User talk:Sitush

Talkback

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

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

Contributor copyright investigation regarding Maheshkumaryadav? (2)

Continuing from this thread in order to Anna an unnecessary and annoying yellow bar.

All a CCI is is a listing of major content contributions sorted by article and addition size. The (+xxx) links are the relevant diffs. One does not need to create an article to add a copyvio to Wikipedia. :) I'll let you know when I open the investigation. MER-C 12:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed one does not need to create in order to violate. That was always going to be an issue, but the copyvio situation actually arose out of another concern (and Anna's list was created with regard to the other concern). This has been a rather messy few days, I am afraid. I understand that CCI is overloaded, so adding another to the "to do" list is regretable but, of course, necessary. I'll take another look at the sample you posted because it intrigues me, but I must admit that my interest lies more in article development and usually I just remove copyvios on sight when I see them (occasionally, I rephrase them but often the offending content is far too much for me to handle). - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Maheshkumaryadav. MER-C 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh Capital Region proposal

I've opened a centralized discussion there to handle a number of the different articles related to CCR. I'd like your input to see if I've broken down the articles correctly and if you think it's a reasonable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Dosa

1. I can say for certain those statements cannot be verified. Such statements were along the lines of "Cherry dosas are most popular in Tamil Nadu" and such statements would actually need a peer-reviewed article to verify, which would be very hard to find. Also, I can tell you such statements are easily refuted because immigrant communities would be very enthusiastic connoisseur of these foods.
2. I can tell you also that the food can only be verified for wholesomeness by a nutritionist. The statement was not footnoted.
3. I did not add any new entries to the list; it was a product of formatting according to wp:bullet.Curb Chain (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your intent, honestly I do. However:

1. you cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot prove that the statements cannot be verified (!?! - sorry, I find it difficult to express this concept).
2. the fact that it was not footnoted does not give you the right to say "the editor is not a nutritionist" in your edition summary. I seriously doubt that you know what the relevant editor may do in their day job (if they have one), but there was a recent valid request for a citation tagged to the statement & that should suffice for now
3. it certainly looked like stuff had been added but, in any event, this needs moving into a separate article due to the size & potential for further expansion. As I explained on your talk page, I would support such a split in the article. WP:List should cover this, and it also contains the various possible styles for a list, of which bulletting is only one. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now copied the above conversation and that which I started on your talk page to the article's talk page. We'll get more feedback there. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Unverifiable statements can be removed.
2. You are right, the edit summary was not well thought. But I disagree, because {{cn}} should not suffice and the statement should still be removed because, as I have explained, it will not be possible to verify this food for wholesomeness. Also, I do not think the sentence was tagged. Why have you reverted all the edits if you are debating this?
3. Well then, there is no dispute on this format.Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can

Hi. :) If you get a chance, would you mind offering feedback on my last questions and actions at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Close paraphrasing allegation of Ruth Glass article? I think this is a common issue that we will be encountering more and more, how to talk about close paraphrasing issues, and I'd really like to pull together in addressing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not as if you have ever done anything for me. <g> Course I will. I did take a quick look yesterday but some of it seemed a little over my head + I was tired. I thought it best to let things settle a little. I'll comment asap. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. :D A little over your head is not good! If you can point out what's unclear about it, please do. I want to make it as simple as possible. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, your bit was not a little over my head. For some reason, I thought you had rewritten the entire article. That reason was probably the tiredness previously referred to. I'm on new meds & have noticed that this sort of wall of tiredness kicks in fairly soon after. I may have to change my WP editing habits otherwise I could do something that I do not intend - like people who edit after drinking a barrel of beer or whatever.

FWIW, the entire article makes sense now. Obviously this is a variant on a song title: I can see clearly now the meds have gone. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I know the feeling. :) I have some migraine meds that keep me well away from anything on Wikipedia requiring thought. Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew that there was a reason why the vague paraphrase of "I can see clearly now the rain has gone" had stuck in my head, bearing in mind that I cannot hear music etc due to my congenital deafness. I saw a spoof of the lyrics somewhere that was "sung" by guy who was seeing two girlfriends at the same time (two-timing): it started, "I can see Mary now Lorraine has gone" ... - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

varna in nair article

there is a discussion i started about the varna of nairs here. i would appreciate inputs from you. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching the conversation for a few days now & have very nearly stepped in on a couple of occasions. However, I think that if we can get to some sort of resolution at Tamil Kshatriya then it may go some way towards resolving similar issues with other articles. For that reason, I'm going to keep out of the conversation for now unless something dramatic happens which I feel might merit intervention. I am in danger of spreading myself a little too thinly across these caste articles and do feel that since the problems appear often to be related then a full "fix" in one place can be re-used in others. I hope that this makes sense, but please do let me know if it doesn't or if I have misunderstood something. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

i understand and agree with your line of thinking. --CarTick (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Business history

Unfortunately it looks like Google Books has it on snippet view in the US as well. The good news is that I can get the full text of the 1960 issues of that journal from another source (EBSCO). What article do you want? GabrielF (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me.

How odd this situation is. I can only presume that GBooks are digitising for future full release. And what the heck is EBSCO ?!

I cannot even see a contents page but the article appears to be "An early engineering firm: Peel Williams & Co of Manchester", which starts at page 8 and (probably) finishes at page 18. Certainly pages 8 & 18 contain info that I could use at W & J Galloway & Sons, an article which I hope eventually to get to GAN. However, the thing as a whole would be useful as I intend to start one on Peel Williams fairly soon - in my crazy attempt to document/improve the documentation of all the significant, defunct Mancunian engineering firms. Some people say that I should get a life instead! - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article online here. EBSCO is a big academic database company in the US (apparently they also make fishing lures?!) They have a whole mess of different databases for different topics - this article came from Business Source Complete. Keep up with the Manchester stuff. Everyone has to have a hobby and yours is definitely an interesting one. That article about the origin of Manchester engineers looked fascinating and I keep meaning to read it myself.GabrielF (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have grabbed it, thank you. I am going to try to find an index for Business History as I have a feeling that I've seen two or three useful things there in the past and simply gave up. I'm not that close to a suitable library and in any case am somewhat incapacitated,

You know, without people such as yourself going to this sort of trouble then I probably would have walked away from WP ages ago: I am a "sources" type of person and the frustration of not being able to access them even though I know they are there would have driven me potty. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dona Bertrelli part 2

Dear Sitush,

Following your message, I would love to get more information for the English article (biography) of Dona Bertarelli.

