User talk:MatthewVanitas

Manually archiving old threads at User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive A

Queensland Young Greens

I have provided two sources for the article as this is all I can currently find.

Can you explain why my article is being deleted, yet others are being accepted such as:

Young LNP: References are all from the political party (LNP = Liberal National Party) ^ http://lnp.org.au/ ^ http://www.youngliberal.org/executive ^ http://www.youngnationals.org.au/

Australian Young Labor: Only one reference from the political website. Another reference about one specific issue at the end of the article ^ "Australian Young Labor". Retrieved 2007-08-15. ^ "Labor's Bloody Rituals Lead to a Dead End". Retrieved 2007-10-21.

Young Greens of Sweden: No References. Listed as a stub - is this different? In that case how do I list my article as a stub?

Here are three comparable articles, similar organisations, exactly the same content and referencing and yet my article is not being approved. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. If I don't agree, is there a way to contest your decision? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeyboy1989 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, Thanks again for your assistance. I've replied to your message on my user talk page. Just wondering if you could give me a bit of final advice? Thanks Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

well that was a more pleasant discussion

now i dont know the current state but i had tred to move the article from user/josheastman/JO to JOshEastmanENT i did but then i believe it got deleted i tryed to repost the template so i can add the references but im not sure now because i have so many windows open and im not sure what is current now i give you permission to help me not vandilize something i spent hours putting together a proffessional article wiki is intended to have users hel enhance articles so do a f*ing search and see for yourself if you can contribute as opposed to deleting a legitamate article cmon now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josheastman (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hello MatthewVanitas, like yourself I am a member of the WikiProject Afghanistan, I have created a few pages related to this project and may I say after a lot of research. One of these is the page Lund Khwar. I can safely say that I have read almost every thing there is to read on Lund Khwar. A user 86.27.185.156 keeps violating wiki rules and my warning. Wiki rules because he is adding irrelevant info about his father to the page and irrelevant because I know the information is useless and not related. I have warned him for the second time. Please give it a look and please advise me what to do next. How are pages semi protected and how are abusers reported to moderators. Thank you. Msrafiq (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew!! your reply was quite helpful, I really appreciate it. Though I love to add referenced backed well researched material to Wiki, I am not quite skilled with the various operating techniques here like reporting vandalism. I will do exactly as you say, Thanx again!!. Msrafiq (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A swirl of bagpipers

		The India Star
		For the Indian bagpipe instrument articles. keep up your great work. AshLin (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

userspace warning templates

Hi- regarding this edit (and others like it), I'm not aware of a requirement that userspace drafts be templated up as if they were an article. In other words, there's no need for a notability template, as a draft isn't subject to the notability guidelines (yet). I do believe the noindex template can be mandated by an admin, but I can't find the documentation for that either. Are you aware of guidelines for userspace template use?

Also, have you considered archiving your talk page? tedder (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're definitely right that I'm long-overdue for archiving; I need to get around to finally using MizsaBot, so thanks for the poke.

I'm also not totally clear on the use of maintenance templates in Userspace, though I reckoned the engine doesn't auto-remove them. I wouldn't normally be as pushy about it, but the guy explicitly asked for feedback at RfF, has been non-responsive since receiving detailed feedback (and as I recall published before despite being a clear CSD case), so I figured it was good to keep clear about what he needs to publish. At the very least the "userspace draft" tag should stay up in case people googling him drift across it, to make it clear it's not an approved article yet. If I'm coming across as jerkish (I could see that), I can just keep it Watchlisted to make sure the "noindex" and "draft" tags stay up, and that it doesn't move to articlespace before he fixes the Notability issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll set up the archiving, or you can just steal the code on my talk page and modify it slightly.

"googling" it is solved with either the userspace draft (USD) or noindex tag; the USD transcludes noindex, so both aren't required. I didn't know he asked at RfF; considering the lack of response I suppose the USD tag is appropriate. I'll keep it watchlisted for a while also; I came across it because he added a link from mainspace to userspace, which is absolutely forbidden. tedder (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, very brief RfF request; posting just your link and no comment is often a bad sign for communications. Also chaps me as a brusque "review for me" rather than "hey, I'm not sure I did footnoting right, can someone take a look at my article about a this rapper?" Also note the username is identical to the subject, so almost definitely a CoI/autobio. I think this case may fall under my favourite (unofficial) WP guideline: Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. But I'll be a good sport, post on his Talk to apologise if I came off as being a jerk, and explain to him both what the article needs, and the need to respond to communication on a community effort. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. And yes, I agree on both COI and the "crappy myspace band" rationale. Not communicating makes things difficult. tedder (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Mitev

This is about the page Ivan Mitev. The page is locked and added to dead pages. The problem is that instead of "heart tone", the page should be directing to: heart sound. The page is locked and I cannot edit this. Then the page will be no longer dead. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.51.66 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kayastha Cleanup

Sure, how can I help? Rflejeune (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's about time someone took the article in hand and got it under control. I will do my best to watch for any vandalism, and try to dig up some citations as I find the time. Was not familiar with the reftool so thanks for letting me know about that. Take care. Rflejeune (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your feedback for the article User:Sportindo/SixReps that I wrote earlier. I have made a lot of changes and I would really appreciate it if you would like to take a quick look and drop a comment or two for me.

