User talk:Sitush

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

Removal of Logo of Patna University

You have removed the logo of Patna University by using some rule which must be convincing. But at the same time we must find the rule to include that logo in the article. Though I do not know who that that editor is I think he has made a good attempt and he should be guided to put the logo at the right place in a right manner. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in a bit of a rush at the time, sorry. The guideline is WP:LOGO. I am no expert regarding images but Magog the Ogre might be able to assist. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have deleted this in a rush and as you admit you are not an expert of images, then you are requested to help include the logo for the article. Someone had done that out of a sheer desire to improve the article. The spirit should be encouraged by all of us. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. Everything is relative here in terms of expertise. Some people are really good at sorting out copyright issues, others at resolving problems with images, and yet others are good at - for example - resolving disputes. As with the real, face-to-face world, we are none of us perfect and all of us know people who know more than us about A or B or C. My comment regarding "rush" related to the lack of explanation: I do usually try to give more detail in situations such as this. As per my earlier reply, the detail is in WP:LOGO. The necessity of a quick revert is justified by Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright. Basically, it is "better to be safe than sorry" - we can always revisit the issue, as indeed we are doing. However, I do feel that input from someone like Magog would be helpful as, honestly, it is an area in which they are more experienced than either myself or, probably, you.

I'll drop a note on their talk page, asking whether they would be prepared to review. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion; it is a legitimate exercise of fair use, unless I'm missing something (which is certainly possible). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. Do we have to use a degraded version or can we use a copy/save from the source website if degrading it would turn the thing into mush? - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The version from the website is itself already in degraded form. No, you don't have to degrade something if it will turn it into mush. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is much appreciated. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, both Sitush and Magog the Ogre for the contribution to the article. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Any chance that Bob1781 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet (of YK perhaps)? Could someone, maybe Qwyrxian, do an RFCU? I'm flat out of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The odd bolding had me suspicious but with just one edit I doubt very much that anything can be done unless someone has a direct line to a checkuser who is prepared to ignore the usual WP:SPI process. I think that SPI itself is unlikely to accept a report based on so little. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. Good advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) are at least  Likely, though I'd go as far as calling them a  Confirmed match. In this case, in my opinion, an SPI would probably have been accepted; it was rather evident that this account was a sock. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Sitush and I will be requesting life memberships at Bletchley Park. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any sleepers? I mean, he went out of his way to point out that he always uses his own name ... and then didn't. Mind you, he will be easy to spot if he turns up on any articles. I note that the wording by FutureP is going to severely limit his input even to Dickens etc. Wow. Is it time-limited? Saravask was originally suggesting 6 months, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see here that it is an indefinite topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

YK was bolding like that higher up in the ANI thread but, as I said at the outset, one contribution doesn't mean much at all for stylistic checks. I sometimes bold in mid-sentence, for example. Oh, er ... I'll get my coat. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be Sarvajna. Might be worth checking, if you're able to. True it is one edit, but an edit to unfairly influence a vote, which is a no-no. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this sockpuppet investigation and discussion done at the right place? Is it to be done on user pages of someone who has voted for a ban usually?

After the ban is already enforced, what is the point in checking it with other users? It is user:Sarvajna now, someone else later one. It server no purpose, I think this is done in very unusual disorderly manner in case I am unaware of usual way. Even this discussion is forked between here and user:YK's page.

Is user:Sarvajna informed of this? In case investigation were done methodically, I would have suggested bunching up of of editors ids to do this at once. I am not sure if anyone was informed at all, not even user:Bob1781. Now this is going nowhere other that post-ban talk between users who voted for permanent ban.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It started as a perfectly acceptable query and would have stopped there, around my second reply, had it not been for Salvio spotting it. Salvio is a checkuser as well as an admin, although I must admit to not realising that he was a CU until this thread. Now, CUs are particularly trusted people and while they do make mistakes they also do from time to time use their additional tools outside the formal SPI system. You see this happening at ANI and even in response to direct approaches on their talk pages (Tnxman, IIRC, sometimes does this). In this regard, nothing is unusual but let's get something straight here: Salvio was not involved in the ANI discussion and he was not approached to check this situation out. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My question is if this is the way SPI is done without referring to concerned party, here user:Bob1781? Usually there exists a page for sockpuppet investigations.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was started without me, that is fair enough. But it is not fair to drag me into the discussion without informing me, without giving me a chance to represent my side of the arguments. Fowler I would be very happy if checkuser can check if Bob was me or not, I was already actively involved in the discussion so I don't think I would require another account just to influence one vote when I know that the margin was huge, I am surprised to see Qwyrxian and Fowler accusing me of something without even letting me know about the discussion also is this the official discussion of the sockpuppeting?--sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I let my imagination run wild I would accuse Qwyrxian of creating the SPA and trying to malign anyone who opposed YK's ban(honestly how many of you all noticed the bold pattern or what ever it is). Well I would like to see what the checkuser has to say about who was this Bob is/was, also if there were doubts that Bob was not YK then the block is not justified. Thanks