I have modified these changes as requested and I will not to any more edits until this has been cleared with you: -Biography: additional references now available for verification. Content is factual. -Tone: Article was written in a formal & neutral tone with reliable sources. Text has been written in the same tone as Mr. Ernesto Bertarelli’s biography. If this text needs to change could you please let us know how? -Conflict of interest: Text has been written following what is already available on the web, with a neutral matter. What are my options? -Self-published sources: source have been adapted with external sources at 15:10 on 23.05.11. I would really love to have precised information about what needs to be done in order to be in adequation with the Wikipedia Guidelines.

Rabicat

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabicat (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 

Dona Bertrelli part 1

Dear Sitush,

Thank you very much for your email.

I have added the sources/references linked to Mrs. Dona Bertarelli’s biography.

I have read your Wikipedia page about living persons and I can confirm I have done the following: -Neutral point of view (NPOV): the tone of the text is neutral, like the sources available online. -Verifiability (V) : linked to the references -No original research (NOR) : linked to the references

Could you please let me know if this is ok for you? If not could you give me some tips? Regards Rabicat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabicat (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back in the game

Hi Sitush, I don't know if it seems so to you, but I'm firing with more synapses lately - and thought it might be helpful to integrate some of my consulting background to help out newbies here. You did an incredible job making me feel welcome from the start - and also "having my back" - that I want to run an idea by you.

Getting started here is so daunting and the references, while helpful, are also so intimidating and not really clear until one knows the ropes a bit better. I was thinking it might be helpful to have a "Getting Started" document that hits some of the highlights in conversational tone, with a reference section. I think this might be especially helpful for people come here and have their first attempt deleted (rightful, but possibly hard to understand why).

So, I'm thinking of two things: - the "Getting Started" document - some boilerplate text for people who's articles are terminated (which I ran by RHaworth‎).

I was hoping that this could be a tool for someone just coming aboard and get me back doing some of the things I most enjoyed professionally (consulted on communication, process improvement and related topics for several decades). What do you think? Do you know who I could run an outline by? Thanks again, you're support was what kept me here when the going was tough in the beginning!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read this ? It appears as a link in a lot of the standard "welcome" messages, although I have come across people who seem not to understand what links are for (a peculiar experience, given that they're sat in front of a computer surfing the web). Anyway, how would you see your proposal fitting in with that article? As an alternative to it? A supplement? A crib sheet? Extremely step-by-step "plain English"? - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'm thinking about is more in lines with the "Getting Started" link on that page, but to help someone get a perspective of how things work. Likely including a snapshot of a page showing key ways to navigate and where to find info. Would it help if I put together a short outline to help explain, it wouldn't take long.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, do an outline. There are at least a couple of admins who watch this page (probably eager to see what mess I create next) & so one of them might make a comment at some point also. The boilerplate for deleted articles definitely sounds like a good 'un, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Running out at the moment, but I'll work on it later. Thanks, Sitush!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Boilerplate draft to respond to questions about why an article is deleted

I saw your response that it might be helpful to have some text about responding to questions about deleted articles. I set this up as a draft article in my sandbox: User:CaroleHenson/Responding to article deletion questions. Where should I go from here, do you think? (I'm going to do the same for the getting started concepts.) Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, Carole. I did have a quick glance while it was still on here & it seemed ok, but I wanted to have a think before commenting. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind but I made a couple of minor fixes to one of those. The first one is, I think, very useful. I am not quite sure about the other two; some people may think that they are a little too "preaching". You may want to take a look at how a initial comment (by me, as it happens) turned into quite a lengthy conversation thread which is causing some changes to the wording in some guidelines. The thread is here at User:Moonriddengirl. MRG is an admin and one of my favourites: not at all "preachy" but definitely "peachy"! (Brit slang, not sure if this translates into the same thing on your side on the pond). One of the things she links to is Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings, and some of her own form letters are at User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters - nb: she concentrates on copyright issues, hence the swathe of copy/paste notices on that subject.

It might be worth inviting her to take a quick look at your drafts, as well as RHaworth. I'll drop you a talkback for this reply. Are you watching this page? If you are then I won't bother with the talkbacks in future as all they'll be doing is increasing my edit count. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, I'd like to aim for "peachy" over "preachy" any day. (Here peachy generally means good, it can be used sarcastically, like "Isn't that just peachy!") Maybe the first couple sentences could be removed, just leaving an intro line and the bullets.

If I add something to your page, I put it in my watchlist while the conversation continues.

Sure, it sounds good to have them look it over. I ran the concept by RHaworth already, but not the actual text. I'm also working on User:CaroleHenson/Getting Started Concepts, I was wondering if it would be helpful to have Panderoona (sp?) look at it to see if something like that (albeit a work in progress) would be helpful and if she has any suggestions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some input from Panderoona would not go amiss. I am pleased to see that she is still pottering about here from time to time. We share the same definition of peachy, but does anyone else give a fig? - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and it seems the same use of fig! I made the changes to the article for deletion - and I'll touch base with Panderoona.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

<waves> hello guys :) yes Im still pottering. Im working with smaller places for now till I get a bit more confident with what Im doing, but Im learning new things every day and really enjoying the whole wiki experience. Thanks for your time and patience back when I was struggling, it is appreciated. Panderoona (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations: Good Article status

Congratulations on achieving Good Article status for Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer). You're getting a nice list of Good Articles!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. There is another not far off going to GAN, I think. But I seem to be embroiled in several debates at the moment & so it may take longer than I originally expected. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You're on a roll!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the caste-cruft "full fix"

Greetings, I note above that you posit a theoretical "full fix" for addressing caste/varna issues, which manifest in relatively similar ways across scores, if not hundreds, or articles. If you want to come to WikiProject India at whatever point and discuss a "full fix", I'd be very keen to participate in the discussion.

I've been working on fleshing out the Shudra/Kshatriya debate for a lot of Western Indian agricultural classes which currently claim Kshatriya status, and have added such with reputable cites to Kurmi, Kunbi, Lodhi, Maratha, Yadav, and other such articles. As you may well expect, it gets somewhat of a "red flag before a bull" reaction, so I'm still dealing with IPs and low-post editors coming in to swap the word "Kshatriya" wherever it says "Shudra" with no heed paid to any cites; I'll probably be requesting another round of Protection on a whole slew of such pages soon. I also just completed a major cleanup of most articles in Category:Maratha clans, which again were all highly self-serving, poorly copyedited and unfootnoted.