Sportindo (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your incredible clean up work on Indian caste related articles. —SpacemanSpiff 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelutviaq dead link

You recently removed a dead link here. Per WP:DEADLINK, wouldn't it be better to either replace the link with a working one or to leave the link, but with a dead link tag, rather than removing the link itself as a reference and, thus, degrading the quality of the article? Silverseren^C 06:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The place the link directs to appears to be a squatter site of unknown safety, and in any case, just judging by the URL, the older site may have been just a copyvio of the Grove book. I'd leave a deadlink if it were to a media outlet or such, but a link to a rather sketchy placeholder page that was probably a very non-reputable source (or a copyvio of an RS) in the past doesn't seem much of a loss. Agree/disagree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't what you did for all dead links. Thanks for the explanation. Silverseren^C

06:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Purswani Family Tree

Dear Mr. Matthew Vanitas, Hi, I request you to please assit me in creating a new article "Purswani Family Tree". I am an old person and do not know the new technologies of operating tools. You have helped me earlier for "Kuhdabadi Sindhi swarankar", "Khudabad" and "Panchayati Hall". Thanking you in anticipation for your favour. gsp Gespee (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

May 5, 2011, Dear Mr. Matthew Vanitas, Hi, I have completed the above proposed article on my user:gespee/purswani. I request you to please move it article space. Many thanks for your assistance.201.225.88.74 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 11, 2011. Greetings Mr. MatthewVanitas, I do not know how to post this draft "Request for Feedback". I request you to please do the needful on my behalf. Thanks a lot. gespee Gespee (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

June 10, 2011. Greetings Mr. MattewVanitas, on 12th May, you have directed my request to creat an article "Purswani Family Tree" to Mr. Michael but up to now nothing concreat has happened . Please assist me.Gespee (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings dear Mr. MatthewVanitas, on 12/06/11, Mr. Michael moved the draft to mainspace saying that it is "passable". But Mr. Jac objected to it and immidiately shifted bach to my userspace. I request you to please help me and do the needful so that the draft can go to main space of the articles. I only rely on you because only you know me very well. I am a old person of 72 years and do not know moderen tacts to handle this matter. Please help me. Thanks Gespee (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comp/tech help at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

What RfF articles are open at computing? I have trouble navigating the Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to find anything interesting, as everything is in chronological order without classification. Diego Moya (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, in the larger sense of "computers"/tech, here are a few I recall not knowing what to do with:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Sansa_c200_Series
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#User:HookAndEye.2Foxwall_software
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Self-righting_mechanism
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_22#Gradle
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_22#User:Michael_Leeman.2FArkeia_Software.23History

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to give them a look. Diego Moya (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit late, but I might have some time to work on this too, at least for now. Seems worthwhile. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Next Step at Thom Dutch

Hi Matthew. I was wondering what the next step I could take is? Is there a problem with my sources? I recognize they are internet based, but they seem quite reliable (3rd party, neutral, relevant). I know you are busy, feel free to tell me to just be patient if you want.

Thanks in advance.

Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a sourcing issue; biographies generally require at least two separate suitable sources. The issue with your sources is they fit two of three of the requirements for a good source, but not the third. As is laid out in the classic WP:42 (an informal but straightforward summary of Wikipedia policy):

Articles require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the subject.

Your sources are from forum discussions and the like, which are not WP:Reliable sources because they are user-generated. To put it this way, if an academic writes for Egyptology Monthly, both he, the editor(s), and the magazine are putting their reputations on the line, so that at least theoretically guarantees some accuracy. On a forum, if "Egyptguy123" says something totally off-base about the Necropolis that shatters his credibility, not a huge deal, he just ditches that account, leaves the forum or re-regs under a different name. RS's come in a variety of flavours, but generally published magazines and books tend to meet RS, except when getting into touchy subjects where the publisher and his political/religious/etc. motivations and credibility are issues.

