User talk:Sitush

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

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 [1] 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)

Yes, there are two releases each year, in April and in October. Hence, the first part of the version number is the year (12) and the second part is the month (April, 4). I've not had chance to do what I promised, but will. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see

[2]--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

G-d this is hard to navigate. To Sitush: what have you done my son?? You've pretty much zeroed in on the Baraki/Burki and removed their history etc etc all in the name of "puffery"!! Let's not even go there...that is indeed ironic given your research interests. Guess it is time to tell the truth and place it under a new title "The Burki tribe." As to making them "Punjabi" and also the Kaniguram ones "not Pushtun" I suggest you actually contact some and ask them about their marital habits of this xenophobic tribe. V/R BB Shalom/Salaam/Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baraki Barak (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Alas, I think that this is may well end badly, and for another account also, due to an email sent to me by someone who is good at spotting behavioural stuff. I am presently trying to compare etc but the case list is voluminous. Hopefully, they are wrong but in my experience that is pretty rare. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I come bearing gifts

Kshatrajagatguru Benadikar Patil, V. K. Choudhry. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Your gifts were rubbish ;) - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like Kripalu Maharaj better. —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Ma'an

I used that source, it was Joseph Massad. Just added the book to the bibliography, must have missed it before. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

At Ma'an? Great. Thanks for fixing it. You've done some good work on that article. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir

I had to delete some text from the etymology section as it was previously removed for copyvio reasons (and then reinserted). I think you may have added to the section (I saw Stein included now), but as I can't be sure what's new vs what's from the original and derivative, could you add back what you added? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How dare you delete my contributions! I shall report you to the owner, Mr Wales, and because I donated $2 million in December he will have to do what I say. You are a vandal and probably a Britisher POV pusher who understands nothing about India and dreams of empire. <g> No probs, I'll take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that who ever did add a few bits about Stein, it was not me. I've used him, eg: Lohara dynasty and Kalhana, but I have no knowledge of this etymological stuff. I'd say that he is a reliable (if old) authority & I'll try to find some time to read around it. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the encyclopaedia, both immediately, and by helping improve editors. I do greatly value the work you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That feeling is reciprocated. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rose and Wikely / Article on Caste among Muslims

Although I don’t entirely accept your point on Wikely, I am willing to provide Rose as an alternative source to Wikely. This will take sometime, and I am in fact taking a three month sabbatical from editing Wikepdia, hoping to restart sometime in mid August, when I intend to start with looking at each of the Punjabi Muslim tribal articles. I would rather work with other South Asia editors then against them, and this includes you.

I was also going to expand the article on Jot (ethnic group) of Afghanistan using the following sources:

• Olesen, A. (1987). "Peddling in East Afghanistan: Adaptive Strategies of the Peripatetic Sheikh Mohammadi." In The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Aparna Rao. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.
• Rao, Aparna (1986). "Peripatetic Minorities in Afghanistan—Image and Identity." In Die ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistan, edited by E. Orywal. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

• Customary strangers : new perspectives on peripatetic peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 2004.

• Afghan craftsmen : cultures of three itinerant communities / Asta Olesen, edited by Ida Nicolaisen New York : Thames and Hudson ; Copenhagen : Rhodos International Science and Art Publishers, 1994.

Have you any comments on these sources.