P.S: I am not really accusing Qwyrxian it was just an example on how false theories can be built without knowing the truth --sarvajna (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer Thisthat2011's question, yes, there is a page for formally requesting sockpuppet investigations here. However, informing the concerned parties is NOT required, as noted at item #4 here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of my fictional reading includes detective novels. So, and seeing how desperate you all were to block YK and seeing how the discussion was not ending at all even after so many days and seeing how few Dickens' editors gave neutral comments, it wouldnt be completely shock if that sock was of someone of the supporters. And purposefully bolding and then using it as a doubt is possible. In fact that was a nice touch. One might use small fonts to frame me in future. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open an SPI, naming all and sundry. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Given the nature of the edit, an SPI case will likely be accepted. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Though, after reading this, it seems fairly clear who bob1781 is. Unless you're implying that there is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of YK and that Salvio is a part of that conspiracy. --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. My point in raising an alternative was to extend good faith to YK. I looked at the edit, and looked at previous edits in the thread, and thought that maybe YK had been falsely accused. I'm sticking my metaphorical neck out for someone who doesn't really deserve it, out of a sense in due process and fairness. If YK had not sockpuppeted, I do not think he should be blocked, because I think the topic ban solves the problem. I didn't want to start an SPI because I am not a checkuser and don't know how likely the results Salvio saw are, and it's not like a second CU would turn up any new technical data. Thank goodness I don't have time for WP for the next 3 days because it irritates the hell out of me to be accused of being conniving when I was being far nicer than I at all needed to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" Assuming here that there is already a sock master, and therefore assuming it as another user - it is hardly of any consequence for it is upto the admin. As also AFG is great as usual. For other information, check discussion on YK's page.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian you suggestion "does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" does not sounds like extending good faith. Also Qwyrxian and Fowler&fowler would like to know this [[1]] --sarvajna (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Makes me want to propose a new policy: WP:TOLDYOUSO. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing Jadeja

Greetings Sitush! I have seen that you have edited the Notable Jadeja section of the page, erasing names of notable Jadejas on account of poor references cited. Could you please provide guidelines for sources that are permissible as the ones I have used were seen to me as being sufficient? I am unsure as to what is permissible when proving 'ethnicity'? Thank you in advance. Tamasic (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The most universal rule is our reliable sources policy, which applies always when trying to meet our requirement that things are verifiable. Things get more complicated if the person is still living, for which we have the policy concerning biographies of living people. There is an extension to that, called WP:BLPCAT. Now, the gist of BLP in terms of matters such as religious beliefs and ethnicity is that the person concerned should be shown to have self-identified as a believer of this or that religion, or as a person of X ethnicity.

As far as those policies apply to caste-type assertions, there are a lot of experienced contributors to Wikipedia who consider caste claims to be just another form of ethnicity, and therefore self-identification is required if living, and really good sources even if they are dead. Merely bearing a name that is commonly used by a caste group is insufficient to meet the test because, well, there are always exceptions to the rule, often even in India itself. Also, I could quite easily and at a low cost (currently £37 UK) legally chance my last name to "Jadeja", for example, and so any statements that we make here based on last names are ultimately original research. Is this enough information for you to understand what is going on? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your kind time. Information noted. I understand that it is possible for one to change their name, therefore an assumption of notability based on surname alone is not reliable. So now, with context to the names of deceased Jadejas that I had included, what references would be permissible? K.S. Ranjitsinhji, K.S. Digvijaysinhji and Kumar Shree Duleepsinhji are most certainly not individuals that changed their name by deed poll. They were the Jam Sahebs of Nawangar and have been widely documented as being so. To not include K.S. Ranjitsinhji, an international cricketing luminary who's own Wiki page meets all requirements, would do disservice to the 'Notable Jadeja' section. Remedy- would it be possible to cite a reference that explicitly states that the title of Jam Saheb is only bestowed upon the Jadeja rulers? Thereafter to follow up citing a source where the individual in question is referred to by their title? I look forward to your kind feedback. Thank you. Tamasic 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a reference about an alleged uniqueness of the title would suffice. As an example of how titles are not always what they seem, although most people would think that the title "Doctor" indicates a person who has undertook a high level of education, it is in fact also the traditional name given to the seventh son of a seventh son in Irish families. Another example would be "Prince", which is not always a royal title, etc. If the people whom you name are as well-documented as you say, and their ethnicity is relevant to their lives, then someone must surely have recorded the connection. An additional point to bear in bear is our attitude to synthesis of information from sources.

This talk page is watched by quite a few people and perhaps someone else will jump in with a different opinion. I do not always get things right ;) - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"I do not always get things right" Now this is an understatement if there ever was one, I am absolutely seething with anger and extremely frustrated at complete ignorance shown by you regarding the article "Jadeja", may I please ask what right or what knowledge you have regarding the history and origins of jadeja ? I am sure zilch or zero. I had painstakingly gathered all the information related to the clan, myself being one, have done any research at all ? the refrences that were given by me were from the English representative that were stationed at bhuj during the time of Maharao Deshulji, and these books could be found in the gazzette of bombay and english presidency during the time British rule in india, I cannot belive that absolutely all the information has been deleted..

