User talk:Sitush

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

Urdu dispute on Kashmiri Pandit

I wanted to know your objection to this edit :[1]

Hindustani language means Urdu+Hindi. The why Urdu again! SubQuad (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Iranians replaced by Indo-Aryans

Again in the same edit[2]] which u reverted ,,

I suggest u to read List_of_Indo-Aryan_languages. Kashmiri is an Dardic language, which is a part of Indo-Aryan (a sub-part of Indo-Iranians, which itself is a sub-part of Indo-Europeans). Going from lower to upper category, next name should be Indo-Aryans which is more specific for Kashmiri Hindus. Indo-Iranians is much broad category, which contains Ind-Aryan as well as Iranian languages.

I suggest u to self-revert your edit otherwise please let me know your objection to these edits.SubQuad (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit dispute to admins

I have taken the edit dispute of article Kashmiri Pandit to admins notice board. U can discuss it there : [3]

Recent edit

Hi Sitush. U recently blanked most of the sections of an article. Please discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubQuad (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Great Khali

About the Rajput identity of Khali, I gave two references. Will u please tell me whats the problem with these references :

1) Rajputs: Saini People, Muslim Rajputs, Punjabi Rajput, Khokhar, Tomara Dynasty, Durgadas Rathore, the Great Khali, Meo, Bhati, Mers, Ranghar [5]. The book is about Rajputs. And the title itself includes the name of The Great Khali among various Rajput comunities/groups.

2) [6] Biography of the Great Khali on nriinternet.com. Is there any problem with this source ?

While removing the name of Khali, u gave this edit summary : remove: he has to self-identify & does not in this source, which in any case does not look particularly authoritative)

There are many names in the article which have not self-identified themselves as Rajputs but it is given in biography or news article. Are u sure that interview reference is mandatory ?

Yes, I am sure. And no, there are not many (if any) living people listed there without an appropriate self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If u are sure, then please let me know the source (any wikipidea policy page) which say that self-identification is mandatory.

Please refer this from the policy page :[7]Quote " Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

Self-identification is mandatory only for religious belief and sexual orientation, not for caste or ethnic group.SubQuad (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rana clan of Khali

Real name of The Great Khali is Dalip Singh Rana and Rana is a Rajput clan. [8] Do we really require references when its such a clear case?

Article Rajput

U removed all the images, however disputed (according to you) was just MS Dhoni! Why so??

SubQuad (talk) 13:59, 30 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)

Apologies! From your first few replies I presumed it was okay to use the Commons photo instead of the wiki one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnugsr (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 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)

I am sorry but I reverted that edit of yours. Some of it was not in the cited source, another aspect was poorly source (see WP:Citing sources), some was undue weight, etc. I'll try to dig around myself for more information, although I think that I exhausted my capabilities with those sources that I have already provided for you. You can ask for help at the India Project talk page, where I suspect you may get more interest than the military history project because it looks likely that any other sources will be offline in Indian books etc. Nonetheless, there is no harm is asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history also. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You had posted the following note, in my talk page. Since I am a novice, in matters concerning editing wiki entries, can I kindly have some clarification?

Making comments such as you have done in opening the thread here] is a very quick way to upset people. Please do not twist words to suit your own purpose. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1) What is the technical problem? Is it that opening this thread (I am learning this word for the first time), will create different discussions in different forums? 2) If that is the reason for you to get upset, I can empathise with you! Sorry. But I dont think I have twisted any words to suit any purpose of mine?

And talking of "purpose". At the end of the day, can we remind ourselves that we are talking of an Indian war hero? Dead and not much known to the present generation? Does his memory deserve to be remembered in wikipedia? And how to go about this in the most effective manner? I had inserted a paragraph from the Australian Navy papers,(which references were provided I think by you) on why he was awarded the Distinguished service cross. And you have removed that? If it is a problem of writing style, well that can be remedied? But do have any problem with the content? I think it is an official publication of the Australian Navy? Anant (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You completely misrepresented what I have said to you, and you seem still to be denying that. If you cannot see that you have misrepresented me then it may be due to a less than optimal ability to comprehend the English language.