In your case, I assume this Dutch guy has been written about at some point. America is far enough from being an "oral culture" that it's pretty hard to be long-term famous without some articles about you, especially in the pre-internet period where most information was shared in print. Is it impossible, or just some hassle, to find whatever back issues of Camping Monthly and find a profile of him or something? Perhaps you could ask someone on one of your forums to post some scans from whatever back-issues of camping magazines they have that cover Dutch? Or maybe some small-run hammock camping books which aren't on GoogleBooks, but reside in hobbyist's libraries? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been doing some searching and the reality is I can't find magazine or book articles. While Dutch has been doing what he does for a while, he has been low on the radar until lately. If you follow hammock camping you will find it is a bit of a cult thing lately and Shug, Dutch, Jeff, and Grizzly, have quite a strong following. I don't doubt if I looked in a year I would find the sourcing you are referring to, but at present he is just too new in his arena of influence. In fact, "Tarp Flyz" have been around for less than a month but there were a record 18 000 views and 473 replies on the initial introduction thread (http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30044&highlight=Tarp+Flyz)alone. I am fine with the reality that others will likely come along to edit and update the article (or it will remain merely a small obscure tidbit) and I would welcome their support. Do you recommend I drop this for now and wait for a greater volume of resource items, or should we be bold, put it out there, and then let the discussions and editing begin?--Canadiandy talk 05:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Gabriel Wilensky page comments

I have fixed your link rot comments. Thanks very much.Nrglaw (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matara Central College

A tag has been placed on Matara Central College, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

School help

Hi MatthewVanitas. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary?primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions.
If you assist at a Wikipedia help desk or noticeboard, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to resond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Help require for the articles Aisha , Fatimah and Shia Islam in India

Help require for the articles Aisha , Fatimah and Shia Islam in India as the User:Faizhaider is trying to show this articles with only Shia perspective.

i can say this by refering his edits to the article Aisha he is trying to make it a negative influence article where as for Fatima and shia realated articles he is trying to make it a fairytale, i can say that he is using WP platform to reflect his own created views with his own refrences. not tolerating with reality and trying to make the article mess specially article Aisha, and on user page he is giveing wrong information and reverting the edits.

• EXAMPLE for article Fatimah there is a section in Quran for which when i asked for the third party source he removed saying reference already provided( where as the reference is of some other source not from Hadith books or Quran) AND for the article Aisha when provided the reference from other source in Quran he deleted saying Third Party source is required"""

at last i want to say, he is misusing authority given to him by WP.

Kindly help as i saw your edits in all Controversial articles. Please Advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matthew! It seems I have thrown myself in cross-fire once again. :) Do you have any suggestions for me regarding the situation? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt responce and guiding advice, i want to enquire wether we can use this site ( http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/aisha.htm ) as reference for some information.plz advice, any way i had given some references for the article Aisha please check and advice if that is enough. --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Feedback

I do not know many editors who are willing to help at RfF. It seems that even the welcome committee is not as active as it once was. It worries me to see that so many of the most active editors focus on the "sexy" boards like AfD. New editors are doing major edits that have to be reverted because few editors are giving them pointers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Triple pipes

Stole it! Mwahahahahaha! Silverseren^C 03:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thom Dutch Situation

I've been doing some searching and the reality is I can't find magazine or book articles. While Dutch has been doing what he does for a while, he has been low on the radar until lately. If you follow hammock camping you will find it is a bit of a cult thing lately and Shug, Dutch, Jeff, and Grizzly, have quite a strong following. I don't doubt if I looked in a year I would find the sourcing you are referring to, but at present he is just too new in his arena of influence. In fact, "Tarp Flyz" have been around for less than a month but there were a record 18 000 views and 473 replies on the initial introduction thread (http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30044&highlight=Tarp+Flyz)alone. I am fine with the reality that others will likely come along to edit and update the article (or it will remain merely a small obscure tidbit) and I would welcome their support. Do you recommend I drop this for now and wait for a greater volume of resource items, or should we be bold, put it out there, and then let the discussions and editing begin?--Canadiandy talk 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ram Rahim Singh and Dera Sacha Sauda

Dear Mathew Vanitas, Would you be kind enough to tell me how I can e mail you. Thanks in anticipation, Best regards, (Bandagharka (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)).