Khengar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.222.90 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel angry and frustrated. I will try to revisit the article within the next 24 hours in order to re-examine what I did. Please do drop me another note if that does not happen. I'll put my response here when I have checked things out. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this series of cite removals by me. Do you not understand the info in the relevant edit summaries? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with this removal. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my earlier removals, see Talk:Jadeja#Sourcing of rulers etc and please take the discussion to that thread, if they are the ones to which you refer above. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Epic India

Another mystery. Looks like someone has written a research paper on wikipedia (or is this a real term?) --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I know right, the "Epic India" that is being referred to was called as Bharata Khanda. I'm not that great with early Indian history, so there is all the likelihood of an equivalent English language term existing. "Epic India" doesn't seem to be the one though. Lynch7 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is a book? --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something here :) ; are you asking whether the article itself is like a research paper? Lynch7 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Is Bharata Khanda a book of some sort? Or is it just a term used to describe early India? Or is it something that is used in ancient texts? (I suspect the last one.)--regentspark (comment) 21:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, its a term to describe the "continent of Bharat". I find it in the Rigveda, and the Rigveda even gives a description of the length and breadth of the continent. Of course, its in Sanskrit, so I'll find the verse tomorrow morning and put up a quick translation. Lynch7 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Based on a cursory google and jstor search, it may not be a bad idea to move the article to Bharata Khanda. Epic India is used in a more general way. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Khanda literally means section, here continent. आशिया खंड (Aashiya Khanda) would mean Asia continent. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So what should we do with the article. Bharata Khanda is, as you say, a description of Bharata in vedic times. Should we retitle the article Geography of India as described in Vedic texts? A descriptive title would better here.--regentspark (comment) 11:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bharata Khanda would be better --sarvajna (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But then, this particular article speaks about India during the time of the Ramayan and Mahabharat (hence leading to the name "Epic"?), but Bharata Khanda was during the vedic times. So there may be a mismatch. Lynch7 12:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What I understand is that even during the times of Mahabharata, India was called as Bharata Khanda (Correct me if I am wrong) --sarvajna (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the Mahabharata. My only qualm with Bharata Khanda is that it is not in English. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Bharata Khanda could qualify as a notable term on its own; unless of course, scholarly sources have a better English term. Lynch7 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lynch if you consider modern India or Republic of India, it is the English equivalent of "Bharatiya Ganarajya" so I don't think there is any English equivalent of Bharata Khanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so; "Epic India" consisted of much of British India and parts of Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar. Some sources say it consisted of a large portion of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. So, "Indian subcontinent" would probably be a rough equivalent in today's world rather than the Indian Republic. Lynch7 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

done. Needs some cleanup to confine it to its mythological definition. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This image found on the article is based on the Mahabharat, as is noted on the file page, and "India" at the time of the Mahabharat didn't encompass the whole of Bharata Khanda. In any case, I'd really like to see a good journal paper on this topic. Lynch7 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked on jstor and there is nothing except for indirect references to the term. Google produced this and this (which seems to associate Magadha with Bharata Khanda). This isn't going to be easy!--regentspark (comment) 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and find some books related to this. But I'm very uncomfortable having "Epic India" renamed as "Bharata Khanda" in the article's present form. Could we generalize the time period to the "Vedic period", instead of saying "During the Mahabharata time", which is definitely not completely true. Lynch7 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead (but I have no idea what I am doing,). --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This must be the longest thread on my talk page in which I have had no involvement! My apologies to all who are involved - I have spent the last few days 90 feet (27 m) up two trees, cutting them down. Well, they are now a little bit shorter, but there is still some way to go.

I am pretty thick when it comes to the ancient Indian texts etc. I know of the major ones - the Puranas etc - and know when they are definitely not suitable as sources per Wikipedia standards, but most of this goes over my head, sorry. Nonetheless, feel free to continue the discussion here and, yes, I am learning something from it.

An aside: thanks to MikeL and Boing for doing the necessary clean ups elsewhere on this page, in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Pandit

Hi Sitush, you have reverted the definition of 'Pandit' from the Kashmiri Pandit Page. I put it there to explain the meaning of the word and its derivative / relavance in Indian society. However, you have also called it a CopyVio? --Ambar (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not double-checked (it is late, and I am off to bed) but my edit summary says that there was a copyright violation of the source. That source was the Merriam-Webster dictionary, per the citation. It takes ages to load pages from that thing here but, even if it is reliable as a source (& many online dictionaries are not), I guess that I spotted you had copy/pasted the definition from that dictionary. You should instead have said something like, "According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term Kashmiri Pandit means people who blah blah blah". I'll try to take another look tomorrow but I am not going to wait several minutes for the M-W page to load, which is definitely my common experience with that website. I did it once in order to check out your addition, and I know that M-W pages often take a long time to sort themselves out. That in itself is not a great sign. What does the Oxford English Dictionary say, I wonder? I'll try to dig around. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit article - in my sandbox

I have further added to the Kashmiri Pandit article and made some formatting improvements. Kindly take a look at it in my sansbox and leave your comments. --Ambar (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do! I notice that you got yourself a mentor, although I've not kept an eye on what has been going on. That is a really good step on your part - well done and I hope that it works out well for both you and your mentor. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste System in Kerala