I don't care whether the article is about an alleged war hero or a cartoon character, the stuff about his DSC was undue weight and it is not even the thing for which, according to your own edits, he is best known. If someone wants to read the medal citation or a detailed account of the events leading up to the award etc then those are freely available to them in the cited source: we do not usually quote huge chunks in the manner that you did. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbritrary heading

Would you have any problem if N.M.Iyer, ICS, CIE is allowed to remain in the list of Iyers? I do not think the reason to remove this entry also, was a sound one? Anant (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is verifiable that he was of Iyer ethnicity and he is notable then there is no problem. However, his ethnicity is not verifiable, so he should not be listed. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he used Iyer as his surname? He was selected for the Indian Civil Services, and seems to have done well enough to earn a CIE? So the chances of frauding on his Iyer ethnicity is low? And there is information that his father was also Iyer? What are the usual ways to prove this, especially for people no longer alive?

I also kindly presume that we agree that being selected for the ICS and then getting a CIE is enough to be deemed "notable"?

Anant (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why being a member of the ICS and receiving the CIE make someone notable, but that is not the most significant point right now. Just having the Iyer name does not confirm his ethnicity. As I have told you elsewhere, there is a consensus regarding this: last names are not verification. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

kurmi varna status

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) 19:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Another IP going crazy on Thiyyar edits

Sitush, not sure if you were already tracking on this guy, but he's going to dozens of pages a day to add links to Thiyyar and remove any Ezhava mention, including rendering at least one page uncat by taking off the Category:Ezhava: Special:Contributions/14.139.160.4

Didn't want to mess with it myself in case you have a larger plan, but can we put this guy in for a mass rollback since he's offered zero explanation for any of this, and the very article in question in PROD'ed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You will have to comment at the AfD. The situation is ridiculous but there is not much I can do about it outside of the AfD process. It is clearly a co-ordinated off-wiki thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Saini article reference

Hi, Sitush, how are you? Don't you think we need to add some details (link possibly) in The cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and... which is the main ref of the article Saini? In Wikipedia we don't seem to have an article on the book, I have searched in Google, and search results informs the book is available in may sites, I feel we can link anyone to make it clear! --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've done a fair amount of work on the various Raj administrators etc but I've not yet got round to delving into the Balfour article. That particular book, however, is poor source but for now it could be linked to the Edward Balfour article. In my opinion, the thing should not be used at all, based on my recurrent visits to it due to the numerous cites.. The Saini article is a complete disaster, mostly due to pov pushing etc. I am in quite a severe state of despair regarding the thing, but I am blowed if I am going to give way to pov pushers in an area of Wikipedia where there are far too many of them and far too few disinterested contributors. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not read the book, downloading PDF, but 145 MB is too much, it'll take some time to download and read.. someone wrote/published an encyclopedia on India in 1857, is not it interesting?
BTW, I am also confused with the name too, here it is said:

The Encyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial, Industrial, and Scientific, first published in 1857 with subsequent editions titled as the Cyclopaedia of India.

, But, in the article you have mentioned about 1885 edition and book title of 1857. little bit confusing, I feel! --Tito Dutta ^Message 01:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never used Balfour's book as a source and I have never contributed to the article concerning him. As I say above, I do not think that it is a suitable source for a modern encyclopedia such as ours. Certainly, both Balfour and his writings may be interesting and valid subjects for articles about themselves, but not as a source in other articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Hi I see that you have recently deleted several updates I have made. I will try to provide you with possible references, but there are some references to books that are available only in private collections in libvraries or even in snippets of google books for the lay surfer. I have updated most information only about these dignitaries who had already been created on wikipedia because I felt that the existing information was rather sketchy and incomplete. SInce I have personal information about Sir T Sadasiva iyer, R.V Srinivasa Aiyar and Sister Subbalakshmi , i have attempted to make the available information more thorough.Although mine was a work still in progress, I will attempt to provide authentic references. Some information is from Family chronicles as these dignitaries were all my ancestors Smuthusami (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Being dealt with at User talk:Smuthusami#Issues with your contributions. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Retract

I will retract. We all want a scholarly discussion. But please everyone, no one personal comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There were none of relevance to you, and that which was perhaps personalised was correct per block logs etc. Anyway, let's keep it things at the AfD rather than sprawling around. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkar's attitude on Hinduism

Hi Sitush. Kindly respond to my question on Talk:B._R._Ambedkar. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)  Done - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil

