutely no way that you can justify it in a manner which complies with our policies and guidelines. So I suggest you self-revert and try to find acceptable sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding caste names to people

Category 1 : People who are dead. the caste of such people can be added to the biography if the information is from a reliable source. please read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists . so on the basis of this fact i am going to attach caste names to those who are dead. i hope i am right?

category 2: caste is not equivalent to sexual orientation where a person can be gender fluid. caste is also not equivalent to religious belief which can change upon his/her wish. caste is an identity by birth which is unique for which there is no guidelines. also caste is not a private matter of an individual since it is used at nearly all places including jobs, marriage etc. hence mentioning caste identity of an individual from a reliable source is right and and fair. also please read Sitush/Common#Castelists in the article regarding amitabh bachaan there is no mention that he wants to hide his caste identity. the article talks about those surnames which do not indicate any particular caste and he has one such surname. so, i dont think that it is against wikipedia policy to mention caste of those individuals who are living and for which i have reliable sources. correct me if i am wrong. is there any wikipedia policy which specifically talks about "caste identity" which i should know about because Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not mention anything about caste. caste is an important identity to an individual and if there is a reliable source i believe it should be mentioned. please reply soon. NikhilPatelReal (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)NikhilPatelReal

You are correct regarding (1), provided the source is referring to the person in question and not to a relative etc and provided it does say they were a member, not that they were a patron of some organisation or similar. Regarding (2), I think you will find that there are links at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists that take you to various discussions where consensus was formed. The chances of you overturning that consensus are pretty much zero and, indeed, that page gives a classic example of why your logic above is not acceptable, ie: Amitabh Bachchan, who refuses to accept being classified by the caste that was attributed to other members of his family. You're not going to get your way because BLP does indeed deal with how people self-identify.

To be honest, I would advise you to find something else to do. These attributions of caste to people are rarely important to them or to any encyclopaedic description of the caste, and they're an absolute graveyard for new contributors who insist on warring over the issue. Most people couldn't care less. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add that if your username reflects your real identity (please do not tell me) then you really should probably avoid articles such as those for Kurmi, Kunbi, Patidar and Patel. In my experience, at least, members of castes are utterly incapable of following Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to writing about their own communities and affiliated groups. You may, of course, prove to be an exception to the rule but they are very few indeed. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Pataudi subject(s)

Hey mate, thank you for correcting my edits. I definitely need to learn more about the scripts and all. Not doubting you but genuinely curious, why is Lethbridge considered unreliable? - Best, Unexpected Historian (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus that we avoid Raj era sources, notably for matters of history and ethnography. There have been discussions about it at WP:RSN and WT:INB in the past, as well as at numerous article talk pages. As a more general rule, see WP:HISTRS for some discussion. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I guess I should read up if I am to make edits of this kind. So do we avoid the Imperial Gazetteer as well since it was first published in the Raj-era? If not, then left is a 19th century book which is definitely Raj-era which mentions this info. I tried to find a copy of Sher Ali Pataudi's The Elite Minority, which according to the Hindu article contains information about the family and is likely the source of their info on Pataudi family, but there isn't one, print or online. Please advise. Always best - Unexpected Historian (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as a general rule avoid the Gazetteer also. There are limited circumstances where even sources such as this may be valid but you'd need to judge carefully. For example, the Gazetteer's statistics for the area of a princely state might be valid, provided that you stipulated the year to which the figure applied, but in any event there are much more recent books concerning those states and so we should prefer those. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Another quick point about the Gazetteer that perhaps illustrates the issue is in relation to the 1857 rebellion. While that obviously happened fairly close to the time of printing rather than centuries ago, there is no way that an account in the Gazetteer could be considered reliable given the prejudices of its imperial writers and the purpose that it was intended to serve. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, I will avoid The Gazetteer. I've changed the start date of the family to 1804 as per the The Hindu article; same date is mentioned in a couple other sources I could find. I will look for more reliable sources.

A point about the bias, in accepting the The Hindu article, which likely uses information from Sher Ali Pataudi's book, as reliable, we're choosing the Pataudis' own bias against that of the Imperial writers. The reliability of either, to me, seems arbitrary. I will go with the consensus since this is Wikipedia. Happy to be in correspondence with you, Unexpected Historian (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Periya Puranam

It is a biography written by Sekkizhar- a vellala about 63 nayannar saints belonging to different clans. I think it is a secondary source because these nayannars lived before Sekkizhar. What do you think? Chekaun (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)