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.

Hey...fix your life=

Check Dhillon talk page and stop being a bull in china shop. I have seen you destroying work of others and being rude to them. You obviously seem intelligent and passionate who spends lot of time at WP, all of which is good but somehow as an editor your your approach is VERY NEGATIVE and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. You are causing WP and the community opposite of what you intend to do ... trying to do good, but causing lot of damage ... and acting self important in your own mind, unfortunately somehow you have ended up with reviers authrity at WP where you can even block other users (talk about blind frustrated bull in china shop) ... but it is narcissist illusion ...specially the way you comment about other are rude. As an editor, positively engage and encourage editors through their learning curve rather than act a NDP destructive butcher who permanently runs people off WP by misusing WP reviewer's authority that has unfortunately ended up in your undeserving hands. Also, stop throwing WP rule book at others to discourage them. Accept all WP edits as GOOD FATH unless you can prove them otherwise. It is time for you to introspect. if one were to psychoanalyse you, you seem frustrated in life. Fix your life, cure your angry-with-the-world NDP dysfunction, try not to log on to WP when you are feeling angry or frustrated in your life, come back only when you can constructively edit ...instead of butchering improve the WP articles or else leave them untouched, i hv specially noticed your bad attitude towards other editors of various jat pages, either you are full of self-loathing inferiority complex if you are a jat, if you are non-jat then you sure are full of hate. either way you are a frustrated soul unleashed on WP community ..a place where you come to make yourself feel all powerful by acting COUNTER PRODUCTIVE by butchering edits. Do not try to increase your edit counts by rejecting works of thousand of people (remember first rule of WP is GOOD FAITH edit, keep your WP rule book to urself which u tend to misuse in your frustration, first follow the first rule of WP which is "accept all work as good faith" unless you can prove otherwise with specific counter reference), also you have extremely narrow definition of (way narrower than WP guidelines...remember they are just guidelines not RULES SET IN CONCRETE...not to be misused by destructive reviewers to butcher the work...if you want to contribute then instead of increasing ur edit count by rejecting thousands of edits, pick only few edits and work on improving those).

be a productive member of WP, make it a good place for others to learn slowly, encourage them, big and enhance their work, fix your own life (take a break from WP until you resolve issues in your frustrated life, WP is not a substitute for counseling...WP is not a place to come butcher others work with narrow application of WP rules and with your OWN ILL-INFORMED BIAS ABOUT WHO IS A GOOD SOURCE OR NOT.

Please take it in a positive manner. if you can not add value to the world, do not destroy it. A good leader (WP editor/reviewer) creates more leaders (WP editor/reviewer), not butcher and runs others off. Fix yourself, before you fix others (destroy) ...Time to INTROSPECT

JATs it ...

Vdhillon (talk)

List of Nadars

Thank you for the explanation in my talk page, with all due respect sir, all the other names in that pages have no reference at all, at least I point a article where the subject's father caste, that is same as his own. No problem, I am a newbie to the wikipedia, thanks for pointing to the right direction. :) Regards,