May I know where in WP:BLP is it mentioned that only court proven allegations can be included? In that case the title of the section will be convictions not controversies. There are not fill-in breaking news items, the controversy you removed is being extensively covered by national media. You must be knowing that. Keeping her article clean of "controversies" is not going to help to clean off her scandalous presidential stint.--Anoopkn (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your phrasing - "scandalous presidential stint" - says a lot regarding where it is you are coming from. As for what WP:BLP says about it, well, that has already been explained to you on your talk page during the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know your idea on where I am coming from. No, really. I'm amazed how people jumps into conclusions. Are you totally unaware of the unprecedented negative media coverage that Mrs. Patil got during her stint?--Anoopkn (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, "unprecedented" is as good a start as "scandalous presidential stint". Prove it, and do so without recourse to the machinations, generic corruption etc that are a particular feature of Indian politics. Even if the allegations were true, what makes her so different from the (roughly) 65% of national-level Indian politicians who are currently facing various legal charges or have already been convicted thereof. This instance has not even developed into a legal case, at least as far as I am aware.

I have no connection with India but neutrality is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You cannot go around using adjectives etc such as these without extremely good support. That is WP:BLP for you, and it is a policy that has been determined by an extremely wide consensus. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anoopkn, could we please keep this on the article's talk page? I happen to follow Sitush's talk page, but I'm sure other editors don't. In any event, I've given you an extensive explanation of how WP:BLP applies in this case, and what we would need to include that info at that location. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saini article edits

Not sure if you noticed, but FYI, SalariaRajput took out the part from the main summary where it said the Saini claims were disputed. It took a long time to get it there, but now it's gone again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice. I've now reinstated it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to R. S. Subbalakshmi

Dear Sitush,

I am totally new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to insert citations... I'm trying to learn on the go, so please forgive my mistake in not inserting proper citations.

All my material is very verifiable! Most of the information is from Monica Felton's biography of R.S.Subbalakshmi's life, titled, "A Child Widow's Story", and also from Malathi Ramanathan's PhD thesis titled, Sister R.S.Subbalakshmi, Social Reformer and Educationist.

Sister R.S.Subbalakshmi is my great grand aunt and we, the family, are on a drive to bring her and all her work back into the public eye. I have some pictures that we have agreed can be shown and used through open source. I have yet to figure out how to insert them. Please help me here. How do I re-instate all that you have removed, and also add the citations, and pictures?

KaveriBharath (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it. You are the second person to claim a family connection, with the other being the creator of the article. I am a little concerned about this and you should read our information regarding conflicts of interest. I am also concerned about Felton, whose book has been reprinted but about whom I need to do some digging. I'll reply on your talk page later - got to go out in a few minutes. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that the creator is also a family member. I was planning on starting this page on her life, when he told me that he had already started one on her, and I should feel free to edit and add to it. Sunil Muthusami is the great great grandson of Sister Subbalakshmi's uncle, and I am the great grand daughter of Sister Subbalakshmi's sister. It is a very large, very close knit family, and you shouldn't be concerned if more than one person is related to her. There is no conflict of interest.

Monica Felton wrote two books. One on Rajaji, and the other on Sister Subbalakshmi. It is a far more reliable source than Madras Musings, where Mr.Muthaiah takes information that anyone sends him. My aunt Nithya and I have sent several clippings and pictures about Queen Mary's College, Sister Subbalakshmi, and the Ice House, (Vivekanadar Illam)to him, which he has published without any credit to the sources. My father and grandfather were present many times during Monica Felton's interviews of Sister Subbalakshmi, as they all lived in a joint family cluster of houses back then. Monica Felton's books are available on flipkart, if you want. Monica Felton herself died by 1970.

Malathi Ramanathan who wrote the other book which is derived from her thesis on Sister Subbalaksmi's life, lives in Bangalore. The other sources that Sunil has cited are the Sister Subbalakshmi Centenary Souvenir which the family and members of the Sarada Ladies Union published in 1986. That souvenir, if you will send me your email, I can scan page by page and send you if you want.

As far as copyright is concerned, all the photographs belonged to Sister Subbalakshmi's nephew, V.S.Shankar. Before he passed away, he handed them all over to my aunt, Nithya. She, (Nithya) and I have been putting together all of Sister Subbalakshmi's life history and publications and photographs and are presenting it over this entire year at various venues in Chennai, especially at the institutions that she headed / started / managed. We felt it would be good to have the information on the wikipedia too, as she was a very humble person who didn't push her name out to the forefront, and with the 50s and 60s anti-brahmin agitations, her name has slowly been pushed out of prominence.