Finally, there is a truly dreadful article Caste system among South Asian Muslims, which although referenced seems entirely POV. I have left it as is because it seems to be a hornet nests, have a look at the talkpage. Your views on this would be appreciated, as you have done some research on Risely. Especially I am concerned with ajlal arzal categories which are mentioned by Risely, and no one else. Ibbetson and Crook don’t mention them in there studies of North Indian and Punjab Muslims. My views on Risely difer from yours, but it is curious that there no more up to date information on these categories. When I get a chance, I will look at this document Dalits in the Muslim and Christian Communities (www.ncm.nic.in/pdf/report%20dalit%20%20reservation.pdf) which is authored by Satish Deshpande, who I understand has done some good work on the sociology of communalism, and see if there is anyy reference to arzal. The religious sanction bit also sounds dubious, and it relies on a single source Sikand. I am not dismissing Sikand, but Barani was a court historian and not an Islamic jurist. He might have expressed his views on caste, but this in no way means there was religious sanction. In my opinion this article should probably be renamed Social Stratification among South Asian Muslims, with the word caste replaced with caste-like, as caste as an institution is absent among Muslims and is universally condemened by Islamic stricpture. Your views would be appreciated.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't much trust Rose and you know that is my opinion of him. Regarding the other sources, it would depend on the context and & the status of both the authors and the publishers etc. I know nothing about that wrt the ones that you list. I would point out WP:NOENG, just in case the Germanic names - Die ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistan, etc - are an indication that the content is not in English. My gut feeling, without actually having seen them? They are probably ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is actually in English and not German. On Rose, we will agree to disagree. And on my final point, Caste among Muslims, have you got any comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I haven't looked at it and don't have the time right now. Perhaps next week, but you'll not be around then. And by the time you come back it could all have changed anyway. Have a good break. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope so. No issue with the subject matter, stratification among South Asian Muslims is a fact, but just find the tone unnaccetable. Pure POV. On Punjab tribes, I have discovered that the British library has the Pakistan District Census reports 1998, which I will also quote. They all have some passing references to the tribal makeup and some tribal info. Hopefully I have also cleared some misunderstandings. Cheers.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all sure about the "misunderstandings" bit but, hey, that is what WP:RSN etc are for. I would be wary of using the census reports, btw, but it does rather depend what you intend to use them for. That is an issue for another day. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

An Urgent Appeal to Save individualistic vandalism

Your immediate attention to the following-

File:Madhurendra Kumar Singh with supporters.jpg

The above file that has been excessively used,links forcefully added and provided at the different wikipedia pages & articles for deliberate promotion of a living person who lacks both notability and importance to be listed on Wikipedia from his home state in India.

The user with muliple IP addresses,either absolutely ignorant or either stubborn;in both the cases cannot be allowed to dictate terms .Sir, An article,specifically, it is about a person or group of people,whom have held constitutional offices of importance at state and national level are acceptable.It doesnot imply ever that their sons- daughters and kiths and kins would be accorded similar importance!(Unless they themselves are holding official positions of high order to be marked as important).The person being referred here has never been a MP(Member of Parliament) nor being a MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) ever and never won an election at all in his life! Infact, time and again he has been rejected by the people of his own constituency where his supporters claim his 'hold of leadership'. This has been reported time and again and warned,Yet being consistently promoted which is extremely objectionable and a cowardly act.

ANOTHER LATEST IMAGE OF THE SAME PERSON(WHICH IS ILLOGICALLY PLACED ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUS IMAGE,TWO IMAGES OF A SAME PERSON OF TOTAL NON-IMPORTANCE AT AN IRRELEVANT PLACE THEY ARE NOT WORTHY OFF)

File:Madhurendra Kr Singh In Madhuban.JPG

WHAT KIND OF LOGIC IMPLIES THAT THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

Sheohar, Sitamarhi district, Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency), Sitamarhi Sitamarhi district

SHOULD CARRY THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO IMAGE FILES(EVEN BOTH AT THE TIME AT MOST PLACES) JUST BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS A KITH AND KIN OF A FORMER OFFICE BEARER(AND WORST)THE ANOTHER CURRENT IMAGE OF THE SAID PERSON IS UPLOADED HERE JUST TO PRESS FOR HIS OVER EXALTMENT TO IMPORTANCE AND ESTABLISH UNJUSTIFIED EMINENCE).

I HAVE REQUESTED FOR ITS SPEEDY DELETION BUT LACK OF PROPER DELETION NOMINATION HAS ENSURED THAT THE ADMINSTRATORS HAVE REVERTED THE PROPOSAL IN GOOD FAITH(AT FIRST PLACE THE FILE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE).SOME OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OBVIOUSLY REQUESTED TO DELETE IT TOO BUT IT HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN THUS FACILITATING THE PROMOTION OF THE LESSER KNOWN INDIVIDUAL THROUGH HOAX AND FALSE FACTS AND CLAIMS.

SIR,AS EVIDENT FROM PAST RECORDS AND ONLINE RESPURCES(THAT INCLUDES PAST ELECTION RECORDS AND ARTICLES CARRYING INFO. ABOUT SAID INDIVIDUAL MENTIONED ON WIKIPEDIA PAGES).FOR INSTANCE, THE PERSON MADHURENDRA KUMAR SINGH MENTIONED HERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MP FROM SHEOHAR PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY YET WHILE THE IMAGES OF FORMER MPS, CURRENT MP from Sheohar IS NOT PROVIDED THERE;THE PICTURE OF A SELF PROCLAIMED LEADER HAS BEEN PUT UP HERE JUST TO FORCEFULLY CONVEY THAT HE IS VERY IMPORTANT .