Dear Mr Vanitas, I have tried to add information to this page. Since it has been a contentious topic , please review and guide me on the process. Secondly , I wish to add certain pics and I cant quite figure out how!? Please guide me on that. Thanks in anticipation, Best regards, Realnews7 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for touching base. A few points:

• Images for which you are the copyright owner should be uploaded to WikiCommons, not Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia-held images are much more restricted in use, but WikiCommons images licensed under WP:Creative Commons may be used widely across WikiProject.
• For photo sizing and placement, please read WP:Images, and also note the changes I made to shrink the photo you recently added.
• Please do not use the term "Saint", "Ji Insan", etc. except in the intro and infobox where we clarify he is known by those titles in the community. In all other cases, he is referred to by his basic name (generally just "Singh" unless there is someone of similar name he could be confused with in the same sentence). See WP:Honorifics for details.
• Of your added content, I have to check it out more in depth, but so far I'd say it's 70% good overall. I do have a couple major concerns:
  • There are several evasive phrasings exactly like folks have used here in the past: "terrorists", "certain groups", etc. If he was attacked by, say, BJP members, or Ravir Sena militia, or Khalsa radicals, by all means say those. This isn't a coy guessing-game where we whisper. Same for "certain groups". It comes across as not informative, especially since it implies that some readers will guess your meaning, but those less-familiar with India will be mystified, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.
  • Your WP:Neutrality is okay-ish, but I you additions still clearly favour Singh. Not that all of the points are inaccurate, but it appears to be pushing the balance to the favour side vice neutral. Yes, he is certainly recognised for many positive things, but many sources (including even academic) show a number of controversies. The ideal situation is one in which a reader would "never be able to guess" which side you stood on by your edits. Consider that concept as you write.

Hope you find this helpful. Feel free to write with any other questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Vanitas, I have tried to work on the lines suggested by you and removed the ambiguities. I am also learning the ropes of picture insertions and wikipedia policy.I shall try harder to walk the tightrope , particularly, of this topic.I do understand that we have an equal responsibility to bring out the negative side , but then , aren't the referenced responses to criticism to be taken into account as well? Please clarify this. And before I forget , your entire talk page has been copied onto mine , How do I address that? Thanks a tonne for your help, Realnews7 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Vanitas, I wonder why Gsingh etc do not use the same standards of WP:SURNAME when it comes to Sikh Gurus and does selective removals of surnames etc in this article only. Afterall , they are/were also Gurus only for their disciples and they were perceived as enemies by others. Aren't they entitled to the same treatment!? Can you help address these double standards on the part of these users , or maybe some users are permitted to live in glass houses.I shall be indebted or your help. Best regards and Many ThanksRealnews7 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback , I shall improve the footnotes as suggested.Meanwhile, On google, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan [1] returns more results than Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh [2] I have been having a discussion regarding the surname on the talk page , please look at it and guide me on what would be proper.Realnews7 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Swami Nigamananda Cleanup

Dear MatthewVanitas, How are u? Little worry, as we had no communication since couple of weeks. The article Swami Nigamananda is ready and waiting for necessary cleanup. Your attention is required now. Please do the needful. Regards Dcmpuri (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear MatthewVanitas, Excellent job! A tons of thanks to you from my inner heart.

This is an interim reply. I will come back again to discuss further about Swami NIgamananda.

Once again thanks and appreciated for your step by step help to achieve this my goal.

Best Regards Dcmpuri (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Info at Indian Magicians

Thanks for moving it, but as it was copy and paste of a complete newspaper article I've deleted it entirely. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Is anything from a .mil address public domain? I found a high quality picture at army.mil to help User:Patricedward, but I wanted to check with you how we should go about judging the copyright status of a picture. Also, should we let him try and learn, or should we be bold and do it ourselves? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that anything on a .mil that doesn't have a separate attribution like "courtesy of Reuters" is fair game; I've gotten scads of images of Afghanistan just by searching GoogleImages with "nuristan site:*mil" boolean, etc. Same goes for .gov in most (all?) cases where the image/text is "an original production of a US federal source". So far as the editor: I'd say give him a week, maybe poke him and say "reminder, photo would be easy and awesome", and if this person gets confirmed as Surgeon General and the editor isn't on the ball, then BEBOLD. But in the short-term I like to try to guide editors into doing it themselves. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty. I have helped push the article in the right direction, but for the photo (and maybe infobox), I'll try and give the creator a couple of nudges. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sri Gnanananada Giri Swami of Jyotir Mutt - Devi Mathaji

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for reviewing the page. The problem about Sri Gnanananda birthday is unknown. Even repeat request from him, he didn't mention to anyone. Some predicted he is about 250 years due to heavy tapas. 1) So please help me how to put this ? 2)Can I also have the Hindu subtopic at the side ? 3) Can I put this page for public and continue editing ?

Thanks and God bless you.

Best regards Mathaji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devimathaji (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

MiG-37 Ferret

I have reinstated the hoax template and added my reasoning to the talk page. Sorry for forgetting to add the info to the talk page. This is what set me searching on Google, btw: this Wikipedia article Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambazonia

Hi, I have been trying to edit the information about Ambazonia which have multiple issues; lies & distortions, but have not been able to do so. I had wanted to contact you but did not know how. I finally learned how to do so by reading "how to contact a specific editor.