Your recent good-faith edits to Satti

I've noticed that with this edit you reverted several previous edits, including my addition of three categories to the Satti article. You then, with this edit, re-added one of these three categories to the article, clearly showing that at least some portion of the reverted material was reverted needlessly. Please consider reading Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting before making any further reverts. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what I'm doing, thanks. I've been here a while now. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp I could have reverted four different people, who had contributed numerous edits, or I could have taken it back to the last good version and then reinstated the one valid category of your three. The first takes four edits and the latter takes two but in both cases the summary would have been the same: H. A. Rose is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The optimal way of handling the situation would've been to manually restore what was in your opinion "the last good version," leaving the correct bits intact; that way, one edit would've sufficed, and your actions wouldn't have resulted in other users' needlessly receiving a revert notification. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That would have meant a lot of unpicking. Have you any idea how many articles I have watchlisted and how many of them get bad edits every day? Although, tbh, I wasn't even aware that using Twinkle's "restore" function (as opposed to "revert") resulted in every person getting pinged - are you sure about that? - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You reverted a number of edits, and then restored a portion of the reverted content without properly attributing the original source of that content. In this particular case, that content was merely a category and thus arguably doesn't need attribution, but what I find worrying is that in the future you may inadvertently do it to a more significant chunk of text thus needlessly aggravating another editor. Whenever there's any salvageable content whatsoever in any of the edits you consider reverting, it is advisable to edit out the "bad" content manually instead of using the "undo" button. As for pinging, I cannot speak for everyone whose edits were reverted, but I assure you that I did, in fact, receive a notification of your revert. Please understand that I did not come here to complain; I came here to offer advice which I think you could benefit from. If you believe my advice is unneeded, feel free to ignore it, but I would ask that you at least take what I said into consideration. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies and Bishonen: do I need to modify my behaviour of the last seven years or so? I've gone 130k edits without anyone complaining but, hey, maybe I'm wrong? - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Category:Punjabi tribes is redundant, since Category:Rajput clans of Punjab is already listed in that category. Category:Muree hill tribes, I don't know: there's no Muree and no hills in the article. For the rest, I find the verbosity and tone here a bit patronizing, esp. coming from someone with so few edits. It is possible that they have a theoretical point, which could have been made if the message had been less wordy and more collegial in tone. Moving right along, Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bearing in mind that Iaritmioawp is linking to an essay, I am inclined just to carry on as before. I've gone this far without even being aware of the thing and without anyone ever mentioning it to me, so it sounds more like a pet peeve than anything with real weight behind it. The attribution is, of course, always there in the history because the edits were on the same article, not a copy from one article to another. So, thanks Iaritmioawp but no thanks: I'll stick with my own judgment here.- Sitush (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What Sitush has done is the normal way of salvaging any useful information. As it consumes less time. @Iaritmioawp: I don't think you need to feel aggravated. Content matters above anything else. You can go to your preferences and turn off the notifications for reverts. I am surprised that you even brought this up.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I was pinged (without being aggravated), I'll say my piece, even though I see Vigyani already made my point, Iaritmioawp : that if you don't want to be notified about reverts, whole or partial, you can turn off that function in your preferences. Reverting the whole and then restoring the good bits by hand is a normal procedure because it's often the simplest way to partially revert. I have done it many times. In a more complex situation, it can be the only practicable situation, and there is nothing "optimal" about doing it in a more complicated way. "Needlessly receiving a revert notification" is not usually thought onerous. On the contrary: that way, you're informed that you were reverted (partially), which people generally will want to know about. The Echo notification system is supposed to be useful, not aggravating. Again, you can turn off the parts of it you don't like. Bishonen | talk 05:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm not sure why you pinged me; there isn't much more to say here. I didn't come to Sitush's talk page to complain. I didn't come here to criticize his/her edits. I didn't come here because the notification I got aggravated me—which it most certainly didn't. I didn't even come here to talk. The one and only reason why I came here was to offer a friendly suggestion to a fellow Wikipedia editor. No response was expected beyond perhaps a simple "I'll take a look at the essay, thanks." It didn't quite work out that way, but all one can do is one's best. I'll be moving on now if you don't mind.

As for the two now-removed categories, since Drmies was kind enough to share his/her thoughts on the issue, I thought I'd reciprocate; the Muree hill tribes category was suitable for the old version of the article I categorized, which contained the now-removed content mentioning the Muree Hills, and the "redundant" Punjabi tribes category is actually not redundant as per WP:DUPCAT—which is quite an interesting read if anyone's interested. It was a pleasure talking to you; we'll have to do it again some time. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iaritmioawp: Ha! Now you are patronising three of us. Don't bother with "we'll have to do it again some time", please. Just stay away until you learn some manners. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It never was my intention to patronize anybody; I genuinely enjoyed our little conversation, and I hope it wasn't the last one. As for "staying away," from your talk page I presume, I'd be happy to accommodate your request provided you indulge mine and kindly not ping me any more. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been caught socking and also generally acting twattishly before. My prediction is that you will not be around here for much longer unless you change your style. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things

Nice to see you back, and shame on me for not noticing you'd taken the bait and been goaded into making a nice WSB article, complete with photos! P Pat would be proud. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to dig through the Records for the William Stone Building refurbishment stuff. That boatie book I mentioned and which I needed to find is The Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race by Christopher Dodd (Stanley Paul: 2007). You've probably already got it. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: ... but if you have not, then obviously I'm happy to help. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got the first edition of that book, what was it we were talking about? Memory fail.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A thread on Sitush's talk page that is civil, no ANI talk, people being kind and helping each other. This just can't happen. The Rambling Man, I'm taking you to ANI for failure to take Sitush to ANI. Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure it won't be long before someone fabricates a bunch of nonsense to get me back there for another waste of bytes! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubtless! - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, what did you want the book for? I'm struggling to remember... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