I have no idea why you are so apprehensive about our sources and so suspicious about this article.

KaveriBharath (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am apprehensive for numerous reasons. These include:

• Both of you do have a conflict of interest - see WP:COI
• Felton was published 60 years ago and I have yet to determine her academic credentials or, indeed, the status of her publisher - see WP:RS & WP:V
• You say that your family & the article subject herself were intimately involved with Felton's study - see WP:SPS
• As you note, Muthaiah seems not to be reliable and therefore should not be used at all - WP:RS
• Your family were intimately involved with the Sarada Ladies Union publication, and the SLU itself is effectively a compromised body in terms of independence - see WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V
• While someone who was awarded the Padma Shri is certainly likely to be de facto notable, you need to come up with much better sources etc than you have done and, really, you should probably not be editing the article at all. The latter is even more significant given that you and your family are clearly engaged in a project to promote your late relative, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. If she is notable then someone else will create the article eventually.

Please do read those blue links that I have provided. I hope that this makes some sense. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have the photos etc that you refer to ever been published before? Who took the photographs? - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I now understand what you mean by a conflict of interest by being family members. Although my edits are based on actual recorded and documented facts. And Sunil Muthusami and I don't know each other, except through the fact that we have both been researching Sister Subbalakshmi's life.

• My family members were not involved in the interviews conducted by Felton. The interviews had to be conducted at home, as Sister Subbalakshmi was very old then. It was only natural that my family members would have been around when Felton came and went. Also a biographer interviewing her subject is pretty normal, so to say that you can't rely on Felton as she involved her subject while writing her biography sounds a bit skewed..... Felton was not a family member. She was a biographer who was in Madras to write Rajaji's biography and also wrote Sister Subbalakshmi's biography based both on interviews as well as facts gathered at the various institutions and around Madras at that time. Most things published about a person who was a major public force a hundred years ago, are likely to be at least 60 years old, or based on publications and verifiable facts that date back at least 60 years. So how can you not take into account a publication because it was originally published 60 years ago?
• The family has nothing to do with the Sarada Ladies Union! Prominent Leaders like Rukmini Arundale and Kokila Kalahasthi and Dr.Muthulakshmi Reddy have links to the Ladies Union, which was started by Sister Subbalakshmi. The centenary Publication was sponsored by the family, in tribute to Sister Subbalakshmi. That is all.

*It is not only the Padma Shree, but also records of the Women's India Association, the first All India Women's Conference, and Ramakrishna Mission's records of the Sarada Sangha that must have records of her achievements.

I understand why you say that I shouldn't be editing the article. And I won't. But usually people to whom the topic is close to their hearts are more likely to take the trouble to gather facts and put it up. FYI, the Padma Shree was the least of her achievements.

Aren't the wiki pages on universities and other institutions written by people who are part of that institution? Who else will have such intimate knowledge or the authority to write about them? Or are those also

• Malathi Ramanathan is not related to her, and has written a published thesis on her, for a deemed University. All of the facts gathered from Monica Felton's books and Muthaiah's columns and the Centenary Souvenir have been verified against her thesis. She cites Government Archives as her reference materials for the Legislative Assembly Speeches that R.S.Subbalakshmi delivered. But those speeches' recordings and other Government archive materials aren't accessible to us, unless we are PhD scholars or Government archivists! How would you verify her sources? At some point the recording of a fact must be taken on good faith of the person who recorded it then, no?

Fine, please leave the article as it is. I will only remove Muthaiah as a reference and insert Malathi Ramanathan's publication as a reference. Hopefully someone somewhere will take it up, and write about her works that have not been mentioned here.

Our spreading of awareness is not a propaganda to promote a family member. It is to ensure that someone who had dedicated her whole life to the right to education for all is not forgotten by the very systems and institutions that she started just because she didn't seek out publicity in her lifetime.

• The photos that you asked about are of Sister Subbalakshmi and people whom she worked with. Some have been published before and some have not.