Out of curiosity, what region are you specialising in for castes? I've mainly drifted into Western India by accident; aside from the request for help at Nair I don't usually do Southern India since I understand the system is rather different. And I don't drift further north to deal with Rajput issues since I expact that will promote massive hostility, so best to establish a good burn of caste-cruft on one centralised area for me.

Just wanted to state some support for your cause, express interest in any larger anti-caste-cruft initiatives, and inquire as to what areas you specialise in. Thanks again for your good work, MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, got involved by accident. There was some minor error at Paravar that caused the article to appear in a maintenance category. When I fixed the error I noticed an almost-certain copyvio, investigated & soon found that something like 70% of the article comprised copyvios. Of the other 30%, much of it was gobbledegook, POV, uncited, poorly sourced etc. So I pretty much stripped it right back and started again. With the inevitable fights, arguments and tears from people with more invested in how the caste was presented than I have. It sort of became a small snowball (a big snowflake?) after that, but I try not to deal with too many of these at one time because it is quite a strain just handling the insults, sheer stupidity/tunnel vision etc. The experience has actually put me off ever going to India because I am aware that as far as the caste stuff goes it is a prevalent mentality and not just limited to a few activists who happen to participate in Wikipedia.

Thus far, my efforts have all been concentrated in S. India and, as you note, the system there was very different. My notion of nailing this issue once and for all relates to the S India situation. I am currently in the process of reviewing a wide range of sources provided to me by people from both sides of the kshatriya/no kshatriya camp, with their agreement that I am neutral and pretty darn good at sifting and assessing. The plan is that once it is settled then the situation should be capable of being transposed to any other of the articles about S Indian castes. The Uni of Calif source that you found for Nair, btw, was not on the list but is going to be!

That is a plan, and if it actually works out then it will be something not far off a miracle. What I am expecting to happen is that I will put in all the hours etc, provide copious notes as to why a source appears to be good/bad/indifferent and then which ever group "loses out" will turn round and say that I'm talking absolute crap. Or, if I decide that both viewpoints are valid, both groups will turn round and say that! - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Fortunately, I'm taking less flack on the Kunbi/farmer caste articles than expected; more just unexplained reverts, or heartfelt pleas to "reconsider, and think how you're hurting the community" etc. A couple of the major Maratha POV-warriors have been suspiciously absent this month, so not sure if they're just busy in real life, waiting me out, conspiring, or what. I've done similar work on Indo-Pak Muslim issues, which included a knock-down-drag-out fight at Barelvi. The Barelvis apparently hate even being called Barelvi (though Indo-Pak and Brit media freely use the term, as do 90% of academics). It's not so much that the term is offensive (it refers to their founder being from Bareilly), but they resent any implication that their group is one of many Sunni Muslim groups, as opposed to "the one true correct Sunni group". I was doing similar work at Dawoodi Bohra, but they have one remarkably constant advocate there insisting on replicating the entire history of Shiism there with the slant that the entire destiny of Shiism was to form his sub-sect. Also he's heavy on removing any mention of a dissident Reformed Bohra movement which accuses the current hierarcy of corruption, hand-waving them away as "not pertinent to this article".

Maratha issues were 95% from one editor, who's laying low now. If you want a marked example of a IP/caste-advocate free-for-all, check out any pre-Aug'09 versions of Maratha clan system. The Marathas legendarily have 96 clans, but it's a total zoo as to who actually falls in the 96. So the article was getting nearly hourly IP edits to add a caste, remove a caste, add some last names, change what their declared mascot and favourite colour are, etc. I finally just deleted the whole dang thing and made the article about the theory of the system, vice a list. I'm still getting occasional hate-mail from Marathas about "ruining what was an amazing resource for the community", but the article seems to have stabilised.

Not to drone on at length, just wanted to give you a taste for how other parts of India are going. Again, very glad to hear you've got a lock on the South, as that's out of my quasi-specialty. If I can be of assistance in the future though on an ad-hoc basis, feel free to ping me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry to hear that you got discouraged from traveling to India. Till early 90s in Tamil Nadu especially in Madurai region where Thevars are majority caste, there used to be often caste "wars": several people got killed, and all kinds of disturbances to public life used to be commonplace. While caste consciousness hasnt disappeared at all and dalits are still treated bad in some parts of Tamil nadu, such clashes have become very rare. I would say this is because of about 90% literacy and massive economical developments that happened in the last couple of decades. though I left India long time ago, i follow the developments closely. i am sure wikipedians living from India can give you a more accurate and reliable picture. i wouldnt be discouraged from going to India because of a bunch of activists from wikipedia. i dont know if you have ever visited India before, but if you havent, there are other issues you might want to be worried about. people say, if you truly want to enjoy and appreciate what India is, you have to "let go". --CarTick (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not been before and am unlikely to get there now due to health issues. As far as "letting go" is concerned, the abject poverty is the big one as I understand it. I could probably copy with that as I saw pretty dire stuff in China & also in Nepal, even though what we were allowed to see was probably a sanitised version of how most people in the former of those countries live. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, poverty is a big issue, that depends on where you go. for westerners used to an orderly life, the unpredictability and a sense of chaos might be hard to getting used to. --CarTick (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

QUESTION

In the Nair talk page, you mentionned that i removed something from wiki talk page; what were talking about ?... And fyi, i don't know user shannon and he has neither put any comments on my talk page nor sent me any email.Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It was entirely my fault, confusing you with one of the other contributors. I have apologised there and do so here also. I have struck out the relevant comment. I simply got muddled in the recent heat & no offence was intended. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. No pb.Rajkris (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix for article List of gallantry and military service award winners from the Nair community?