T'other way round, TRM. You are on your mission to get the boat race articles up to a very high standard & I mentioned that I had a book lying around somewhere that might be of use. As it now turns out, I've found that book among my 7,000 or so ... but you've already got it. As an aside, I'm vaguely toying with perhaps doing an article that goes into some depth re: the buildings at Peterhouse, the principle snag being that at present I would be very reliant on the Record as a source. The other big snag might be COI, although I probably would dispute that. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Phew. I'm currently sitting on my sofa with Drinkwater to the left of me, Burnell in front, Dodd is at work, but the Livingston brothers' account of the 2003 race is to my right.... As for the Record and COI, I agree, it's not an issue. If you can find the Record in question, (I have a few, but not many....) then it's a no-brainer to use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got all of the Peterhouse Annual Records from ca. 1985 and perhaps a few before then. Somewhere! - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Bgwhite, well whaddya know, I'm dragged back to the circus yet again! And without even the courtesy to let me know!! Standards really are dropping.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ping you, but I was afraid you would get a bit snarky again. It would be easier for we onlookers if that didn't happen! Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The place seems to be falling apart at the moment. I wasn't joking when I said that getting William Beach Thomas through FAC might be the point where I rethink yet again. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to @J3Mrs, Richerman, Eric Corbett, and RexxS: setting the world to rights and giving me a sense of perspective. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo

@Jimbo:, I've completely lost track of whether I am persona non grata on your talk page or not, so I'll say it here to be on the safe side.

Regarding your response here, it is certainly convenient to "not know enough about the specific details" when you are asked about an obviously racist etc attack made on people some of whom you have repeatedly and without foundation attacked yourself on your talk page. Your silence regarding the integrity of ArbCom is also deafening, of course.

I can understand you not wanting to read through the voluminous ArbCom case pages relating to this matter but it may well be time to shut down your page, comments regarding which have been a part of the case. Like it or not, you are perceived both within and without Wikipedia as being somewhat different from other members of the community: yours is a unique position and you are far too frequently abusing that with your remarks. Perhaps your best response sometimes would be to say nothing? - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Interesting, in several ways. However, I wonder whether {{ping|Jimbo}} would work. Of course, it redirects to User:Jimbo Wales, but is mere redirect enough to make a "ping" work? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Too late now, I guess, but if the pattern continues he'll do it again before too long. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, my post above should have pinged him, since I linked to his user page, so if he wants to reply to you, he can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Lots of activity there this morning, JamesBWatson just protected it. Judging from Diff of Aam Aadmi Party (54 intermediate revisions) it should be OK, shouldn't it? Best, Sam ^Sing! 11:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Left a note on JBW's talk, since both you and someone else had commented there. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement request

Please see this and if please possible endorse it User_talk:Titodutta#WMIN_Infrastructure_Scholarship_endorsements --Tito☸Dutta 11:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Will look properly when I return from a short trip out, Tito. Coincidentally, I'd just sent you an email regarding an earlier query of yours that, on the face of it, might relate to this issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate your opinion

Hi Sitush. When you have a moment to spare, would you mind awfully taking a brief look at Nisha JamVwal? I've just declined a CSD on it and done a bit of tidying - my gut feeling is that she might just scrape notability, despite the conclusions of the previous AFD discussion (the current sources are significantly different, which means it can't really be deleted under G4). I'd like to hear your thoughts, though: would you consider this salvagable, or do you think it would be worth a second AFD? Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yunshui It will be good as a stub. I don't see any point in writing articles with the citations like wikipedia, youtube, and so many others that we avoid. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The YouTube sources gave me serious pause when I was fixing some of the formatting; I very nearly deleted them all out of hand. To be perfectly honest, I've no real interest in doing anything more with the article myself; if you (or anyone else) want to stub it, fix it or slap it with tags, be my guest. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And good job on declining CSD. Some people just don't care about Wikipedia:BEFORE when they are tagging for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't do anything with that. Far too much YouTube stuff, none of which I can hear. My gut feeling is that she is probably not actually notable, with most of the stuff being passing mentions etc, but someone else will have to sort it out, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've popped it into AFD after reviewing the sources. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Yunshui. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Raghav (surname)

I reverted in Bargujar; searching Google for strings in the reverted additions led me to both Old Kingdom of Bargujars, an article by the same user, and Raghav (surname). In the latter I'm inclined to restore this previous revision and discard the rest as coat-racking. It appears to have been copy-pasted from several on-line sources. Would that be a fair call? Sam ^Sing! 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The puffery relating to this community has gone on for years, as has that relating to many other communities of India. If there is a {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} tag on such an article and it has been there for, say, four months, I'd remove everything that is not sourced. Almost always, the content comes from either oral history (alas, not acceptable here) or via Raj ethnographies etc (also not acceptable here, and often thankfully so). Any large blocks of unsourced text that are less than three months old should ideally be checked for copyvio issues and sometimes can be rescued if you're prepared to put the effort in. Of course, in theory we are supposed to put the effort in but, bearing in mind the sort of sources where such info tends to come from, the occasions when it is a good use of time tend to be few and far between and the real burden lies on the person who added it.