Dear Sitush, Thank you for your invitation. I have commented on the issue Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. --AshLey ^Msg 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Now you are moving in a negative way. Entire Syrian Christian issue is not in discussion. Discussion was related to Syrian Christian -Nair relative status. Please avoid edit warring while I'm quoting reliable sources. Else we could go for mediation.--AshLey ^Msg 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing Syrian Christian issues in a manner that is undue weight for an article concerning the general Keralite caste system. I rather think that it may be something that you are particularly interested or even involved with, which is not necessarily a bad thing but we have a lot of POV pushers in the caste area and such articles are subject to general sanctions. I'll add the appropriate template to the talk page, which is where this discussion should be taking place. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have marked a different point in the document for POV-push:Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala. Now, you please try to understand who is trying it to push. My points are from academic sources and if you still consider it as POV-push, let's go for mediation. Please don't promote edit-war. --AshLey ^Msg 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE TALK PAGE. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my Talk Page

Not sure what you mean by me deleting messages. My page was getting large and cumbersum so I deleted some of the earlier messages, which have been all been responded too. For the record, I have also responded to your messages, but rarely has to been extended to my messages.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ezhava: My edits

You reverted my edits to Ezhava with an edit summary of "Sorry, but I am not convinced that most of these edits agree with the sources (or the lack thereof)." Well yeah, they might not agree with all the sources, but I swear all that I added, all that I added, came from those sources in stone. I know my description was awkward, which I plan to fix, and go ahead...revert me! SanctusofRajput (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise you not to rush in. Most of your changes related to Nossiter, whom I have read. Of your other changes, the sources have been variously tagged for quite some time. If you can change the statement then you can also fulfil the requests made in those tags. Articles such as Ezhava are subject to general sanctions and it is not a bad idea, especially if you are new to Wikipedia, to consider carefully the potential impact of your actions and discuss them if someone has raised a doubt. I raised a doubt, and the correct place for discussion is not here but rather at Talk:Ezhava. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

my Distance Learning edit

You reverted my good faith edits claiming that spam comes from my sources? I don't understand. Pcm130 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to determine why Distance education and Virtual education are suddenly receiving a lot of edits by what amount to single purpose accounts, but the contributors do not hang around long enough for me to make any progress. My suspicion is that there is some sort of class project going on and, if so, it would be helpful to know which and to have some contact details in order that any problems that arise can be ironed out. There are people here on Wikipedia who act as ambassadors for such projects, for example, and can really assist in their smooth operation. Some of the contributions from the SPAs have been very poor indeed, although others seem ok to me.

Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School has a chequered history here on Wikipedia because there has in the past been the appearance of spamming and non-neutral editing. Since your edit mentioned PCCS in a somewhat peculiar context given the general nature of the article, I thought it best to remove it until someone decides to respond with the necessary information. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. We're all M.S. in Ed online students and our task this week is to edit a wiki. While I see that the other students edits are not meeting the standards of wikipedia, mine had sourced material that was reporting criticism. I'm new to this and won't get back to you soon. I wish you had read my edit before deleting it, because it is not spam and was an attempt to add further information.Pcm130 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For which school? Who is your course leader? How can we contact them? I did read your contribution, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dr. Clint Born. What was the problem with my contribution then, if I may ask? Pcm130 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way that Dr Born could email me or Salvio giuliano in order to set up some kind of liaison? We both have "Email me" links on the left-hand side of our user pages.

Regarding your edit, well, it certainly was sourced etc but the PCCS issue gave rise to doubts. I could reinstate it but right now I think it is more important to get some liaison going. Here at Wikipedia, people are expected to collaborate and if Dr Born is going to mark you or others down because you have been unable to edit then (a) we always rate highly the willingness of contributors who are prepared to discuss & you should let Dr Born know this (perhaps direct him here?) and (b) once some liaison is sorted out then perhaps we can lift the semi-protection and allow edits to resume.

I am very grateful, honestly, for your co-operation. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've found his contact details. I'll try to find someone here who has experience in academic liaison. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is PCCS, PA-cyber? I will email Dr. Born to let him know. I can't guarantee he will contact you. Thanks. Pcm130 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PA-cyber is probably how those in the US refer to it. I'm in the UK! If Dr Born does not make contact with someone here then the likelihood is that the class project will be over because I rather think that course leaders are supposed to do so even before a project commences. This is starting to get slightly out of my range of experience, but I am fairly sure that I am correct. OTOH, if he does make contact then probably things can be smoothed out and then everyone will be happy. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why you revert the sourced addition. It will be treated as vandalism if you continue like this as the source is from reliable. The actor told he did not join this alliance behalf of communityl; He did not tell he was not behalf of from this community. --Jenith (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn about our policies regarding WP:BLP etc. I have explained in the correct place, ie; on the article talk page. Now stop this warring, please. "He did not tell he was not behalf of from this community" does not mean that he is from the community - that is a nonsense. If in doubt, then ask before inserting. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit of article "Harvey Karp"

The article contains - as a main part - a chapter named "Karp's technique". Than follows "Criticism" - dealing with the problematic aspects of this techniques, not so much with the problematic person of Karp. So I think my contribution on just this technique is a useful aspect of the whole page. Otherwise this problematic "calming reflex" can be mentioned, while a rational critique cannot. Mr. bobby (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections have to be very carefully deployed, especially in articles that are biographies of living people. Furthermore, the article is indeed a biography and not an article about the calming reflex technique, so there are issues of weight also. I do not for one moment intend to imply that the article is ok as it stands but your addition appeared to be unhelpful. Perhaps one day I will get round to sorting the thing out but right now all I can do is contain the situation as and when appropriate. I hope that this makes some sort of sense. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