This title is far too long (throws the whole page listing off at Category:Nair), and I don't think this is the standardised format (see Category:Lists_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients for a parallel). Plus it's not anywhere under Category:Recipients of military awards and decorations. Not to drag you in, but I don't think it's so much a debate issue as a "how to file" issue. Perhaps retitle "List of Nair recipients of gallantry awards", in parallel with "List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients"? Actually, I think there's something in MOS saying that the term "list of" isn't always needed when it's pretty clear that's the format. Thoughts? I've also been fixing and copyediting just the titles of some Nair articles, as on had no space before a parentheses, caps issues, etc. I also note in Category:Nair they don't seem to have a standard for disambiguating titles, and also their "Foo (Nair sub-caste)" and "Foo (title)" articles tend to run together. Just some "fresh eyes" observations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never read the MOS regarding article titles. Shame on me. I'll have a read later today. However, the "military service" bit can be dropped as all of the awards listed are in fact gallantry awards if the section heads are to be believed. In any event, "military service award" is vague: campaign medals, duration of service, painting the most lumps of coal white etc ... absolutely meaningless. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm. There are other issues with this list, aside from the title. Eg: there seems to be no particular structure. such as listing by campaign, by year or by "ranking" of the award. The only structure is that there is a sort-of splitting between the various military units. More worryingly, there is no evidence to support that any of these people were Nairs. I know that the last names are often believed to give that away, but have never been entirely convinced by the argument and there certainly are people who have "caste surnames" who deny that they are of that caste. Basically, I am not even sure that the list should exist - it is a POV-vy type of thing. However, I'll see if I can find, for example, a list of members of the clan Maclean who have received military awards, or of people from the county of Lancashire: these would be approximate equivalents. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS for stand-alone lists. "List of ..." applies. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Of the neutral sources, atleast 5 supports it (Logan, Gough, Fuller, Panikkar & Thurston) and only one opposes it. And you still changed it to "Some" commentators. This is the exact quote: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions" Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying to article talk page. I'm not having a fight here. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe drop into WPINDIA to update them on your cleanup progress?

Greetings, to get more support for caste-cruft cleanup, and to keep the Board going, I've been going to the Talk page of WP:WikiProject India to update them on how it's going. Have you considered dropping in to update them on your Southern India caste cleanups, general method/theory, etc? Off I go again, I'm starting to tackle Shivaji, first with removing the constant lengthy honorifics, and then about to put a huge bullseye on myself by bringing in the (properly cited) fact that Shivaji was a Kunbi Shudra whose Kshatriya origin was "discovered" by Brahmins trying to save face at having to coronate him after he founded an empire. As a non-Indian, I think it's a pretty awesome underdog story, and again the self-delusion to stick to fictional claims about his heritage centuries after it matters is rather sad. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Progress implies starting at some point and moving to another; I am starting a some point and finding myself back at it a few weeks later! I'll take a look at the project but have tended to do my own thing in the past. If there is anyone there who thinks that they can cite the Puranas or Sangam literature as support for a statement in a caste article (other than one which starts "Ancient literature, now considered to be unreliable as a source, had it that ...") will not like me. So that will probably be 70% of those involved, then. Do I really want another running battle on my plate? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone there is that bad, and I've gotten some pretty good gouge about cites on defalting spurious legends. Though in fairness some of those may be Caste X looking for a chance to deflate Caste Y. IRT the Puranas/Sangam/Vedas, I was banging my head last year on Barelvi when a group of editors insisted the direct Quranic quotations were not only the best authoritative source, but endorsed as such by WP. They even linked the WP:MOSISLAM, which of course specifically says that you can't quote the Quran except as context for a secondarys source's statement, or when directly discusing the Quran itself. That was when I was dealing with a fun pack of folks who'd explicitly stated their goal was to wipe out "Wahhabi" bias on Wikipedia, which of course meant removing anything that criticised the Barelvis, or even implied that there was such a sect as Barelvis, as opposed to "true Muslims" who just happen to be what everyone else identifies as the Barelvi sect of South Asia. It's been frustrating at times, but a lot of life lessons, and some entertainment value. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We should extend the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and co-author a book on experiences in this sphere, perhaps titled Bold, Revert, Have A Blazing Argument ? :-) - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! On the bright side, since WP keeps all drafts and archives, this stuff could someday be interesting for sociologistcs in 40 years. Speaking of archives, I took a glance at the archives of Nair; not all 12 pages mind you, just a perusal. They were arguing this Shudra thing back in 2006, same for polyandry, and folks were just as upset then. Dig an exemplary quote:

“ For all of you conributed to the above crap. Please leave the nairs to live in peace. As a Nair I don't give a damn what all these so called pudits say. I know my history and it is in my blood. All I know is that my community had an illustrious past and has given birth some of the very best in India in all fields of human endevourand is still capable and doing it. As in all communities, there may be exceptions that a woman might have resorted to polyandry or some one had called some one names like Sudra etc. In the age of even same sex marriages what relevance these has? The problems with Nairs is that they are a straight forward people either ignoring or not understanding the machinations of others trying hard using put downs and name calling etc. It is sheer desperation. ”

.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In one sense the quote above is brilliant. In another, it is so disheartening. The Foundation have apparently being doing a big push in the subcontinent to get more people interested. As a matter of principle I am quite happy with that, but the practical realities will probably not be (are in fact not?) great. There are plenty of people outside that area who simply do not get the concept, the policies, the guidelines etc ... and then there is a promotional effort to encourage one of the world's largest populations to play a bigger part (albeit many of them will not be able to participate due to language, literacy and internet access issues). The theory is sound but, boy, the cleaning up effort will have to be intensified. Am I always right? Of course not. But I would like to think that I usually accept my failings when they are pointed out to me. Alas, certainly with the caste-based articles - and these spill over into all sorts of other subcontinent articles - it seems to my eyes to be a very long educational job. But there are gems in there, for which I am grateful and from whom I have learned much.

Someone recently pointed out that there are over 800,000 villages in India alone. Villages are de facto notable, even though a lot of them do not even appear on Google Maps etc & hence even co-ordinates are not available. That is 20% of current English Wikipedia articles, most of which if listed will forever be unreferenced stubs. Something will break, I feel sure of it. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(jumping in) In a certain sense, the tiny sub-stub village articles aren't so much of a problem, because, basically, whatever. The problem is when those sub-stubs are re-written by the self-appointed Village internet/community relations expert, who adds (usually in writing lacking any semblance of standard punctuation or capitalization, much less grammar) details about who the most important people are and were in the village, the location of the 2 ATMs, the local temple which is well-known across the world as one of the most famous examples of something or other, and, sometimes, even claims about the "bad" people in the village/neighboring village who everyone should know about. Not to mention business interests promoting their latest construction project, often complete with addresses and phone numbers.