The above is a harsh but rational approach given the extent of the problems in the topic area. I don't always follow it but I probably do so on more occasions than not. These articles can always be rebuilt (if notable as topics) and often I do that over a period of time.

Does this help as a general guide? It is my common approach but is neither endorsed by anyone else nor applied by me without at least some discretion. Applying the discretion is something that becomes easier with time: you get a feel for the subject area, for what sounds right/wrong etc and, of course, you develop a pretty good understanding of the merits of the commonly used sources and editorial techniques (which includes phrasing, especially in relation to copyvio detection). - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your tips on how to navigate these choppy waters. As you may remember I am always happy too try to add a reference; in the case of Old Kingdom of Bargujars that seems impossible judging from a Google Book search, and I have tagged it as a hoax and will take it to AfD to get the opinions from other editors. As for Raghav (surname) most of what has been added has nothing to do with the article subject and I will remove it. Sam ^Sing! 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The tips didn't specifically address your queries but they are an accumulation of my experiences here. I suspect that the kingdom article is not a hoax but rather oral history: there were a lot of very tiny chiefdoms in India, for example, some of which even became recognised by the Brits as princely states or as zamindari estates. I've not yet checked either online or in my references here at home but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are no written sources of merit that support notability. As I intimated above, this issue with oral history - while probably not capable of being resolved without WP entirely losing credibility - is an example of systemic bias.

I'll take another look at the surname article after you have done your stuff. Most of the issues seem pretty obvious to me but I'm not going to be around for ever and I'm really pleased when other sensible people take an interest in the subject area. It is possible to turn some caste-related articles into encyclopaedic articles but I don't think a lot of people appreciate just how difficult it is to achieve that and in particular to do so when faced with so many that quite simply will never amount to much at all unless some future anthropologist or whatever decides to conduct a formal study. An awful lot of my time here is spent trying to ensure that they do not get worse rather than that they improve. It isn't something that I am particularly proud of because it gives the impression of deletionism etc but, hey, some sort of standards need to be maintained and as long as there are only a few people taking an interest, it is a rather difficult task just to try to stand still. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications

@Sitush (and others those who are reading, please feel free to answer my question, thnx)

I have a question. Not related to this topic (Bargujar; Old Kingdom of Bargujars and Raghav (surname)), but about an interesting comment you made above "Raj ethnographies etc (also not acceptable here, and often thankfully so)". I am trying to understand why so, as they are generally ONLY source of history we have for many communities. Indian communities have rich oral tradition and very little written histories, a a lot of written history had been lost when the successive waves of muslim invaders destroyed the universities and temples that houses the manuscripts, etc. Oral histories wont pass the muster on WP, but Raj ethonographies then become only published and verfiable sources, even if British Raj indulged in scientific racism it does not negate the whole pile of works they wrote, it only shows they were racist and nothing more, why shall their work be rejected?

Another question I have is what is the best way to overcome this problem, where mostly oral history is available, most published sources are either British Raj sources or they newly published sources (many a times by the members of the communities themselves but not the editors, but they are published sources nonetheless).

In other words, what are the ways we can help more communities get documented on WP, when they are poorly published and or they are only published by the sources I mentioned above. Western world had the industrial revolution few centuries ago, they have lot more published sources, developed world though rich in heritage but sadly lacks in QUANTUM of PUBLISHED sources, how do we bring the digital revolution to them by getting them documented from WHATEVER SOURCES we have? Shouldn't all sources be considered GOODFAITH EDIT, unless they can specifically be refuted?

Thanks.