The correct information about Ambazonia can be found on Government of Ambazonia Official Website at: http://www.ambazonia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207&Itemid=34

which is exactly the same information I have provided. I have studied the formatting and did that in my last edit but you sill undo my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambazonia&oldid=427767477

What am I doing wrong, and how do I correct this problem?

Tanyi Ojongmboh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejongt (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I've replied on your User Talk page, so let's continue the discussion there so we can keep it consolidated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur

Dear Matthew Vanitas I don’t know what information you have about lodhi’s? Before you write or make comments on lodhi’s you must read 1. Riveda (3,53,23) 2. Manusmriti (VII-54) 3. Garag Sahimta 4. Shiv Puran 5. Jati Anuvesan And if don’t, than do not give your silly conclusion. Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi

Hello MatthewVanitas Why you people are making kurmi shudra.. do you understand the old caste system of india? This is well known that kurmies are Kshatriya and you are making shudra, you are not decider of this issue.. please take a look to history properly and understand the matter. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.109.1 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll move on, Thanks for your time.

I'll take your silence on my requests for direction as a subtle hint this article is doomed. Disappointing, but life goes on. Best wishes and credit for your efforts.--Canadiandy talk 07:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding EN_15838

Dear Matthew Vanitas,

Thank you for your feedback on my first page created.

I see you are looking for sources or footnotes, instead of external links. It seems like a solution to your request would be to change the last two external links to footnotes?

Best regards, Emba7 EilertE (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. More importanly though, the article right now is more a definition, more a dictionary sort of thing. To be properly encyclopedic, we'd want to see some third-party coverage. Can you find online any books (on GoogleBooks) or news/journal articles discussing the significance of this standard? We're looking for societal/economic impact, something more than just quoting from policy documents. Do you track my angle here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will do the proposed changes to the article, and also try to find some online sources discussing the significance. Emba7 EilertE (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Matthew. Ive updated the article as described. I have also found this webpage that might be a good source that shows the societal impact of the standard. Should this perhaps be included as a stand alone reference (if that is possible)? Emba7 EilertE (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you're already quoting enough policy documents directly, and if the site you link is the "official" site for the standard, I'd put in under "External links" as "Official site" with the URl tucked into that term, as is WP standard. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Ive fine-tuned the article again based on your feedback. I hope the article is acceptable then, and that you can remove the "unclear sources" tag at the top. Thank you so much for very informative and good help! Emba7 EilertE (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To remove the "primary sources" tag, you need to add footnotes from groups unaffiliated with the EN's people. I don't know international trade that well, but I'd imagine you want something like

• How EN 15838 Will Save the World. London Times, 14 January 2011
• New Euro-regs Stifle Shipping. Shipping Gazette, vol 14. Spring 2011

What we're looking for is specific footnotes from unaffiliated people discussing the legislation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct the information on "kurmi" page

Hello Matthew please look at this link http://books.google.co.in/books?id=uEP-ceGYsnYC&pg=PA195 , It is clearly written that kurmi are kshtriya not shudra. please remove those words and correct the information, this book is "Peasants and monks in British India" By William R. Pinch. Also i want to say that wiki is for truthful information and you should give provide right information to world, you are part of wiki india project. In india caste system is very complicated so always be very careful. Right now wiki and you are getting lot of negative comments on kurmi groups and websites. Some body may also take legal action against wiki. So take this issue seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya gentle (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct the information on "kurmi" page

Hello Matthew please look at this link http://books.google.co.in/books?id=uEP-ceGYsnYC&pg=PA195 , It is clearly written that kurmi are kshtriya not shudra. please remove those words and correct the information, this book is "Peasants and monks in British India" By William R. Pinch. Also i want to say that wiki is for truthful information and you should give provide right information to world, you are part of wiki india project. In india caste system is very complicated so always be very careful. Right now wiki and you are getting lot of negative comments on kurmi groups and websites. Some body may also take legal action against wiki. So take this issue seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya gentle (talk • contribs) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Grave error regarding "KURMI KHASTRIYA" caste from India, being wrongly placed under "SHUDRA"

Hello Mr. Matthew Vanitas , i would like to point out a grave error regarding description of "KURMI KHASTRIYA" caste from India, being wrongly placed under "SHUDRA" on the relevant Wikipedia page , which is putting up a question mark on the authenticity and correctness of data available on Wikipedia.

It is well known fact that Kurmis are Kshatriya, if Kurmis are not khsatriyas & they ae Shudras, then why isnt Kurmi as a caste is placed under the group Sheduled Caste(under which all Shudras are placed)by the Govt. of India with accompanying reservation facility to them.