KaveriBharath (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Off-topic note since I saw this brought up above, Muthaiah is a reliable source, in his capacity as the historian of Madras/Chennai and topics related to the history of the city -- not necessarily its personalities; however, Madras Musings is not what we could use as a reliable source when the author is not considered reliable there, there's a lot of user submitted content there, some of it from experts, some of it from hobbyists etc. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your help. Looking forward to your support in future. Sam.ldite (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

now

now is it ok ? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC) list of iyers

It is not great for me but perhaps others can understand what you are saying better than I can. Thanks for trying. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Iyan/Iyar, Ezhava/Ezhavar, etc: the Tamil honorific /r/

I'd seen this alluded to in some articles, and though this bit isn't cited it does seem credible and clear things up: Tamil_honorifics#-n.2C_-l.2C_-r

I'll try and find a cite for it at some point, but googling phonetics is always a pain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I always thought that it was just a transliteration issue, whereas it now appears to be another bit of long-term caste puffery! - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Vishvakarma

Please respond [9] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu help

I saw your wild and crazy ramblings on Drmies' page. There is a an editor (User:Titodutta) who uses Ubuntu, but can't get WINE to to recognize an .exe. He is attempting to run AWB. I'm a fedora/redhat user and I'm running an older version, so I'm not much help. Any chance you could help him out? Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I've had some recent dealings with Titodutta (further up this page). I am signed up for AWB & have WINE installed, so I'll try it out some time today & let them know the outcome. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Titodutta, what version of Ubuntu are you using? - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Ubuntu 11.10. Here is the question in AWB Wikipedia Help, and the same question in Ubuntu Forum --Tito Dutta ^Message 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you are using the latest release, whereas I am on 10.04 LTS for stability reasons. I'll set up a 11.10 virtual machine and see what happens, but it may not be until tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you Tito Dutta, the latest Fedora and Virtualbox don't want to play with each other. When building the kernel module for the guest additions, it craps out. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS just came out, but would probably have the same problem building the guest additions as fedora... both using recent kernels. Bgwhite (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the same may apply to Ubuntu 11.10 but I noticed that TD was previously using 11.04 when these issues appeared. Maybe I'll set up 2 VMs. Since other .exes are apparently working ok for TD, this one is likely to be a bit of a pig to track down. We can but try. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, tell me what exactly needs to be done to install AWB? Download AWB file, right click on exe file, open with Wine? Is it okay? I have tried Play On Linux too!--Tito Dutta ^Message 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

TD, I've been playing on and off with AWB and versions of Ubuntu from 10.04 LTS onwards (non-server versions). It does definitely work with 10.04 LTS, although I have the feeling the some functions may be disabled. I just downloaded AWB, extracted to a folder, right-clicked on the .exe and selected "open with Wine". I am going to have another go with 11.04 and 11.10 tomorrow, just in case I screwed up the virtual machines. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not working! Also 12.04 is released now! --Tito Dutta ^Message 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see

[10]--Shrike (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Malabar Nasranis