Vdhillon (talk)

I guess the short answer is that if something is deemed to be unreliable etc then it is unreliable. And we don't use unreliable sources on Wikipedia, period. As I've said above, there is an issue of systemic bias here relating to oral history but I don't see how it can be avoided while still maintaining at least some integrity as a project (and, boy, this project lacks integrity). Nothing is perfect and I am well aware that in the Indic ethnography sphere this creates enormous problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My change at JAT PEOPLE

Please let me know why did you revert my changes at Jat. Thanks. Vdhillon (talk)

Sitush is a busy fellow; allow me to step in. I can't speak for Sitush, but here's why I'd have done what he did, remove:

• Dhar (guerrilla_warfare) audacious daring tactic of Jat and Marathas warriors
• Hinduism

In the first, I have trouble imagining an audacious tactic that isn't daring, or a daring tactic that isn't audacious. So you can cut one or other of these two adjectives. Actually you can and should cut both, as either is mere editorializing. The link takes the reader to "Dhar (guerrilla warfare)" a wretched article whose sole plus is its unintended humor ("with minimum loss to the attacker who is numerologically much lower in number", etc).

As for the second, all you need do is link the word "Hindu" or "Hinduism" to the article Hinduism. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

PS I have made the article less obviously terrible. The description of "Dhar (guerrilla warfare)" now reads "Dhar is a tactic of sudden attacks in asymmetric warfare to ensure maximum benefit with minimum loss to the less numerous attacker". This gives me the impression that "Dhar" just means "guer(r)illa warfare". -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. If I could be bothered, I'd probably send that article to AfD as WP:DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hoary thanks for the explanation and edits buddy. What is LESS OBVIOUSLY TERRIBLE? For example, "I have enhanced the article' would be more productive and encouraging. Please be kind to people as there is no need for unwanted sarcasm and passive aggression. We all must do our part in creating a POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT. Thanks. Vdhillon (talk)

ROIS

Any thoughts regarding the proposal? No worries, if you don't want to get involved, however, as I see it that article is a key to develop a large net of articles which have stagnated in the era when WP editors used to whole sale copy from the 1911 Britannica (BTW, the ODNB references you nuked were not meant to be citations rather to fix the mess using a standard biograph etc.) Solomon7968 13:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha!

And with this rubbish, I see no further purpose here. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm . . . the aqueduct? Sorry, I mean such things as helping to defend India-related articles against boosterism, invention, trivia, myth, plagiarism, misreading, and the other miscellaneous sillinesses that are endemic in such articles. This sounds like an excellent purpose to me. The task probably requires not a mere "force" but a battalion of Situshes, but one Sitush is a good start. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point but none of that stuff needs me. Some other idiot (yes, I am one in this sense) can take it on, although they will most likely will suffer the same fate, ie: massive weariness in the face of people who simply do not understand what the primary purpose of this project is supposed to be and who seem intent to impose a form of cultural imperialism that is in fact not dis-similar from what they have been claiming is my approach. You probably do not realise but this situation comes on top on some highly racist comments that Jimbo Wales seems to have brushed off and which relate directly to both the current fracas and to my long term involvement here: I am, apparently, some sort of apologist for the British Raj, have upset "1.2 bn Indians" with my nonsense etc. That is bollocks, of course, but there are too many, too ignorant people around who simply like to take a pop without even knowing either British imperial or Indian history. Alas, a fair amount of the very best evidence for this is off-wiki.

Of course, I really don't care that much what Jimbo says about me but he needs to learn that his best position is either to engage fully or not at all, rather than seemingly cherrypick his moments around his holidays. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New FoF and Remedy involving you at GGTF PD

Looks like you've already seen, but there are new FoF/Remedies up involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it, thanks, as you suggest. I am not seeing much indication that the committee members have seen my responses. This is an absolutely shocking situation and it doesn't take a lot of effort to work out how it has happened. I've spent the last hour or so wading through a ton of emails relating to it and now I am off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nisha JamVwal again

They have returned. But I still think the subject is far from notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheema Page

Hi Sitush, On the Cheema page you keep undoing my edit because you say I have not added to prove that Cheemas are Jats and that many if not most Cheemas are Muslim. First lets prove that Cheemas are Jats even if they belong to the Sikh faith, (some also show Cheemas Muslim faith):

• The Punjab Bloodied By Ishtiaq Ahmed pg.285
• The Sansis of Punjab: A Gypsy and De-notified Tribe of Rajput Origin, by Sher Singh "Sher."

Quote:"the Man, the Cheema and many other castes of the Jats were Sikh as well as Muslim, and sometimes they were found living in the same village. After partition, the Sikh Jats of these castes came to India whereas their Mohammadan caste- brothers are now living in the West Punjab."