THOUGH JUST HAVING FOUGHT ELECTIONS DOESNOT MEAN TO ACQUIRE THE IMPORTANCE TO BE INCLUDED AMONG PAGES THAT SHOULD IDEALLY CONTAIN DETAILS ABOUT CURRENT OR MAY BE FORMER OFFICE HOLDERS AND NOT ONE WHO 'ASPIRES' TO HOLD THE OFFICE!THE SAME IMAGE HAS ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED AT MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN PLACES;GENERALLY RELATED TO THE NATIVE PLACE OF THE PERSON WHERE HE IS TRYING TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.SOME REVERTED STILL, THEY WERE AGAIN PUSHED IN!! Being autocratic dosenot help Wikipedia. People's importance and notability lies open with their legislative experience and which is all but nothing here!! Their personal relation does not indicate how they are important or significant for state or country, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN HOAX IMAGE TAKEN IN PRIVATE CAPACITY MEANT TO UNNESSARILY PROMOTE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESNOT FITS TO BE MENTIONED AT SUCH IR-RELEVANT PLACES.ELSE,HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF SUCH 'SELF PROCLAIMED' LOCAL PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE IMPORTANT WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO HOST THEIR IMAGES ANYWHERE AND AT THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTEREST . KINDLY CHECK THE FACTS AND DO THE NEEDFUL.

KINDLY FIX THE ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.15.133 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, geez, my eyes are bleeding. I'll try to take a look at the article links that you mention but, sorry, I really cannot handle all of the SHOUTING points that you raise. I'll make my own mind up, and just trust that will be ok with you. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have almost literally ripped apart all of the articles that you linked to in your message. Forget the political linkspam/bigging up etc, they were all dreadful and not at all befitting an encyclopedia. Actually, they are still not at all befitting an encyclopedia, but it is late here & nearly time for bed. I've added them to my watchlist and I would encourage you to at least try to find citations etc for the many, many points that I have perhaps stupidly allowed to remain. I will be away this weekend but if you should need any help with citing reliable sources to verify the statements made in those articles then please do leave a note here. I'll get round to it next week but there is a reasonable chance that one of my talk page stalkers might be able to assist you in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Certainly, the entire promotional content was a hoax and blatant misuse of the voluntary contribution prerogative in Wikipedia to misguide and provide incorrect information and stimulate false exaltation of something without worthy importance or relevance at all.It would be difficult to find verifiable authentic citations for the hypothetical Overexaggeration!! They are non-existent contents meant for stupid political aggrandizement.I recently observed some edits by an IP address on the page Gopalganj district, India and could not stop admiring the sheer nonsense notion presented to get the dreadful edit look meaningful.I am afraid, that is just the beginning of opening up of the full can of worms as such contents would be now arbitralily linked and added at numerous locations by multiple addresses and IDS.Such queer notions would be difficult to locate and analyze and sort out. I am well aware that it would be heartening that if the contents are strictly in accordance with the guidelines(Which is extremely unlikely!).There is a reasonable chance that,there would be massive follow up to cover the things or an endeavour to escape through the skin of the teeth.However, I would request the concerned administrators to kindly take cognizance of the important issue.Secondly, in a country like India, most of the archival sources,articles,biographical sketchs of persons of eminence and historical importance and documents are still in vernacular form and could be accessed through concerned websites and even Google Books Archives.I Would provide the links as much as possible for the actual content that is both realistic and verifiable, however everyone is quite helpless against total sheer fictional contents and hypothetical interpetation and excessive aggrandizement provided time to time.This is something to be both widely discussed at relevant forums and minutely looked after by concerned people.I would furthur request you to kindly take a vigil of the contents, that are all abominable.Because, there is a practical certainity that most of the things you have recognised as unworthy and not at all befitting an encyclopedia would be put back in some way or the other and such awful edits and many such non-sense additions may continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.109.171 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• My, I need a dictionary to decode all of this. The points are valid, though. Lynch7 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan

Thanks a lot, Sitush. I'm gonna have RSI before this is over. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Observed Blatant Revertion

Sir, I have observed the valid points being suitably discussed above.While going through it,There has been deliberate vandalism and entirely biased promotional content of insignificant relevance added at the page Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency) .