Dear Sitush, thanks for your edits on Saint Thomas Christians. Edit warring on the page Saint Thomas Christians started when an editor began massive edit warring on the page in september 2011 when the page was called Syrian Malabar Nasrani. His edits shows a casteist agenda, promoting the brahmin myth of the syrian christians. He systematically removed all references to Jewish tradition of the Nasrani people and has been adding over hundred years old citations to support his casteist agenda. I am afraid I should say he got away with a lot of pov edit because he worked in tandem with another editor. You are right there is no standard term used for the said community on the page. The original term for the so called 'syrian christians' is Nasrani Mappila. Other appellation include Mar Thoma Nasrani and Malabar Nasrani. The article was renamed to the portuguese term 'Christians de sant Thome' (Saint Thomas Christians) in december 2011. Obviously that creates a problem. The term for the community is Nasrani Mappila or Malabar Nasranis. By using the term Saint Thomas Christians one makes it mandatory that all the individuals hailing from the community is a religious christian. It need not be so. There are several atheist in the community who are definitely Nasrani Mappila but not Saint Thomas Christian. Robin klein (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place - take it to the article talk page, please, since there is at present a discussion there about naming. I am not getting involved in accusations regarding past editors etc - all of these religion-based articles are notorious for pov pushing etc from one "side" or another, and the Indian Christian communities are right at the forefront of such stuff in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for your reply, but I think there is no need to single out any particular community as being at the fore front of agenda edits. It only weakens ones neutral position. Cheers!! Robin klein (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You cast aspersions and comment in the wrong place, then have the temerity to tell me that if I do something similar then it somehow affects my neutrality? Pot and kettle, I think. I was merely pointing out that it goes on. I am far more neutral than you will likely understand, and certainly more so than most. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Yes you are right I should have restrained myself from accusing people. I did not intend to be offensive to you or anyone. I apologize. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to bring to your attention that it was not you who removed the statement which we are discussing. It was Cuchullain who removed the statement in the midst of the massive cleaning that you were doing and so it went unnoticed. [as of 19:04, 26 April 2012 edit by User:Cuchullain|Cuchullain] The statement was put up by me after a long discussion and so called consensus. But then it was removed in the midst of the heavy cleaning and that too without any discussion. It took me a while to even identify who actually removed the statement. Interestingly the statement was removed without removing the source, stating that it is not stated in the source. That is POV. It seems the rules of discussion and consensus applies only to me. This is unfair. I feel I should not have done the self revert. People are not showing trust in the quotes that I have given or the sources I have stated. The editors profess to be neutral but seem to be directed by an agenda. Now please dont scare me by saying that I am writing in the wrong place or that I am accusing others. I am stating thus because after the self revert there is no solution yet as stated when the problem began due to the deliberate POV deletion of a statement that had been put up after supposed consensus. Why would an editor remove a statement after arriving at consensus. Why would an editor wait for months to remove the statement. Why would the statement be removed in the midst of massive cleaning to be unnoticed. This is POV deletion or vandalism. This is not fair. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that it was not me when you accused me, but thanks for acknowledging that now. I am not a mind reader and I think that since you are concerned then you need to ask the removing user for a more detailed explanation of their actions. Since that user is active on the article talk page it would be best to ask there because you are referring to some consensus that presumably was originally discussed there. I have no idea of what the past consensus may have been but I can assure you that your good faith is recognised and if there is some sort of agenda then I am not a part of it. The problem is merely one of interpretation, and we are sorting that out on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the response on the discussion page. I had left a message for you at the article talk page. Since you may have missed it I am posting the same message here on your talk page. For the time being a rewording seems a better option. What do you suggest? Could you please suggest a rewording that could be valid and consistent with the given sources and quote that suggest that the Nasrani claim to Jewish descent is probable. Please do state it at the article talk page of Saint Thomas Christians. thanks Robin klein (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it but was about to take my dog out for a walk. (My dog appears to be getting a lot of mentions on this page at the moment!) I will be going to bed fairly soon but will respond tomorrow. The gist will be that I do not have access to the sources that you were quoting and therefore cannot put them in context. As you know, I have asked for one at WP:RX & of course I can ask for the other. In between times, I suspect that others will weigh in.

I am grateful for your understanding regarding the issue: I think that there may be scope for some sort of compromise but I really need to see those sources in full. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I have left more note and a quote from a paper from the scientific journal molecular biology reports (2012) feb 5th. I am stating it here just in case you missed it. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just got your message on my talk page. It appears that someone else has already blocked Jogytmathew for 24 hours. Perhaps that admin will be of help to you if the problem persists after the block expires? Let me know if you need further help. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the waste of your time. - Sitush

Nah, don't worry about it. This biodiesel company comes to my house every night and collects all my wasted time to make fuel for the green community. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You said earlier that a compromise rewording could accomodate even the Northist claim. Why dont you please suggest a rewording that would be consistent with the sources and quote. Since it is not that there is no suggestion of jewish connection. Just a line would be fair for all the groups involved. Please I think, a single line of rewording would be fair. There are other people who are reverting. I understand that you may think it is me and may feel like taking your anger on me. Please dont doubt me. I sincerely was waiting for you to suggest a fair rewording than an abrupt one sided end. You asked me to make a self revert and I did. I requested you for a fair rewording. I sincerely believe you have the skill to do so. Please reconsider a fair rewording. thanks Robin klein (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who it is that is presently disrupting the article. As far as rewording goes, I have had a think and explained my reasoning on the article talk page. It really is trivial stuff - perhaps not to you, but to the vast majority of our readership. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference for Dharmendra as a Jat