• East of Indus: My Memories of Old Punjab By Gurnam Singh Sidhu Brard pg. 264
• India's communities, Volume 1; Volume 5 by Kumar Suresh Singh, Anthropological Survey of India pg.1371

Now Muslim and Pakistani Jat (although their is enough evidence above):

• Across the Wagah: An Indian's Sojourn in Pakistan By Maneesha Tikekar pg.253
• The Pakistan People's Party: Rise to Power by Philip Edward Jones pg. 351 & 397
• 1998 district census report of Mandi Bahauddin Population Census Organisation, Statistics Division, Govt. of Pakistan, 2000 pg.5
• KASHMIR - THE UNTOLD STORY By Christopher Snedden Index
• From Punjab to New York: A Reflective Journey By Surjit Singh Pg. 29
• "All-Jatt contest in Wazirabad". Dawn. Pakistan. 12 August 2005. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
• Invasion of the Genes Genetic Heritage of India By B. S. Ahloowalia pg.65
• Contemporary Forms of Slavery in Pakistan by Human Rights Watch Pg. 42
• Census of India, 1901, Volume 17, Part 1 By India. Census Commissioner, Edward Albert Gait p. 243

--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dear Sri Situshji, please note carefully I am telling 2 you with emphasis so you can understand it, Native language in the lead "There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use, but I see a fair bit of support in regards to IPA and pronunciation and would think this would help normal readers, so I am going to say that Using IPA to clarify pronunciation is the consensus of this discussion, all other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) " Not tata (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, you are very obviously not a new user here, despite recent registration. You have also been editing pages that have been targeted by people involved with the India Against Corruption sock/meatfarm. I raised the issue regarding scripts here. - Sitush (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And now you have reverted me again, despite being warned of edit warring, despite me quoting the guideline and despite me mentioning the issue at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party? I am off to bed: make good use of what I am pretty sure will be your block by reading WP:INDICSCRIPT. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

   If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

   If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

   The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
10. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [1]
11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Gayen

Hey, Sitush. I was wondering what was wrong with the Bengali and Sanskrit spellings of Gayen. Vishwajeet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VishwajeetGain (talk • contribs)

@VishwajeetGain: Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT: "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Book as reference

is not a reliable source. Could you explain me about this? I didn't get it? I've provided another reference, kindly check out if its ok.--Vin09 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It has long been the consensus on Wikipedia that the so-called ethnographies of Raj writers such as Edgar Thurston are not reliable sources. I really need to sort out a boilerplate section at User:Sitush/Common that explains the various reasons why this is so but, for starters, would you really trust someone who was classifying people by comparing the length of their noses and the colour of their skin? - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IAC sock again

@Bgwhite and Bishonen: I've no idea which of you would like first dibs but Not tata (talk · contribs) is another India Against Corruption sock. At least one edit probably needs a revdel even though it is pure made-up nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just reverted the edit in question. Anyone who knows me reasonably well would realise that the statement made in the off-wiki link cannot possibly be correct. I'd suggested that this was a sock a day or two ago, after watching their antics for the preceding 24 hours, but it is obvious now. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano has blocked (thanks). I still think that reverted edit needs a revdel - the linked off-wiki accusation is complete nonsense. They're spouting their fantastical stories on Citizendium and WPO now also, so perhaps we'll start seeing links from here to those in due course. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Now operating as 201.242.38.125 (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And as 49.207.76.167 (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A request

Hi Sitush, I'm sorry to ask this, but I saw you post on GGTF today, and I think it is not a good idea for you to do that. I realize that the ArbCom didn't topic ban you, but I hope you'll agree that it would be better if you were to observe a voluntary withdrawal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Won't happen. If I do something wrong, you have a recourse. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have recourse. I can go to ArbCom, AE or AN/I to request a topic ban, i.e. dredge it all up again, which is the last thing I want to do. What you did to Carol was unpleasant, and you were yourself were under enormous pressure at the time because someone else was threatening you. So the whole thing was a horrible dynamic of stressed people not behaving the way they would if not stressed. I would really like to draw a line under it as far as GGTF is concerned, but I don't think that's going to be possible if you keep posting there, especially voicing the same issues as before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I said you have a recourse. Now back off, please, with all these dubious allegations. It is not a closed group, I've said nothing wrong and indeed people have agreed even today. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I want to apologize for what I wrote above, and withdraw it. I have no right to ask that, and the whole point of moving forward is to let wounds heal. (Also, re-reading what I wrote, it comes across as sharp. I wasn't feeling that when I wrote it, but I expressed it badly, in addition to the fact that I shouldn't have written it at all). So, even though you need no invitation from me, you're very welcome at GGTF.