West India

Hey Sitush, can you have a look at the recent edits? My knowledge of geography isn't that great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rajasthan is NW India, so there may be some semantical issue here. I am not aware of a formal definition for West India, but perhaps that is the most basic requirement for an article such as this? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen snooker being played? After all the red balls are potted, the other coloured balls are potted in a sequence that goes yellow-green-brown-blue-pink-black. Years ago, when snooker was televised over here and colour TV was still a luxury, one commentator famously said "For those of you watching black-and-white televisions, the green ball is the one next to the brown". Apropos that, I am on that little island to your right, as you look towards New York. Neither of the places will actually be visible to you, of course, so it may not be terribly useful as an attempt to improve your geographical knowledge ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, don't insult me: I'll have you know that the Whirlwind from London Town is one of my childhood heroes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was back in the days when you liked flashy waistcoats and admired an early example of the heroin chic physique. Nowadays, you can only dream of a perm such as he had ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I couldn't stand Davis and Henry and all those clean-cut guys. "Jimmy" is such a cool name too. Besides Hendrix, there's Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, for instance. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Parayar Edits

Hi Sitush,

I tried adding Poikayil Appachan to the list of social reformers and activists. I found it removed by you, reason being "Cannot see any sourced verification of Paraiyar status in the linked article". In the wiki page for [Poikayil Appachan], I've mentioned the references: (Page 264). I couldnt understand how else I could do the same. Please clarify, I will try providing the same.

On the same note, many other leaders on the Paraiyar wiki is left with no reference. Am I allowed to remove them on good faith note ? ~Regards.

Almithra, don't forget to sign every time you post on a Talk page

Sitush, Almithra is correct, the article Poikayil Appachan explicitly states his Paraiyar origin, with cite. Restoring to Paraiyar, and including the cite regarding his birth community. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably the article has been updated but possibly I just cocked it up. Sorry about that, Almithra. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Vikrant Chaturvedi

Please see the edit warring being indulged in by User:BlueMario1016 regarding Devanagri scripts on the page above, even after I've explained the consensus reached on India notice board to him at my talk page here. I'd appreciate your intervention. Regards, Lovy Singhal (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Khattar

Dear User:Sitush, hi, and thanks, reg the reversion of my earlier edits on the above article! However, just for the record and to help me understand properly please (Im afraid Im still not v good enough with all the technical aspects) could you kindly elaborate the problems with these two articles, that were removed? I didn really understand from the Edit summary. Would be grateful, regs, Khani100 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

No problem. There is a de facto consensus among experienced editors that caste is similar to ethnicity and religion. A consequence of this is that in the case of biographies of living people it is necessary that we provide a reliable source which verifies that the person concerned self-identifies as a member of a particular community. In the case of people who are now dead, verifiability still applies. These points can be seen in action across scores of articles relating to "List of members of caste X". The issue has also been discussed at WT:INB, where a fair few of the participants are from India or of Indian origin.

Your contribution added three names, one of whom is a living person. There were no citations to verify their ethnicity, nor were there any in the linked articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India?

Wrote a few "articles about books" recently about some of the old Raj publications; historiography is an interest of mine, and the debate about which old sources work when and don't on caste has been interesting. So I wrote a few short articles (and it was a tail-pain trying to find proper sources by slogging through dozens of gBooks hit where they cite the book but don't describe it). It vaguely seems they should have a cat, so I slapped together Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India.

Do you have any suggestions about tweaking, filling, etc. this cat, other top-priority Manuals/Gazetteers I should put up stubs for, or better ways to integrate this and them into the cat tree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not great on category stuff, but the naming in this case might be a bit on the narrow side. Remember that most of the Raj manuals etc had their origins in the work of Risley, Gait, Ibbetson, Russell, Thurston etc, who published full-blown books on their subjects & whose work was officially a part of the Raj documentary system. Hunter did a massive Statistical Survey in the 1880s, and the Ethnographic Survey produced the post-1901 books. It might pay you to take a glance at H. H. Risley because there are quite a few pointers in that. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Herbert Hope Risley

Hi,

I've completed the review at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley/GA1 and just waiting for your response before passing. Please check my edits for accuracy.[2] It's very interesting and I hope your write more about all this. It's a whole angle on India not really covered in the encyclopedia, as far as I know. In this way, wikipedia excels. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you for this article. Years ago I edited articles on India but became uncomfortable with what seemed to me POV and the hostility when I questioned something, so I stopped, feeling caught in the middle of arguments I didn't understand. But I knew nothing about the issues your article explains. I'm so glad that a new era has dawned on wikipedia. I remain so very curious about India. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ps I hope I put Risley in the correct section under "Good articles". MathewTownsend (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that nothing much has changed since your own experience of "what seemed to me POV and hostility when I questioned something". At least, some degree of that still exists and it can be draining at times. You've listed it under "History" - I really would not have a clue but am quite content with that. It is one of those subject areas that crosses a few categorisations. Again, thanks for the review, the comments and in particular for your interest in the subject matter. That the article has assisted in enlightening even one person makes me a happy chap.- Sitush (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience was quite a few years ago. I copy edited a bunch of his articles (rewrote them actually) to FA before I began to question some things. He was a Brahmin and a Hindu and a very bright guy. He was a chip designer living in New York City. We emailed over 700 emails regarding his articles. Then I said I couldn't continue copy editing his articles as I questioned their POV. After many more emails, (he was angry at first) we agreed that this was the case. Since then he got one FA more which was demoted and then stopped editing at all on wikipedia. Really a loss, as the material was wonderful. For some reason, even though it was my decision, I still feel emotional about the experience, as I learned so much about India, even though I was clueless. Since then, I've noticed several Indian editors have left for various reasons. I feel emotional about India, even though I can't explain why. Your articles have been most helpful, as they are the only insight into the "other side". So, thanks again. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Achita Pramote