My one hope is that Wikipedia's active efforts to recruit new editors in India will bring in not just people trying to use WP for promotion/POV-pushing, but also people willing to monitor the articles and improve them to meet WP standards. And, ultimately, I expect/hope that WP standards themselves will change, too; how, I'm not sure, but in some way adapting to remedy the fact that, as currently designed, WP has a lot of policies/guidelines that either directly or indirectly promote a specific western worldview. There's something exceedingly arrogant to the Foundation saying "We want all of you to come join our project, but only if you do so entirely on our terms, your own culture be damned." I mean, it's of course "reasonable", but that, in fact, is its very problem. Qwyrxian (talk)

I agree with all of that, Q. The extreme of the "western worldview" problem is, as you have said elsewhere before, that the subcontinent relies far more intensely on oral history. That one seems to me to be, unfortunately, incapable of resolution unless the concept of verifiability is watered down to the point of not existing or some reputable body starts transcribing on a big scale. And then it becomes a free-for-all. I'd love to be able to square that particular circle but I honestly do not see how it can be done. Then again, there are far more capable minds than my own out there.

BTW, I seen some of your work with our friend. Obviously I'm keeping out of it, but you appear to be getting through to him. Good stuff. He'll feel a lot better if he can get something substantive, useful and reasonably bullet-proof out there in mainspace as and when. It looks like it might happen, too. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

IRT the "transcribing on a big scale", one of the worrisome trends I've been seeing is that as more Indian publications are being scanned (which is itself technically good), POV-pushers now have more legitimate-looking ammo to use. For proof that the Yadav are Kshatriya and descended from Krishna and whatnot, I was provided this reference: S. D. S. Yadava (1 January 2006). Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India. Lancer Publishers. pp. 10–. ISBN 9788170622161. Retrieved 26 May 2011.. I'm a bit skeptical, given that it treats Krishna as a historical (but still immortal) figure, and the author's last name is the same as the ethnic group he's writing about.

Gyan Publishing is particularly bad too; they have a suspicious number of books that at first seem to have been copyvio'ed onto Wiki, but on closer inspection turn out to be taken from Wiki, with obvious copyediting errors, references to images/charts which appear on the WP page but not in the book itself, etc. And then folks of course try to go and cite said books, this one being a particular example: Vidya Prakash Tyagi (2009). Martial races of undivided India. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 9788178357751. Retrieved 26 May 2011.

I'm not necessarily pessimistic overall, but I do recognise the ongoing issue which will only increase as literacy and internet access in India expand. And then we'll see the same thing in 10 or so years as internet access expands to the middle and working class in Sub-Saharran Africa. It's going to be interesting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Tyagi book is notorious. Gyan is pretty much on the blacklist because of these issues: if you see anything from Gyan then your first port of call should be to see if there is an alternative of the book at archive.org or hathitrust etc. This covers the reprints. If there is nothing there then (even if it is a reprint) delete the cite and ask for another. If it is a noteworthy point then there will be another citation out there. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any semi/official WP blacklist detailing how jacked up Tyagi and Gyan in general are? It's be good to have something I could direct folks to. Is Tyagi officially recognised as a WP ripoff, or is there some more complicated copyvio issue going on? How about Lancer? I seem to dimly recall doing cleanup on an article about Lance Ltd. itself, and even then IIRC it sounded like a partisan vanity press. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a multi-page article here that lists a whole load of dubious sources, including Gyan. However, sometimes you have to take what is posted there with a pinch of salt. Basically, though, if I say it is a crap source then it is a crap source. <g> Delete per the above and refer them to me for a roasting; WP:RSN deals with this sort of stuff, of course, but the outcomes are often inconclusive in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, User:Moonriddengirl agreed with me that Gyan's stuff should go. That's good enough for me unless someone really presses for consensus on a specific Gyan source, in which case I'll debate it. I'm starstruck with Moonridden ... - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you ever get bored...

...take a look at Jarral. Wow. Actually, better yet, take a look at it in this revision before I removed 10K bytes of unreferenced people. I'll work on it myself, because I can at least remove the extreme POV. But that citation list at the end is so awkward, I'll probably just have to cut almost all of the list and tell people they need to actually put in enough citations to make it clear what book they're referring to. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a chainsaw to it, I think. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ezhavathy: from Brahmin to barbers

Oi Sitush, not to go tramping about your neighborhood unannounced, but I somehow ran across these cats: Ezhavathy. The article was unreferenced and smelled a little crufty; far too much insistence on "dude, they're totally indisputably Brahmin". So I spent five minutes on GoogleBooks, and lo and behold they're describe as a caste of barbers to Brahmins, who also happen to serve as priests to other working-class castes. So I made those changes; it's a low-traffic article, only a few hundred hits a month, so I don't expect much blowback, but the degree of cheek is impressive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No law of trespass here! I've seen this before somewhere, claiming to be a high rank when actually barbers to a high rank. Just like I was related to Princess Diana, erm, met her. Good catch. I've never even heard of that group. Another one to add to the to-do list, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got it basically cleaned up, by Watchlisting it couldn't hurt. I also followed two redlinks and created Nassuvan and Velakkathala Nayar, and with those three formed Category:Barber castes. No real work needed at the moment, but more Watchlisters never hurts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'd heard of the Ezhvathas, btw. What you have done is open the floodgates for a stub on every alleged sub-caste in the country, many of which probably won't be referenced and will be subject to the usual pleasantries on their talk pages! Ho hum ;)

I've just set up a draft page for an article on Joan Mencher. She is a full Prof of anthropology and redlinked in Nair. There is enough out there to prove notability. It will not be a great piece but I guess I can bear the embarrassment of a semi-stub once in a while. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: < User talk:Abstruce >

AFTERMATH:

My APOLOGY to You: Dear Sitush, I apologise to You about this incident. I admit that due to My lack of a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, I caused this issue here. Honestly speaking, I was interested in this topic about the connection with Yadu, and Lord Krishna, for quite a while, and was seriously looking to contribute to it in a good manner here; and I was very excited actually, when I located this reference < History of the Jats, Jaitly Painting (sic) Press, foreword, 1968 (Original from the University of Michigan) !!! But, I did breached an important guideline and caused this issue here. When I edited the respective section on the main article, I thought You guyz would be happy to see this, really this is what I was thinking! But, I never realised what I have done until it was noticed and explained on My user talk page by You, and when I did a scrutiny of it all, I realised that You was perfectly right! What I should have done to avoid breaching the guidelines has been suggested above by Qwyrxian on My user talk page, for which I am really grateful to him as well. Now, I will take care of the facts stated by You and Qwyrxian in future! I am the one who made an edit that I shouldn't have for which I am really sorry, and accusing You was wrong. I was thinking about this for the past few days, and I have learnt the lesson now, and I assure You guyz that I will be more careful in future while editing a page. Sitush, You been a gentleman throughout, and has also appreciated me after I edited pages following Your suggestions, and I am looking forward to follow them; and I do believe that I will evolve as a better user, hereafter! Thanks for being so polite and supportive towards me. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

StormFerrari

You have new messages

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  08:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What to do about likely image copyvio?