Also, I want to add my best wishes on the addition of the star to William Beach Thomas. I've just read it and found it very interesting, and I know how much work goes into FAs, so congratulations on its promotion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was short-tempered, too, so it is apologies all round. I'm not going to be spending oodles of time at GGTF but it is on my watchlist and I may comment occasionally.

WBT was a doddle compared to your FGM article but thanks for the appreciation. My interest is mainly in article content: we've got > 4.5 million articles and I'd guess > 4 million of them are pretty woeful. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush, that's kind of you. I've always been the same re: content. I've mostly been happiest when writing articles (though "happy" isn't quite the right word!). It's really satisfying to produce something decent that people will read, and I've learned a lot over the years watching how other editors put it together. Wikipedia is actually an amazing place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of William Beach Thomas to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,287 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Like Nice work!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There is credit due elsewhere. Most notably to Eric Corbett, without whom the thing would not have crossed the finishing line. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flags

Saw your edit at Chola dynasty, and almost spurted out my coffee. Do you or any of your talk-page stalkers, know of a tool for removing File:Flag_of_Chola_Kingdom.png and File:Twin_fish_flag_of_Pandyas.svg from all the wikipedia articles they are included in, or does it have to be done manually? Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I know of no tool and was intending to return and remove them manually using the "links" list. I came across the Chola one when removing File:Simha flag of Pallava Kingdom.png from the Pallavas article. That, too, will need deeper cleaning and I rather suspect that there are others. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Vijayanagara Empire.png. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And more: See the flags here for example, each of which has also been used on numerous other pages. Will need massive cleanup. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Alas, because they're at Commons and that place has weird rules, we can't take the easy option of deleting the image centrally & letting the bot do the work. It is perhaps also because the things are at Commons that they are being used on multiple other projects, especially ta-WP. Of course, those other projects may also have a different attitude regarding whether or not they can be used. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, we can't solve the problem at the root unfortunately, and will have to restrict the clean-up to en-wp (unless we are feeling particularly adventurous). In some cases though the flags/coat of arms are copyvios (designed in 2005, but used on wikipedia for century-old-dynasties!), eg 1, 2, and 3 which I have tagged for deletion. For the rest, manual labor will be needed. Btw, I plan to use your page to list the files that need to be reviewed/removed from article-space; speak up if your prefer that I use my own/some-other page for this purpose. Else just add to the list below. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• File:Flag of Vijayanagara Empire.png
• File:Twin_fish_flag_of_Pandyas.svg
• File:Pudukkottai_flag.svg
• File:Pandara_Vanniyan_vector_flag.svg
• File:Simha_flag_of_Pallava_Kingdom.png
• File:Flag_of_Chera_dynasty.svg
• File:Flag_of_Chola_Kingdom.png
• File:Chola flag.png
• File:Kakatiya flag.png
• File:King of Kandy.svg (description says "self-made" - a bit ambiguous but there is no cited basis)

The following three are copyvios, and hopefully will be deleted and removed by bot. So don't bother removing manually:

• File:Royal_Flag_of_the_Jaffna_Kingdom.svg
• File:Jaffna_royal_flag.jpeg
• File:Jaffna_coat_of_armst.jpeg

It is fine to do it here. I'm part way through and will strike from your list as I go. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The File:King of Kandy.svg may be ok per [2] (not necessarily a RS; also issues of circularity but...) and because I would expect that we would know what a flag for a 19th century kingdom would look like. "Self-made" may just mean that the uploader "made" the svg image using an existing design; which is fine (analogous to paraphrasing text). This is distinct from a wikipedian designing a flag, as was the case for flags for the Cholas, Cheras etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said the "self-made" was a bit ambiguous. I think we had best leave that one alone. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All done for now. Will just wait for the last three file-links to go red. Thanks Sitush! Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No big deal. You should try cleaning out things like Category:Indian Hindus some time. I fiddle with that and related cats on occasion but the number of BLP violations is just soooo big. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Serenity Prayer :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a serene personality, as you probably know by now. It would probably be quite easy to keep on top of that cat if there was a way to determine when articles were added to it. That failing seems to me to be one of the lesser-considered reasons why categorisation here is so arcane daft pointless. The standard watchlist is fine but it won't catch cat additions unless you're already watching the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I know MediaWiki:Bad image list exists. That's primarily for penises and such, and I don't really know the "rules", but if this kind of thing proves persistent - and I wouldn't rule that out - it might be a solution. There is probably (for good reason!) a lot of red tape involved though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with the images existing on wikimedia commons as long as they are properly marked with the fictional tag. That way, the user (say a non-scholarly book publisher) can use the image, not as authentic representation of the dynasty flag, but as a (lay) "artistic impression". What is wrong is the use of these images on wikipedia, particularly without a bright and shiny disclosure of their dubious authenticity and provenance. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Martijn, I'm always pleased to see you here but you must stop sneaking up on me with weird and wonderful arcana like this ;) You know far too much about far too much. Abecedare, the problem with the flags staying on Commons is that, as Martijn intimates, they'll be back on en-WP articles in no time at all, and I'm not in the mood to add 100 or so more crap articles to my watchlist today. I think I'll just periodically click on the links above and repeat the rinse. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was passing by, but it may have escaped your attention. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You should pass by more often if your special interest is the glorious imagery present in non-English insults ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

