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.

Manspreading

One sided narrative on Bengali Kayastha and Kulin Kayastha

Please check these two articles. Editors who seem to have WP:CIR with this caste , are reverting sources which opposes their narrative of Kayasthas being a Twice born caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this edit which removes S.N. Sadasivan and adds Swami Vivekananda is compatible with WP:HSC and WP:POV. [1], tagging Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Heba Aisha, I have already made a revert stating that we can't remove a well-sourced old content, especially with no discussion on the talk page. The content had been there for more than a year.

At the same time, you are completely free to add any sourced content. Let the administration decide now if that well-sourced old content complies with the policies of Wikipedia. To me, it does, but I am whole heartedly open to any transparent enquiry. Thank you so much. Take care of yourself. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I wonder what you wanted to prove by having the negative comment on top of the article—even before the history section, right next to the opening section. Were your intentions pure, Heba Aisha? Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise.

This is what WP:HSC and WP:POV say, don't they? Swami Vivekananda was a social scientist and a social reformer. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It is you who have removed an old content sourced to Swami Vivekananda. You should have discussed on the talk page before directly removing the content. This itself goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, according to you, every secondary source is POV, isn't it? I request you to understand the policies better. I am sure you are unable to understand what a POV or secondary source actually is. You quoted Arun Sinha on Kayastha Page. [2] Is that not a POV? Your intentions aren't pure, Heba Aisha. I wish everyone could see it clearly on Wikipedia.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither Sadasivan nor Vivekananda are reliable for caste matters. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed Sadasivan, but I still think that this article is a WP:POVFORK and though looks encyclopedic, it contains selectively those sources which keeps them in Brahmin or Kshatriya category. To skip the other side which connect them to Shudra, this article has been expanded with caste promotional sources. Ironically, the guy who have expanded it recognise himself as Kayastha. WP:COI. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisa, I am sure you don't understand what POVs mean. I am pretty sure. Go through it once, I request: [3]

Thank you so much for your help, Sitush. I am grateful to you. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been a pov fork for many years. The argument went something along the lines of the BKs being a distinct community about which a disproportionate amount has been written. It is nonsense, of course, as it is primarily an exercise in vanity. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I am not among those who will put down weapons in front of these caste Warriors, who will play all policies in their favour on the basis of own understanding, like user is doing here. Btw, I have nominated article for delition, wat i have learned about dealing with WP:POVFORK Heba Aisha (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: Stop getting me wrong, please. I am no caste-warrior. I was merely advocating neutrality. I have had no other motives at all. I wonder why you failed to reach a consensus with me.

Don't be disheartened. Place your varna section right with these later sources. I hope you are happy after that. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Yaduvanshi Rajput Vandalised

User Heba Aisha vandalised Yaduvanshi Rajput article without providing any reliable source , Kindly review the article Raakuldeep (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @Raakuldeep: When you discuss any page on a talk page please help everyone by providing a link to the page you are talking about. It's interesting to see that Yaduvanshi Rajputs does not lead to Yaduvanshi Rajput. PamD 06:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PamD thanks for stepping in. I am on mobile and it is tough to do some things + talk page notifications often don't seem to work. The Yaduvanshi Rajputs article should indeed be redirecting to Yaduvanshi Rajput, and pretty much everything Raalkuldeep does is an attempt at caste POV-pushing so even those without subject knowledge can usually safely revert their contributions and ignore the comments. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made it point back to Yaduvanshi Rajput now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy White

Hi! I just wanted to commend you for taking a look at the Jimmy White article. It's been on my list for a long time, but it's in terrible shape - and I never get round to it.

I should let you know that the Snooker Scene blog is deemed RS due to it being written by David Hendon, who also writes Snooker Scene (the magazine). Not that it makes a great deal of difference, but just a heads-up in case it's on any other articles. Have a great night. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Vellalar Origin of Nairs

Kindly opine on the possible Vellalar origin of Nair here Talk:Pillai_(Kerala_title)#Vellalar_Origin_of_Nairs. I believe the vellala origin tradition and the various examples of naturalisation of various tamil groups as nairs must be mentioned in the Nair page. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Review

Hi I'm Sumit banaphar, I have recently participate on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask that is the source I'm providing to make changes is reliable or not. So can you please review my request, if you're interested. Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of power

Mr. Ekdaliyan is misusing his power and deleting everything what I have given. Please come to baidya talk page for Your guidance. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 I have used it as a source but according to Mr Ekdalian "Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim." But whatever he provided has proper citation itself. For example He said about census report in page80 and it is true as I myself checked it https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022 You can also check it. He told about T.P Russell Stracey's view about vaidya. In page 81.It is also valied https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up You can also check it. Each and Every point has proper citation. He also talk about what other says about Baidya. Sir Reliability should base on facts not on title. Please consider it.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The article of Baidya would not complete if some neutral authors of Raj era is not allowed as very few Post Raj Era sources available for this caste. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to use those information that is cited in this journal after checking reliability myself. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And those which are available online either in googlebook ot Archieved form or any other online form for which the reliability can be checked by you also sir. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for your interference on baidya talk page for consensus as any other vaidyas I also have no Reliability on Mr. Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What is going on here In wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswat_Brahmin Page they added vaidya saraswat brahmin and it was their from the very first day of the page. Vaidya and Saraseat Brahmin know their tradition. Now Mr. Ekdaliyan deleted it from saraswat brahmin page also. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Abhishek Sengupta 24, read WP:OWN. Who added doesn't matter; and I have removed not just Baidya but also other stuff, which appeared unsourced at a glance. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok I understand it. This is most unfortunate for vaidya that after independence none(as far I searched) of the non vaidya writers take initiative to write properly the actual history of Vaidya. They always stands with the Mythological origin of vaidya. Vaidya themselves are minor among Brahmins and Kayastha on Bengal and not exist outside Bengal. Most probably thats why not much source available.We have folklores about how our forefathers migrated from the bank of River Saraswati. I am trying to find relevant sources. Thank you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Even none(Non Vaidya)have interpreted our Kuluji texts also. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also not reliable source but still giving you. There so many sites available but very les books available https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Saraswat_Brahmins Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Like this http://gopalakri.blogspot.com/2013/01/saraswat-brahmin.html?m=1 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The above block was written on 2013 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Some Raj Era neutral sources available as I have given you but that are still not accepted as per consensus as you told me. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

hello Mr sitush.please do something to stop ekdalian,who is misusing his power to promote his caste and demoting vaidyas.check the talk page of baidya.we gave enough neutral sources to prove that vaidyas are saraswat brahmins.but that hypocrite ekdalian removing them saying they are not valid ,even they are from a neutral and well known auther.this guys Ekdalian don't deserve to be an admin of Wikipedia.