Hey, I was somewhat able to add categories and stubs towards Achita Pramote, so someone would be able to correct some of the errors on the page, as well as adding more info.

BlueMario1016 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the category additions etc. My real concern, aside from those that I have already fixed, is that you used some websites as sources that within 24 hours became deadlinks. I am not suggesting that you have made anything up etc, but our notability guidelines probably expect a little more in this type of situation. It is pretty unusual for 66% of the sources to be deadlinks within that timespan, and since WP:N pretty much demands that there are multiple independent sources I was rather hoping that you know enough about this person to provide either alternate sources for those statements or some additional relevant content.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak or read any language other than English, or at least not with any degree of confidence (a bit of French and Spanish etc, but nothing great). If you cannot resolve the potential issues regarding notability then it could well be that someone nominates the article for deletion. That person will not be me because TV subjects are something else where I have not a lot of experience. I would imagine that there is a Thai Wikiproject and perhaps even a Thai Film Wikiproject - if you get stuck then an appeal for additional information on the talk page of such a project might be worthwhile. But, please, do not panic: my main reason for leaving you a message was to draw your attention to some of the basics, such as WP:MOSFLAG. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Muzhukkadhan

Sitush: Kindly give some more time to add reliable resources to Muzhukkadhan article. Just now I found few people who are in great position in this kootam. If it is not possible means we can merge the article with List of Kongu-Vellalar kootams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.186.146 (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I will copy this to Talk:Muzhukkadhan and respond there. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Prof. Raj Reddy' photo

Hi Sitush,

I have been trying to upload the photo of Prof. Raj Reddy on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Reddy. The photo has been taken by a Chinese Professor when Prof. Reddy visited China. He has given us permissions to use his photo on the Wiki page. Whenever I try uploading the image and I mention that I have the rights to publish the photo, the photo gets removed. What am I doing wrong? Please advise how I can upload the photo in a manner that is acceptable.

Please let me know of a quick fix to this problem.

-Vishnu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnugsr (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded the file both here and at Commons. You used different licenses, claiming here that it was your own work and on Commons that it was the work of the professor whom you now mention above. Clearly, one or the other is wrong and in any case you really should not create duplicates in this manner. Commons is the better repository for things that might be of use for other projects, so I'll tag the English Wikipedia version for deletion.

As far as the Commons one is concerned, you need to see the thread here, where it is clear that you have not in fact complied with policy. You added a notice saying that the Professor was emailing permission for us to use the file (the "OTRS" procedure) but nothing has been received over a period of several months and as such it is at present a violation of the Prof's copyright. I suggest that you comment in that thread, but you perhaps also should be aware that similar images are to be found on various websites and I am not 100% certain that the photo is in fact even the Prof's copyright: why would a photo taken by a Prof in China become the official photo used on the website of an Indian university, for example? It seems to me to be fairly unusual. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

The photo of Prof. Reddy was taken by one of his friends who is a Professor in China. Prof. Reddy likes this photo of all of the photos of him. I had put up some other photos of Prof. Reddy on the wiki page but they were not of good quality. I had mentioned that I have permisson of the Chinese Prof to put up this photo. But how do I submit the email? I remember forwarding that email to permissions-en <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> as was prescribed on Wiki when I was uploading the photo. I thought that was enough. What else needs to be done? Please advise.

Vishnugsr (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vishnu

I am afraid that I know nothing of the OTRS submission process, having never been involved in it. The thread at Commons to which I have linked above may well be the best place to get an answer to your query. If your memory is correct then the probability is that your email did not satisfy the OTRS requirements and so the image was not tagged with the unique ID that the OTRS system generates and which would have caused this entire issue to go away. Please do not take this as a certainty, but I am reasonably confident that you cannot send the email or give permission - that will have to come from the person who took the photograph because they are the copyright holder, not you. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you do not understand something does not mean that you can ignore a discussion and reinstate an image that you have been told explicitly is at present a copyright violation. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoothukudi

Yes the NLC plant is in Harbor estate which comes under corporation limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Source? - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoothukudi South Ward no. 60, Harbor http://thoothukudicorp.tn.gov.in/features_streetdetails.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been doing other stuff. Yes, it looks ok to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ravichandar84's talk page.
Message added 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Arjun (Actor)

Sitush, you really should get to work! Drmies (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done what I can - not very good at sourcing movie stuff & his adopted name makes it still harder. The article creator is causing quite a few (well-intentioned) problems, including creating a duplicate. I don't like the title & have done half a job of fixing it by turning Arjun (actor) into a disambig. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I love you Sitush. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar

Hello, I've got no expertise in Keralan history, but Thiyyar appears to be an article fork of controversial additions that you've reverted from Ezhava. Would you mind taking a look, and either correcting errors or tagging for improvement as needed? Please also note that there are several other new redirects to this new article. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've PRODed the thing and fixed the redirects. It is a clear POV fork. Thanks very much for spotting this. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy help. Scopecreep (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand that the community is not created for creating controversy there is real historical difference, those who have visited northern Malabar will know it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulkris999 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal experience. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Then when reliable sources are shown especially the case of work by Thurston why first impulse is towards discrediting the source?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop posting here regarding this matter. It is the wrong venue and you are effectively repeating your comments at Talk:Thiyyar, which is the correct venue. I guess that the AfD page, as noted at Thiyyar might also be ok but I wouldn't bank on it because right now you are just committing a form a suicide: every argument you put up is another reason to delete the article. Perhaps spend a bit of time reading about our Five Pillars? - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Balan

Could you explain why you removed the source from the Hindu in Vidya Balan's article? Has there been any consensus or rule to say that a person has to "self-identify her ethnicity"? Secret of success 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT. You will see this happening at countless "List of members of X caste" articles and the issue has not long since been discussed at WT:INB. Caste, religion, ethnicity etc are all deemed to be personally defining statements that require self-identification if the person if alive. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Something feels wrong, while deeming reliable newspapers as "not reliable enough" for any matter. But still, policy is policy, I guess. Thanks. Secret of success 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold it, you only removed the source, not any content. Secret of success 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a little bit inconsistent regarding whether I remove source and content. I tend to play that one by ear & so occasionally leave the content in there but, strictly speaking, it should be removed also. As an example of where problems can emerge, there have been situations where a person has been named in more than one list (ie: as being a member of > 1 caste) and the issues regarding Amitabh Bachchan's disavowal of his caste are a clear proof that we cannot just take what a newspaper says and ignore what the person says. BLPs are soooo tricky, sometimes! - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Then, if we get a formal confirmation from the newspapers that it was told by her, is it good enough? Two more sources, from sify and NDTV also confirm it. Secret of success 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, because (a) newspapers feed off each other; (b) the policy is pretty explicit; and (c) the WT:INB discussion was also. I'll try to find the relevant link for that last one. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion that I recall is here, although I have a vague memory that there have been previous discussions which had the same outcome. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the Janjua Jat Page

I have found some reliable sources where you can find this content clearly mentioned :"A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery " , Source : Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, 1911, Vol II, H. A. Rose, read Page number 356

I think now you should redirect the Janjua Jat page to it's original place. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.230.0 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not going to happen, per WP:COMMONNAME. I hesitate when considering the reliability of Horace Arthur Rose as a source in any event, but even in that quote he does not call them "Janjua Jat", does he? - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am confused when many people are using with no reference they have no issue, and most of the tribes used H.A Rose as a source even Janjua Rajput itself.

More he has used : Janjuha, A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery, and the same is used for Janjua a Rajput clan so what is the issue in it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.153.232 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a minute ... You are saying that there are two groups: the Janjua (Rajput) and the Janjua (Jat). The problem is, there were next to no sources for the Jats and those that did exist were not reliable. Since Rose is also not particularly reliable, do you have anything else? Please bear in mind that we require more than a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I mean to say, Janjua has two major groups (Rajput) & (Jat), like many other tribes, Dhamial, Ghumman, Sial, Bhatti etc see an example here: Dhamial has two groups Rajput and Jats, and they simply have two separate pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhamial_Jats without having not much references.

My second point is, if you consider that there should be one page then the Title should be Janjua only not the Janjua Rajputs.

Because both the group are related to each other but they have few differences like don't marry in each other and stuff like this. I think this should be given extensive attention to resolve the matter. And if you do that would be your role in making things clear to the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.153.232 (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. It seems that we are in agreement, then. The Jat article was hopelessly sourced and if you look at the bottom of Talk:Janjua Rajputs then you will see that I had started a "Requested Move" discussion before you contacted me here. I cannot think of an example off the top of my head but we do have this problem elsewhere with at least another two Indian/Pakistani communities and they are dealt with in one article. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate act of autocratic conduct

Lets say i' am putting forward a link that says that Mr X is the current President of US; while we know who the current incumbent is;will you simply blindly accept the fact because the 'source' says soo?.Certainly NEVER.That would amount to a massive blunder and an act of knowingly causing denigration of the standard of wikepedia articles.Your recent edits on an article speaks volume of the misleading edits you are making while trying to revert actual facts that his contemporaries;biographers,the governments of his home state and country have time and again well documented in archives(Being Obvious Important part of his life). Let say; you made an edit "a Giant great ship sank in 1912 which left for NY from Southampton"(you know the name) and i am putting some sources that say "no such ship sank in 1912". And then, keep on reverting and re-reverting just because if this insane ignorance of facts. Your ability cannot be questioned but you need to keep up the facts presented to you, not mere 'good faith edits' but edits that invoke faith in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.80.102 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the first line of your post above, removing the bolding so that it creates a separate section, which I think is what you intended. If not then I apologise, but it does make for easier reading to do this.