that struck me as particularly funny, actually. Despite not even recognising the language, I could still identify it as a blocking offense. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Kashyap

Hello,

I feel helpless. Wikipedia is the best source for any layman on a topic.And it is heartening to see ambiguous articles, wrong information and nessages spread through it. I would be more happy if the article is completely removed rather than spreading wrong information.The article, I do not know who wrote it or how it was posted on wikipedia.But, its wrong. "The Kashyap are a caste in India, sometimes referred to as a subcaste of boatmen.[1]-Its not a sub caste of boatmen.Some people were fishermen and possibly used boats. The All-India Kashyap Rajput Mahasabha was a pressure group established in the period immediately preceding the 1941 census of British India to achieve recognition from the census authorities that the caste be recorded as Kashyap Rajput rather than by any other name.[2]-This is correct

Communities that are related to the Kashyap by occupation in Uttar Pradesh include the Batham, Bind, Bhar, Dhimar, Dhinwar, Dhewar, Gariya, Gaur, Godia, Gond, Guria, Jhimar, Jhir, Jhinwar, Jhiwar, Kahar, Keot, Kewat, Kharwar, Khairwar, Kumhar, Machua, Majhi, Majhwar, Mallah, Nishad, Prajapati, Rajbhar, Riakwar, Tura, Turah, Turaha, Tureha and Turaiha. There were proposals in 2013 that some or all of these communities in the state should be reclassified as Scheduled Castes under India's system of positive discrimination; this would have involved declassifying them from the Other Backwards Class category.[1] Whether or not this would happen was a significant issue in the campaign for the 2014 Indian general election.[3]

Uttar Pradesh is a poor state. People do all sorts of petty jobs there.Why an article on wikipedia mentions only about Uttar Pradesh.Very strange.Gaur were herders,Prajapati and Kumhar were potters.And if there were proposals to disgrace a section of society by some corrupt Uttar Pradesh politicians.Why do you have to mention it on wikipedia, a source of knowledge.It is humiliating. Shallow, unclear information being posted.Cant you just simply remove that line.

Greatvirgo

@Greatvirgo:, this should really be discussed at the article talk page, not here. However, I've just reviewed the source for the boatmen statement and I agree that it is a bit confusing. I'm happy to remove that bit but someone else may revert me.

As for the rest, the problem is really that we need sources for the article. We can only write things based on what reliable sources say and, yes, that can sometimes perhaps seem to mean that some aspects are not mentioned at all. There really isn't much that we can do about this as a general principle but I would encourage you to look around for information that we could use in that article. If in doubt, mention the books/newspapers etc at Talk:Kashyap (caste) and wait for people to respond. I, for one, have that on my watchlist and so will see anything that you might say. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dabbing of Suryanvanshi

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at !dea4u's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

notified conflict on Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sial_tribe#Syal_caste_is_found_in_Jats.2C_Khatris_and_Rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava

I find that you have removed important information on Bhargavas from the page and called them Vaishy again instead of Brahmans. i mentioned on page that they are Dhusar Brahmans not Dhusar Vaishys. Among Dhusars, both Brahmans as well as Vaishys exist. Also MLBhargava is a senior writer and he cannot be ignored. some talk of consensus on the page, how is it possible if all those who claim Bhargavas as Brahmans are blocked. Some editors have given several citations on Bhargavas being Brahmans, but you do not approve that and choose an unimportant citation as your base to call Bhargavas as Vaishys. This is wrong and non sense. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please deal with this at the article talk page, not here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)