Hence kindly review the matter at your end and purge this grave error at the earliest, so that a good site like Wikipedia doesnt loose its authenticity in the eyes of billions of KURMI KHASTRIYAS, whose sensibilities are being hurt by this grave error

Thanking you

Prasoon Sachan A Well wisher of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawksachan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Faculty of Sport and Tourism

Thank you very much for you help, I did my best to correct the omissions and the article looks much better now! I do have a question, as well. Would it not be better suited to leave "TIMS" in the title name, as it is the integral name of the Faculty? "Faculty of Sport and Tourism" looks somewhat generic to me. I am still struggling with where to post what, being new to all this. I hope this is the place. Anyway, thanks for your support, once again. Mladen.tomic (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2011

Speedy deletion nomination of J D Currie

A tag has been placed on J D Currie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Byrne, author

Hi Mathhew, I'm making some progress on your feedback. Thanks very much for that. When I'm done adding my citations, how do I resubmit to get the "citations needed" tags at the top removed? Russellbyrne (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Walt Disney's Riverfront Square

Hi Matthew, I just wanted to say thanks for giving User:AtionSong those pointers. S/he seems to have done a great job with the article, and I have listed Walt Disney's Riverfront Square at DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films about Iran

Category:Films about Iran, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

question

is an interview with the subject an acceptable source in a Wikipedia entry? Thank you22:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesofbabylon (talk • contribs)

Not unless it has been published in a reliable source. For instance, if you interviewed someone and you wanted to use that interview in a Wikipedia article *and* the interview has not been published?..you cannot use it as a source for a Wikipedia article (because using an unpublished interview would constitute original research and original research for a source isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Olev Roomet

RE: [3]My impression from other articles is that he was basically directed to by some folk organisation in the USSR to keep the tradition alive.

FYI. during the Soviet occupation of Estonia music, especially folk music and especially keep the traditions alive were a part of civil resistance to Russification policies of the USSR. You know, they call it Singing revolution that brought the Soviet occupation to the end. Cheers!--Termer (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:Pics of the Maakers. That's funny, I actually finished saving this pic and right after I got your message. I'll take care of it, at the moment I'm about to start an article about Juhan Maaker as he seems to be the most prominent Estonian bagpipe player in history. Even found his music on Amazon.--Termer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Deaf Women United

A tag has been placed on Deaf Women United, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hyomin (Park Sun Young)

A tag has been placed on Hyomin (Park Sun Young), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Esquire Dubstep

A tag has been placed on Esquire Dubstep, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Windsor Review

A very big thank-you to you, MatthewVanitas, for feedback in creation of the Windsor Review page (May 13)-- and then, in sorting out the 'kerfuffle' of the MovePage problem. I am greatly obliged. I'll try not to panic doing MovePage for article number 2! Vjhamilton (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Riserless Well Intervention

Thank you for your support MatthewVanitas.

One more question, should I for example explain what a well is in my article or should I link to a Wikipedia article? (Was “afraid” of writing about subjects that were covered elsewhere)

MatthewCanitas, I have updated the article, and I was hoping you could take another look and give me feedback.

Thanks in advance Heijacob (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

MatthewCanitas, I have posted the article, I appreciate your feedback and support. Heijacob (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ready for posting?

Hello Matthew,

We had the following exchange a month ago. I have now corrected and re-submitted the article for publication. May I ask you to have a look and help me get it published? Not sure how "post back here" as you ask, so please forgive me if I'm not quite following protocol.

Thanks and regards,

-Kevin kevin@billinghurst.com

User:KevinBillinghurst/Jeppe_Wikström

First posting. Grateful for any feedback, plus instructions on moving from User draft to live page. Thanks

KevinBillinghurst (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple things you need to fix first: your footnotes are all WP:Bare URLs, you want them spelled out as full citations. Take a look at any well-established WP article to see how that's coded. You also need to add WP:Categories. Once those are taken care of, post back here and I'll move it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinBillinghurst (talk • contribs)

Touchphonics page follow up

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the advice on fixing some problems with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchphonics. I edited the things you suggested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_May_15#Touchphonics. How am I looking now? I really appreciate your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esptoyou (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox and Shudra issues

I can work on the Maratha infobox you were talking about at WT:IN. I will however have to develop it in a subpage at my user page. You can then pick it up from there and move it to template/article space. I cannot do this due to my ban. Just let me know the details of what you would like to have in the infobox. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Also, I'm not too sure about this but adding Shudra to castes (even if it is factually correct) may be akin to using a politically incorrect term for African-Americans or any minorities anywhere. Maybe that explains why you keep on seeing removals of that term from caste articles. This is of course anecdotal information and I have no sources for it. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, probably the best way is to look at any of the articles under Category:Maratha clan system, hit "Edit" and see the "clan details" portions I've hidden. Probably the best bet would be to include rows for each of the terms used, but make them all "optional" so that they don't display unless they have actual data entered. Let me know if you have any trouble figuring out which ones would work well.