I had absolutely no idea what you were referring to until I checked your edit history, from which it seems likely that your complaint relates to Jayaprakash Narayan. I also note that after posting here you made some edits to that article and those edits have been reverted. I think that if I am correct in my assumption and if you want to pursue the matter then it would probably be best for you to take it to Talk:Jayaprakash Narayan, where you may get a wider audience than here. However, I stand by my actions and will do so should you venture a similar argument on that talk page. - Sitush (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Rahulkris999's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AndieM (Am I behaving?) 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste System: Keep calm and carry on

Your arguments are not up to mark and won't help anymore to assume good faith. Deemed-Universities are not Universities; llly, deemed to be outside doesn't mean outside. Hope you got the point. I have proposed some correction here: Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#New_Christians_untouchable_to_Syrians.3F --AshLey ^Msg 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a bold reply. OK, now I could add similar tags to all the sources cited to push Nambuthiris and Nairs. Let's join hands to clean-up the article. --AshLey ^Msg 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I still do not have a clue what you are talking about. Can you possibly be a little less cryptic. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For example, what does "Your arguments are not up to mark and won't help anymore to assume good faith. Deemed-Universities are not Universities; llly, deemed to be outside doesn't mean outside. Hope you got the point." mean? And "Not a bold reply."? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On my contribution "Though non-Hindus are deemed to be out side caste system....", you commented as: "you really do seem to be on a mission to mention Syrian Christians in as many tangential articles as possible. Are you confident that you do not have a conflict of interest? Your latest edit, at Caste system in India, specifically says that they were not in the system ... so why are you mentioning them at all? It seems daft to me. Peru is not in Europe but we don't say that in the Europe article."

• 1st of all, I tried to clean-up the portion related to Syrian Christians in just three articles on Caste System- 1. Caste System in Kerala, 2. Caste System in India, 3. Caste System among Christians. All the articles already had some portions related to Syrian Christians, and I just tried to clean-up using information from reliable sources.What is you base to accuse me of tweaking Syrian Christian case in as many tangential articles as possible. Is it an action of good faith? Also, you tried to object each and every reputed source citing one or another lame reasons. At the same time long controversial passages are residing in these articles unchallenged, even without sufficient or verifiable citation. While you immediately removed my contributions, you seem to be compromised with even POV-pushes like "Nairs have become most influential due to their numerical superiority". You have already said that the entire paragraph should go, but I wonder why the portions on Syrian Christians(with citation) are immediately removed while the controversial portions on Nairs and Nambuthiris are allowed to reside there. How I could assume good faith on you?
• Did I mention that Syrian Christians are specifically out side the caste system? My point is: "Though non-Hindus are deemed to be out side caste system". That's why, I advised you to be calm and carry on. "Deemed-University" stuff was an example, like your "Peru" stuff. "Non Hindus are deemed to be outside caste system" is a general case and doesn't necessitates that Syrian Christians are outside it. I didn't think, you need so much explanation, if you are welcoming to different Points of View. That explains "not a bold reply" --AshLey ^Msg 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will have a think. This is exactly the sort of problem that arises when you do not keep a user talk page thread in one place: you appear to be replying here to something that I said on your talk page. Similar problems are being encouraged by you at the article talk page, where threads are spinning off out of control and without any reason. It is a form of behaviour that makes it very difficult for other people to process: we are mostly not mind readers. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm taking your criticism positively; will try to post user replies correspondingly. But you have again accused me of an issue which I'm not involved: I haven't tried to spin-off threads in any of the article talk pages as you accuse. Please cite the exact case --AshLey ^Msg 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have not accused you of spinning off a thread. I said that the problems were being "encouraged by you" - I had seemingly managed to xonvince Inarzan, who is a fairly new contributor, that they were posting multiple new threads that were actually already under discussion in a single earlier thread. Subsequently, you responded to what had become effectively a dead thread due to Inarzan's realisation. It is the one to which you link above, and it is in order not to reignite the situation that I ignored your re-opening of it.

Look, I need to read through some of your sources - especially those that appear possibly to be written/published by Christian-oriented people because of potential bias etc - and this sideshow is a distraction. I've got one on order but hope that I can find the rest online somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed BLP prod on Vice Admiral Iyer

I have removed the BLP prod tag you placed on Vice Admiral Iyer, which I have since moved to Nilakanta Krishnan, because nominating an article for BLP prod requires that there be no sources on the article at the time of nomination, regardless of whether or not they are reliable. You removed a source from the article 5 minutes before adding the BLP prod tag. While I agree that that source was unreliable, it did back claims made in the article, making the article ineligible for a BLP prod nomination.

Additionally, the subject is deceased, so BLP prod may likely have been moot anyways. When I place BLP prod tags, I err on the side of caution and assume the person is living if born within the last 115 years unless the article states that the person is deceased, regardless of what reliable or unreliable sources might say, so I can't expect you to have known that given the information provided in the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the problem. I tried to find the guy using GSearch and also searching on the articles for the ship etc here but without a first name it is difficult. Also, the article didn't say that he was dead & so we have to presume that he is living. One of the points about PRODs of any description is that the acronym often matches the response to it, ie: it prods someone with a bit more knowledge (or time) to sort out the problem. No worries. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done some editing on Nilakanta Krishnan. Would request help from the Military history task forces. Any idea how to go about this? Anant (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kurmi". Thank you. --Jaychandra (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)