Oi Sitush, I strongly doubt this is "own work", and if it is it's pure OR. Any idea where I should report this: File:Maha veeran Alagu muthu kone.jpg ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears on a couple of websites, but on neither does there appear to be any relevant copyright notice:

• this one
• this one, which seems certain to post-date the 2009 upload to Commons

Originated at Commons, and is the only image uploaded there by the contributor. It has the appearance of being a crop from a movie poster or comic strip, but I cannot be sure. Usually I PROD or CSD at Commons but obviously you cannot really do this unless there is a reasonable proof. The actual licensing etc there seems ok, as in: there are no fields unfilled.

I would be inclined to seek the advice of User:Wknight94 on Commons. Has been very considerate to me in the past. Also, since the picture appears to be a very modern representation of an ancient freedom fighter, I might remove it from the relevant articles as being (effectively) uncited. It could be anyone & if it is in fact the work of the uploader then by definition it is clearly not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

pretty amazing

that users of the page managed to keep this notable, and relevant information out for so long and fought with anyone who tried to add it. --CarTick (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that it got forked to Nair ceremonies and customs, which I am currently stripping back as I find more and more copyvios in it. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote

"I have just reverted your revert at Miss Universe 2011. Please can you adjust the specific item that you are referring to rather than rolling back everything. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And reverted again. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Let's get the darn things right in one place, because the edit warring about heights etc (before you and me, that is) is ridiculous. Find a cite with a height and use it in the article. A lot of the bio articles do not in fact have a citation for the height that they state. There is no point in causing the issue to propagate into other articles also. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)"

Sources are already in their articles, at least for the ones you added a cn. Not WP:CIRCULAR, since Wikipedia articles weren't used as references. Feel free to add those sources in their bios to the Miss Universe article. Cheers. --John KB (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You just removed sources for uruguay and usa in your reverts. --John KB (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point: some of the articles are wrong, and in any case this article has to stand alone. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What point? That you don't know what WP:CIRCULAR is? How many are some articles? --John KB (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand CIRCULAR. You told me that the info was in the individual bio articles and inferred that they therefore did not need to be cited in this article. That would be circular by default, and that was why I reverted your original revert. So far, three bio articles have needed changing. I am really, really fed up that you keep refactoring your talk page. There is an admin looking into this and moving things around to this talk page will not get you away from scrutiny. Every WP article has to be capable of standing on its own merits and on the sources which it cites, not some sort of inference to the reader that if they look elsewhere then they will find the info. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to edit the article

there's a lot of height vandalism on a daily basis, and not many users watch/edit the article with sources.

Feel free to add more refereneces to the article, since Google News has sources for New Zealand and Tanzania's participation in the pageant (not necessarily their heights, though I haven't looked for those).

Also for those contestants who don't have a sourced height (Serbia, British Virgin Islands, etc.) should it be removed? Some of them are fabricated without a source (see Dominican Republic's: some blogs had her at 1.78, but she was shorter than the reigning Miss Universe Ximena Navarrete and outgoing Miss DR, Eva Arias)

Source for France's height was already in her article, feel free to add it to her article's infobox and Finland's and Thailand's dead links seem to work for me. Also source for Aruba's cn is in her article. Hopefully you stay on the page and watch/edit it often. --John KB (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know about height vandalism but will not be spending ages fixing this article. I have far better things to do on WP & zero interest in this subject. The point from my position is, once a cite is there then it becomes easier to check when someone does change the height etc, rather than having to go off to another article. This article is effectively a BLP & needs to conform to BLP guidelines, not just general policy. I'm trying to make things better, but getting them right is another ballgame. The admin seems to agree but is going to have a think.

Doing what I have done (I will complete the list) has demonstrated my original thoughts: the things need citing here, not somewhere else. If you've found some sources then add them - it is not a problem.

Having said which, one of the problems is the weird citation method. It is simply asking for trouble, as has indeed happened. Eg: some contestants appeared to be cited in their name column but in fact the cite is a pre-seeded one and doesn't even mention them because the national contest had not happened at that point. Cites are intended to verify a statement, so these are clearly wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because not many people edit the article. As you say, most serious editors on WP "have better things to do", so mostly ips or regional superfans edit the article, and they want to make their candidate the tallest one, or the most beautiful. Would recommend you watch the page, but understand if you don't. Thanks for taking the time, though, at least for a while. --John KB (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be watching it & I'll fix any apparent vandalism. However, I'm spending a lot of time sourcing Indian caste articles (now they are battlegrounds) and mediating on sourcing disputes. I don't want to add another pile of sourcing issues to that long list if I can help it. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. Is it ok if I fix the things I mentioned above, (New Zealand, Finland, France, Thaialand, Aruba)? The other two you added as dead links, korea and indonesia, they removed the article, so no source now, but one from their bios can be added as replacement.

Need your take also on Serbia, British Virgin Islands, and Dominican Republic. Should their heights be removed? There's no way to verify them, and trust me, I've looked. The best one I found for DR was a gossipy blog, and the other two, nada. --John KB (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Get in there! As far as removing heights go, I would say do it because it appears not to be a trivial matter & so we cannot risk possibly offending one of the contestants etc. Better that there is no height than the wrong one. The deadlinks may be at Wayback, although my trigger for that didn't kick in & so perhaps not. Worth a look, though.

I am 6' 4". As a bloke, I do not look good in a bikini :P - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I find sad at times, looking for sources that disappear eventually, no archive. And maybe you could win Mr. Universe, you certainly have the height. ;-) --John KB (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(Preening, ahem). I vaguely recall that there is a means of "self-archiving" using WebCitation. You nominate a url to be archived and the engine does the rest automatically. However, I've never used it and if the method does exist then it probably requires a little forethought, given that Wayback does a more than half-decent job (unless the page is protected against web crawling bots). And if the page is protected then that is often retrospective, so you will not realise the need to use the Webcitation system until the prat-ish webmaster of the source site decides to implement the no bots directive. I guess that the lesson here would be to request that people use the Webcitation nomination system, but since most contributors in my current area of interest cannot even be bothered to cite ... - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Book you removed from NAIR page

You have removed this book [1] as ref in the Nair page & I don't understand why because it seems rather interesting (please read pages 303 to 312; for instance this: "Nayar chiefs and Nayar soldiers are first mentioned in three copperplate inscriptions, tentatively dated late seventh, mid-eighth, and early ninth centuries.... All these districts were famous Nayar chiefdoms in the later periods and persisted until the eighteenth century. The plates suggest that Nayar chiefs with private armies had emerged as vassals of the Perumals at least by the ninth century. By the mid-thirteenth century, at the latest, the greater Nayar chiefs had become independant small kings,..." page 303). Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was me that removed it but I'll take your word for that. The odd thing is, it has been sitting here for a few days on one of my Firefox tabs as something that I need to take note of! I had a slight panic attack earlier today when Firefox crashed with 17 tabs open, but thankfully it recovered ok.