Regarding Shudra, I don't think it's so much a parallel for any racial insults. They're not denying that there is a Shudra varna, or that such is the proper name for it, they're just insisting, for socio-political reasons, that they come from a "superior" varna. A closer parallel, for example, might be noting that a given ethnic clan is Greece is largely genetically Turkish, albeit now Orthodox and Greek-speaking. Said clan would be extremely upset about such, because their popular belief insists that they're "pure Greeks" who battled off all the Turks and "defended their honour." Same thing with these Shudra folks: in the vast majority of these cases, these are clans who were from a "blue collar" background, and later as more of them made money, especially after the shakeups of the British invasions, they tried re-writing their histories to claim that they never came from a labouring background. The pushback I'm seeing isn't because "Shudra" is a dirty word (at least not in the literal sense), but because I'm confronting them with the fact that their legendary history (usually cited to "ourcasteisawesome.com" or similar) is completely contradicted by about every historian out there. I'm totally fine to include their legendary histories (provided they can be cited to an academic who recorded these beliefs), but it's horrible pseudo-history to let people re-write articles on their own ethnic groups to be as self-serving as possible. Makes sense?

Thanks for the offer of help on the infobox; I have to dash now, but if you aren't quite sure which items to include, I can help you make a list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nair

You say that you'll fix the Penny Cyclopedia reference "if you may". You do not need my permission. I have deliberately not responded to the earlier comment that everyone should desist from editing the article except me - it is ludicrous, puts all the pressure on me and is contrary to the ethos. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

See this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_intervention_in_the_Nair_article Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that CM above has emailed me to apologise, saying that emotions got the better of him & that he would have struck his message on the Nair TP if he hadn't already committed himself to leaving. I am happy to accept this, although obviously it is not my place to strike the message for him (he can always come back and do that himself).

I shall write him a reply to this effect. I think that when someone shows what appears to be genuine humility and remorse then it should be accepted with good grace. I have no idea if he has sent a similar email to you, nor am I trying to persuade you one way or the other regarding how you might choose to react if he has. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't gotten any email from him, but if he writes me I'll write back. I don't bear him any ill-will; this is a common-enough issue that he's not unique in being sensitive to caste issues and maybe taking it more personally than WP culture would encourage. I hope that I've been even-handed enough in replying to him, just trying to stay on-message about the importance of presenting history "warts and all" rather than mince about the touchier areas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Paravar

I see that you have just put another toe into the muddy waters that are the S Indian caste system! The wikilink fixes were excellent catches, by the way. An appropriate choice of wording for what was basically a fishing group. Much of the argument centred on Sangam literature, claims to be (you've guessed it) kshatriya and claims to be in other ways dominant.

Out of curiosity, and assuming that you actually read through the entire shebang, how did it look to you? I am at the point where I cannot see the wood for the trees and, as is common with articles where I contribute the majority of the content, it is voluminous.

I am wondering if it might at some point have potential to be a GA nomination. The cite requests which are in there are actually my own, being to highlight the (few) areas left where as a compromise I merely rephrased etc rather than actually removed content. I would be quite happy to remove those bits in, say, 3 or 4 months' time - by then they would have been there long enough for anyone to expect a resolution. There are some things that I would change, but not a lot.

No pressure! If you feel that it is outside your scope or would otherwise rather not comment then that is fine. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually just perused it, but since I expanded and categorised the article Turtling (hunting) I felt obliged to link-in. I'm a little bit swamped right now with both real-life things and covering Maratha issues, but if you ping me in, say, mid-late June I'd be happy to help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On Rajputs, Origins, Ahirs etc. [Section: Major cleanup underway at Yadav (merge with Ahir?)]

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shivaji

Could you give me by email some of the sources for this claim that Shivaji/Marathas belonged to the Shudra community and later found social upliftment? This issue is a live one in Pune and violence over interpretation of aspects of Shivaji's past has happened before, in the case of the ransacking of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and ~tension has taken place over the issue of movement of statue of Dadoji Kondev from Lal Mahal, besides other incidents. AshLin (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