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to List of Jats. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The name I added to jat links in cinema is Dharmendra, and the article I used to reference it had a quote from his son Sunny Deol saying Dharmendra is "the best looking jat he knows." Those are words coming directly out of his son's mouth at a press interview where both father and son were present. If such a reference is not valid, then the reference of listing Dara Singh on the site as a jat is also not valid because the article that referenced for Dara Singh didn't have anyone saying he is a jat, it was just stated by the writer that he is a jat. Also for Dharmendra's claim, the article that is used to reference Malika Sherawat has her saying "we both jats" referring to her and Dharmendra in his presence. Also there are many other jat's listed on the list in other sections like sports like Virendra Sehwag and a many others that have no reference attached, yet you have them on the list, and yet eventhough I'm providing reference for Dharmendra you are refusing. Please check the reference I have given for Dharemendra, read the article and you will see what his son says, and his son's statment making Dharmendra a Jat then also makes Sunny Deol a Jat. Teamaps (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)--Teamaps (talk) 17:13, 27

Please see the following article that his his son Sunny Deol saying Dharmendra is "the best looking jat" he knows from the The Hindustan Times http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/I-was-missing-the-camera-Dharmendra/Article1-635872.aspx

It is not valid: the man has to self-identify. It is theoretically possible that, as with Amitabh Bachchan, he rejects the entire idea of caste even though his parents may not have done. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on this issue: As per the definition of caste, one takes birth in one caste and would die in the same. Your comments may be true for religion --AshLey ^Msg 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how WP:BLP works and there is a consensus at WT:INB that specifically disallows your reasoning. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the WT:INB discussions is here. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ashley thomas80's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent edit

Why did you remove all of edits done in U._G._Krishnamurti#Philosophy? The sources cited are available on the internet to verify and there is little interpretation involved.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I undo the edits on U.G. page then? We also have to talk about my edits on Narayana page.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We are dealing with the Krishnamurti issue at that article's talk page, as is appropriate. It is my opinion that you should continue to discuss and/or await other input rather than reinstating your contribution. If you do reinstate then that would be your third insertion of the disputed material and could put you on a knife-edge with regard to WP:3RR.

Regarding Narayan, if you want to challenge then you know where to do it. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget the Narayana page, I don't disagree with your edits much there. Lets discuss edits on Varna page, which is why you seem so obstinate in the first place.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. I have to take my dog out for a walk shortly, so you may not get a response for a while. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We can take this to varna page. My contention is translations are secondary sources. And you also removed the reference for dating of Purusha sukta, which was a secondary source. How long will you be out?CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends how many blades of grass he wants to sniff round. A couple of hours, possibly. There is no rush about these things: Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow, next month, next year. On the other hand, that article really does need sorting out properly. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't specialize in caste, but I thought a chronological arrangement of thought regarding Varna in Indian texts will help people understand the evolution of the idea. Anyway we can discuss Varna later, just please sort U.G. issue out now. I am thinking of writing an article on Philosophy of mind in India and his quotes will contribute an important part to it.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Damara

Left on the Talkpage. Please respond. On Kashmir issues, which are always controversial require that any article to be well balanced.

I have deleted this sentence as it is not referenced. The conversion to Islam by the Kashmiris was the result of a number of unique historically and sociological reasons, not as a result of simply corruption by the Dammara feudal class or their Lohara overlords.

It was as a consequence of their many disputes with the kings of the Lohara dynasty, during a prolonged period of corruption, internecine fighting and misrule, that the region eventually passed into control by Muslim rulers.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was unsourced. It is not now. The bigger problem was that you completely misread what the statement said. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ormar/Piracha and H A Rose

I am trying to get hold of this book Die Ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistans : Fallstudien zu Gruppenidentität und Intergruppenbeziehungen which has some execellent work on both the Urmar and related Paracha people of Logar and the region south west of Kabul. Dupree also refers to both groups, who speak a related languages. The current Paracha article needs some substantial reediting as well. I am disapointed to note you take a very jaundiced view on Rose, as latter works such Saghir Ahmad's ( a self-confessed Marxist) have used him as a source. We all accept that there was biase, but that still remains the case with every writer on Indian anthropology. The subalterns were biased as well. Stokes who I have used as a source on both the Pachhadas and Ranghar has been criticised, so has Bailey and Richard Fox, who wrote Clan Kin and Rajah on the Awadh Rajputs. In my view Horace Arthur Rose with Pundit Harkishan Kaul are perhaps still the two best sources of Punjab ethnography, with the caveat that they were men of their time. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your point is here. What are you expecting me to say or comment on? - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I want you justify your statements in the damara article.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What statements? And what has Rose and the Paracha article got to do with it? I don't think I have even edited the Paracha article, but I may be wrong. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that I am right. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the nearest I can find to the "Ormar" that you mention in the section heading above is Ormur, where I made two edits in February. How those could need an explanation is beyond me. I am finding this a very bizarre situation: you seem to be trying to hunt down stuff and are not making a great deal of sense. Did you perhaps post your original message on the wrong talk page? Was it intended for someone else? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you mean Damara (feudal landlord) when you say "damara" above. But I can see nothing relating to Rose either in the text or the history, nor anything relating to Ormur or Paracha. I think that I will just ignore this - too much like hunting a needle in a haystack. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent undo on Varna(Hinduism)