I am struggling through Fuller, Moore, Panikkar etc on caste & marriage issues at the moment but, I promise you, the thing is there in the tab and I will look at it. Sorry if I have done something wrong here as it seems not to have been intentional. This is a real mess of a subject and I am well aware that there are still big discrepancies in the article. I'm hoping that it is getting a little closer to where it should be but I still have some major concerns about sourcing and, in particular, about relying on so few sources for big chunks of the info. It is going to take me a while to wade through it all. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ACtually, if you can spot the diff where I removed it then I would be grateful for it. I rather think now that I did remove it but put an explanatory comment about how it might be useful for other stuff (which would be why I kept the tab open). I'll dig for this but you might have already found it. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here [2].
Another interesting ref: "The Nayars as the ruling and military castes, formed the core of this aristocraty..."' page 298.Rajkris (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a great edit summary on my part then, although it appears to be correct on the point that Robbie.Smit raised. The source must have some sort of hook which attracted me, otherwise I would not have kept the tab open. I promise, I will return to it. Give me a nudge if I do not ... but give me time to sort out the ongoing stuff also! I'm both trying to do my own stuff & also keep an eye on CarTick's edits to the article at the same time. It is quite exhausting because I am well aware that people are likely to get upset quicker than I can sort things out. I'm happy to have a debate but I am not remotely connected to India and so am having to learn stuff from scratch. I hope that this makes sense. I am supposed to be doing stuff on English bareknuckle boxers and defunct engineering companies of Manchester, but these subcontinent things seem to be taking over much of my WP time. Plus side: I am learning a LOT from it. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will watch your page.Rajkris (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to remember to include your username in the edit summary, so that you do not waste too much time. And remember that nudge: I am due in hospital soon for a heart repair job, so my mind is not always on the important things. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All the best for this surgery.Rajkris (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought. It will be fine: bypass & valve replacement is, oh er, not too scary. But I am seeking a second opinion because I'd like to see 50. I shall amend my will and leave you something - all of my debts! ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OMG, are you kidding? Do you think Wikipedia is some sort of volunteer project where you can just walk away for something trivial like surgery? Get your nose back in those books, good sir. </sarcasm> In all seriousness, good luck and good health. Don't worry--I'm sure that not only will the same subcontinent/caste-warring/reliable sourcing problems still be here when you get back, there will probably be dozens more, at least. So...something to look forward to? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not kidding about the medical situation. Am kidding about leaving all my debts to Rajkris. I've actually left them to you <g> Seriously, the situation may change because my cousin (a cardiologist himself) has suggested a second opinion. He is of course tied down by medical ethics but feels that I should pursue all options. Which makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

It was a bit of hard work. Thanks. Will consider webcitation. Sleep well. --John KB (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Travancore

could you please verify the second reference (which you have access to) and see if it supports the sentence? thanks. --CarTick (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not support it, for the simple reason that the Kshatriya etc were not Nairs. The whole thing is a myth & I will be expanding on this in the Nair article. The only proviso to this is that Fuller splits Travancore into different areas (Central, Northern) - but it makes no odds really because right on his first page (p. 283) he says: "This paper attempts to analyze the internal structure of the Nayar caste. It does not set out to analyze the Nayars' marriage system per se, although it does try to show how the famed cross-caste hypergamy of the high-ranking Nayars - involving Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans - was linked to the subdivision system within the Nayar caste." His full list of the subdivisions, which I am currently turning into a collapsible table, does not mention Kshatriya, Samanthan etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See here for a draft of the table. Needs a little more work before moving into mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

fantastic. good idea. is it listed in the order of supposed ranking? it is all subjective anyway. additional information about the traditional profession (i know you have some concerns about this concept) of each subcaste will be useful — either in the table or somewhere else. regarding your first post, even Panikkar, with questionable neutrality and pro-Nair bias, whenever mentioning Kshatriyas in his article has always implied they were not the same as Nairs. --CarTick (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of concerns with the concept. I simply cannot get my head round the idea. That may be a cultural thing but I find it hard to believe that, for example, 35,000 members of one subdivision relied on a few hundred of another for (paraphrasing) carrying water. Is there any decent explanation of this out there somewhere? I see it mentioned a lot but never with any real in-depth study. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Hello. You have a new message at Free Bear's talk page.

Tamil Kshatriya

Just a friendly note, in case you weren't counting--you're at 3RR. At first I thought you crossed, but then I saw that one sequence was a self-revert. Note that your most recent sequence this one, while not just a revert, qualifies under 3RR. Manorathan appears to have crossed 3RR, but unless s/he was warned, it's not technically a violation yet. I'm going to go issue a warning if there isn't one there. But if they revert you, or add back in the unsourced stuff, do not revert them. I'll try to watch and do it myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am? I thought I was adding/expanding, not taking away? I took one sentence out but only after improving the content with the previous edit. The improved version includes what was in the old sentence, therefore the old one was redundant. I knew M was over & did warn but wasn't going to pursue it further. Enough heat as it is. It is a mess, all because someone chose to ignore what I believe was a consensus. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. I presume that I can still add but not remove? That would mean some repetition until tomorrow but there is a serious close paraphrase in there and that is outside 3RR as I understand it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning to M was here. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that warning, but it was a little subtle, and Manorathan ended up focused on the tangential issue. I'd rather have the warning be clear and unambiguous, so that the editor can't argue they weren't properly warned. As for your 3RR, the rule says, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I think 3RR is probably one of the least forgiving and most "technical" of rules WP has, since it's easier than having it up to interpretation. So, technically, taking out even one word of another author's work counts as reverting. The only edit that would not could is a revert is a pure "addition", although even that can count as edit warring. That's why Manorathan's very first addition of the content doesn't count towards 3RR. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Although I usually pull back by starting a discussion (and so "sort of" protecting my back a little). I think that this is the first time I've hit 3RR with no way out, or even 3RR at all. I'll have to leave the close paraphrase in for 36 hours or so. The source is not useless per se because the archaeological stuff has merit. The problem is that the arch. stuff does not seem to be used for the really important bit about Kshatriyas. My recent edits, which I really did not want to do because I'm best not editing the thing at all if I am to continue the review, were intended to set the tone/head off a dispute etc. I did try to get someone to tidy it up but clearly they just carried on arguing. Bugger! But thanks again. What the point of consensus is in these situations escapes me. there was you, me, CarTick, Rajkris and perhaps one or two others all agreeing on a way forward, then one person blows it up. Happen I was tending towards the middle ground, ie: present both sides of the coin & let the reader decide.

I do not expect you to comment on the above. Staying well away might be good advice. I should perhaps heed it myself. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, to clarify, you're technically allowed to keep editing right now, because a sequence of consecutive edits is considered one "revert" for 3RR purposes. But, the truth is, like you say, why push it. And walking away might even make you feel a little better. Manorathan is very much the one in the wrong here, but we have to be sure to keep our own behavior as appropriate as possible so that, should we need to "cast stones", we can do so with a clean conscience. I've actually done exactly the same thing you did here myself--tried to shut down an edit warrior editing against consensus, only to come right up against 3RR myself. I'll watch that one more carefully now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

A discussion at WP:ANI has been raised in which you have been discussed. You can read it and respond if you wish at here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Abusive use of warning

Could you point out where did I attacked you in Nair? Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

National Judicial Academy (India)

I see you have visited the article I wrote on National Judicial Academy (India). Thank you for the improvementsFreewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Paravar

No offence. The paravars still come under the SC group. I dont understand why you are using the tense 'had been'. Suit yourself. I just specified the term 'schedule caste.' Apparently there is no such thing called schedule group in India. Lindamd90 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is explained on the talk page - there are various notices on government websites which give contradictory information and are mostly undated. The situation is very unclear and so the wording of the sentence had to be discussed. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All the best. As far as I know the fishermen of Kaniyakumari still come under the SC group.Lindamd90 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. If you ever find a decent citation then I would be interested to see it because the entire issue needs some clarification. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Brother or Sister...whatever

or brother today we are 3 June, Miss Turkey was yesterday, hello improved information, the source is reliable also have brought more than one website has confimed. Hello ubicatex--Marleshy (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any proof that this woman won the thing, therefore citing her height is irrelevant. This is a biography of umpteen living people and requires reliable sources for all pertinent points. Please stop what you are doing. You have been warned about this in the past by people other than me. Go back and read WP:BLP, WP:CITE & WP:RS. If you are still unsure after that then I'll try to answer any questions that you may have. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: < User talk:Abstruce >

Hello Sitush,

It's OKAY! If You are so much focused to counter this one, then I can simply relax :)

I trust You with this one. I have already reverted my contribustion on the talk page. I was just looking forward to help the situation, just that much. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not countering anything. I have no opinion on the disputed matter. My only concern is that what ever content is added to the article is (a) verifiable using reliable sources, and (b) not original research or synthesis. My suspicion is that the recent additions are in fact synthesis but if they turn out not to be then I am perfectly content to see the material in the article. That is why I asked the question that I did.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article presenting two contrary (even directly opposing) points of view if they are from reliable sources etc. Obviously, the wording of the initial contribution would still require amendment because it was phrased in somewhat unencyclopedic terms, but the view it was trying to express may nonetheless be a valid one in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sitush,

In that case, I am really sorry about that! Actually, I never mean to use the word Vandalism about the content posted on the talk page, but now I realise my mistake; actually I used the word because the Gentleman is simply targetting the text on main page of the article about the ancestry of Jats, and he is regularly removing some information which is directly related with the section. I guess the section was created to discuss that why the user is doing so, again and again, so I thought that way... But now, I apologise for that, and I will take care about this in future. I will be very careful while using the word again. I have got Your point. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a common mistake for new users to make & I will make this point should anyone raise your use of the word. However, WP:VAND is extremely specific about what is not vandalism, Hopefully you have now read it, in which case you probably will not make the mistake again. Don't be too concerned about this beginner's error, as long as you learn from it.

As far as the other contributor is concerned, please do not feel that there is some sort of a war between him and you (or others). He has recently been blocked from editing for a while as a consequence of some unfortunate practices and after numerous warnings. He is now back and his first contributions clearly suggest that he has taken on board the causes of his block. Instead of removing cited content, and doing so without explanation. he has now added his own evidence in rebuttal of what is currently presented in the article. This is fine, even though his style of writing left a little to be desired. We are not all of us native English speakers, and even a lot of those who are simply cannot find the means to express suitably the point that they wish to make - it is no big deal because someone else can always fix the wording. We all learn, all of the time. Well, I like to think that is the case, at any rate!

I moved his addition out of the article and into the talk page simply because I feel that it needs some discussion regarding the nature of the sources cited and the conclusion that has been drawn from them. It is highly controversial and the sources are not immediately available. It may have been better if he had actually raised the issue on the article talk page in the first instance but, again, it is no big deal. A word of advice, though: just because you have seen me do this does not mean that it is a normal response to additions to articles. Please do not think that it gives you some sort of right to do the same with any content to which you may object. My action was in fact quite an extreme one. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

I feel sorry one more time. I shouldn't have used the word "counter". For hereafter, I will take care of the words I am using to express my views. I guess I was just over-excited to have such a nice response from You. Actually, I usually don't get good feedbacks for my contribustions, not in a habit to that; and You are well aware of the reason why is that so! Please don't take it in any-other-way around, please! I am sorry for that, really sorry. I do understand what You have stated above, got the point and my mistake here.

Furthurmore,

I have got the points made above, and I will try my best that You don't have to correct me this much frequently, I will. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2011

Thanks for asking for semi-protection. Haven't found any reliable sources on Guam and Curacao, will have to wait and see if any newspapers from the area publish information. --John KB (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please show at least a bit of sensibility

I removed the Sadasivan quote from etymology because it called Nairs as dogs. (Since you don't know Malayalam, I doubt you will understand the real meaning). Sadasivan doesn't give any reference for this and it is not given in Jatinirnayam as he claims. But you reinserted those quotes. Don't stoop this low. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)