How can we discuss anything if you keep deleting my edits without even verifying the sources? If you had a problem with either of the sources, the first one is a translation by Swami Madhavananda and the second one is an interpretation by Swami Krishnananda, you could have placed a 'failed verification' tag there. Both according to me are secondary sources and even if you feel that a translation is debatable as a secondary source, you should not have removed the content associated with second reference. I have given the links, page numbers, chapter numbers there. Please verify the links and then tell me why you find the content objectionable.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge topics related to religions on Wikipedia do not have to enforce most stringent standards. I will see if I can improve the article when I get time.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a separate policy or guideline that covers such articles? - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

criticism in religious topics can help.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A little, but not much. It is not even a guideline yet and may never be one. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"The proposal is definitely still in development and under discussion" so it just might be.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a meaningless announcement, really. I have been trawling for some sort of all-in-one specialised guideline and so far have had no luck. That has surprised me but if one cannot be found then our basic policies and guidelines apply; and if one is found then it is pretty unusual for such a guideline to supplant the basic stuff.

I know that some essays etc - eg: WP:BRD - have gained an almost pseudo-policy status but the draft proposal that you link to has not and the message that you note is an indication that its wording is far from settled. FWIW, it actually does not say much of relevance that I have not already pointed out to Correct Knowledge. I think that the problem here is the CK is an intelligent, knowledgeable, new-ish contributor who can't quite get to grips with the limitations that Wikipedia imposes. Well, it is either that or I have made a really, truly bad call with regard to WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR etc. I guess that sooner or later I am bound to make a really bad call, but I always comment etc in good faith. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please retract

I suspect you are POV pedlar with an underlined ideology, which has no place in what should be a neutral encyclopedia. But refrain from character assassinations.

Once again Sitush has begun his character assassination. "creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort". Please retract.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No I will not retract, and I am not a "POV pedlar". I have no idea what an "underlined ideology" may be.

You prove that it is "once again" and I will prove that it is not a character assassination. You have created loads of low-quality stubs, despite your considerable experience here, and I recently had to spend quite a bit of time sorting some of them out. Your real issue here is, I think, that I have nominated some of your articles for deletion & one has already been deleted. Get over it, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Kshatriya vandalism

Hi, If it is so, it is not vandalism but my mistake; you can revert my edit if you wish...However, Suryavamsa comes historically first.Rajkris (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now there is an interesting issue - whether we order chronologically or by alphabet. I have no particular opinion in this instance, and since it has been the same for a long time then, well, I guess that we should stick with it. Thanks for explaining. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Indian_Sociology.
Message added 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

copyvio book

Freedom Fighters of India by Lion MG Agrawal is one. I remember you were compiling a list, so add this one if you will. Perhaps it's time to start documenting a list at a subpage of WT:INB. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I never did start that list but, yes, I think that we need to do so I will try to have a trawl through my past. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For being diligent and fair while reviewing new content in Indian articles and for being prompt in your replies to warring editors. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that you will stick around because it is obvious to me that you have much to offer once you get to grips with the Wikipedia way of doing things. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

ANI

Since SubQuad apparently missed the enormous notice that you have to notify editors who you bring to ANI, I'll handle it for you; I don't have time to move it from the top to the bottom just now, but I figured you should know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the notice because it was embedded in one of several consecutive contributions by SubQuad that both refactored existing threads here & added various new comments. Bit of a mess, really. I'm not sure how you spotted it (ANI watching?) but thanks for doing so. I've just notified Fowler, who seems not to have received anything. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Serendipity; I was looking at SubQuad's contributions to see if he'd made a mess of any other pages and happened across that. Glad to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)