I wonder if you saw this message. AshLin (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My recent post at WT:IN was not aimed at you or your recent work. It was a general note and it may or may not apply to other editors who may or may not have a tarnished editing history when it comes to India, Hinduism and caste topics. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Shudra or not ? I see a number of posts regarding this issue. The simple answer is brahmins over the centuries have tended to regard any non-brahmin caste as Shudra. However, if anyone from a particular caste rose in social hierachy , then obviously there were brahmins available who could bestow the higher status of Kshatriya on them ( I am sure a hefty fee or dakshina was charged for this "favor"!). Ghurye has written extensively on the fluidity of the caste system and is regarded as an authority on the subject. The colonial era census of 1901 or the one before that counted every caste and subcaste. Castes were also , I believe, at that time asked to self-describe themselves. This resulted in a scramble by artisan castes to obtain Sanskrit names their group. For example, the Gujarati mochi caste call themselves Gujarat arya samaj. The carpenters are Vishwakarma etc. Castes also tend to associate themselves with the rajputs or kshatriyas. For example, Gujarati barber caste have a story that when Parshuram went on a killing spree to annihilate the Kshtriyas, some of the Kshtriyas told him the the blade they had in their hand was for shaving and that's the origin of the caste.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

intersting theory; will be excellent in Kshatriya article, with adequate references. --CarTick (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Attingal

I think it may be the Attingal massacre of 1721 but haven't changed it yet. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahirs

you are deleting right information from article and supporting wrong.this is against the spirit of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nair

Understand what you are doing - trying to maintain the peace etc - but it is repetition and undue weight. The ultimate aim is to rewrite the lead but that cannot be done until there is a decent article body on which to base it. The entire caste cruft needs to go from the lead, if only because it is a warrior magnet. Let it be considered in the body, with a lead that says something very bland. I'm just not sure how to explain it blandly! - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thaheem

Thaheem is spelt Tahim, and is at page 452 Volume III

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also looked at the Multan Gazetteer the 1929 issue and the Jhang Gazetteer. Both refer to the community as Tahim. I think the Sindhis pronounce it as Thaheem, and the Seraiki as Taheem. Although if you do searches in Dawn for example, the tribe are always referred to as Thaheem.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just realised, when you were talking about the edit box welcome message, were you talking about this? User talk:Benlisquare/Editnotice You can find out more about this feature at WP:EDITNOTICE. Happy editing, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't test our patience

You had recently added in the etymology section that the meaning of the word Nayar is Dog (Naaya in Tamil). Works by SN Sadasivan are full of anti-Nair propaganda and even you will acknowledge this. If you are going to repeat this blatant caste hatred, I am going to ANI. So far we have remained more or less silent, even though you had added a lot of biased stuff. But this is going too far. If you repeat anything like this, then we are not going to remain silent. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am having the book Jatinirnayam. Give me the page number for your claims. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Digging into primary sources yourself is OR, and further trying to "prove a negative" isn't terribly helpful, as since unless you read every single line in Jatinirnayam, and can ensure that you version is totally complete, you can't prove that Sadirnayam didn't find that quote in some version of the text. Further, for a centuries-old document "what page number" isn't a reasonable request. If you have objections to S.'s quote (again, not a personal statement of his beliefs, but a cite to an early text), bring up reasonable objections on Talk. "He's a Nazi" is not a reasonable objection. "He's a fraud/casteist/convert" is only an objection if you can provide articles from reputable researchers stating "S. is not a reputable researcher." Barring that, it's just your word against his, and he's a published academic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair citations

Hi, you filled out some more of those old citations a few hours ago. Could you actually see the pages for the GBooks ones, eg: cite # 98 ? I cannot over here in the UK as it is snippet view only (or even nothing at all, in some cases), but I know that sometimes peeps in the US can see more. I ask because there are some that I would like to check, and at least one where I enquired on the talk page for a copy/check but got nowhere.

I am a bit wary of these publications from 1903 etc but sometimes it is awkward to pursue other channels without some sort of decent hook line to search with. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, can you see the following .png [4] taken as a screencap? Note at the end the two comments I couldn't manage to substantiate but left as hiddens in case anyone else had some good leads. I am finding myself being very careful about anything that could conceivably be construed as negative, given how much ire it provokes. I reckon we can knock out a lot of the less-controversial stuff early and save at least some of the fight for later. I haven't seen any pushback on my additions about military history (was bracing for upsetness about any mention of the Nair fighting for the Portuguese, Nair converts, etc.) Haven't seen any blowback on diet, or supernatural. I'll try to take a look at "attire" later, though not sure I'm going to find any good refs. I'm almost inclined to just mark it "cn" but not delete, since it's not particularly edgy material, but the format is a bit clumsy. I am rather vexed that the dozens of folks who've shown up to kvetch couldn't be bothered to expand or footnote the non-controversial sections like Diet, etc. But I suppose it is far easier to curse the darkness than to light a single candle... MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Last things first, if you look at the contribution histories for those who have not recently signed up then you will note that many if not all of them have extremely high talk page figures cf article page figures. That says it all, especially bearing in mind that they can actually write perfectly ok English & so they have no reason to be shy of contributing in a positive manner. We are not going to get any help from them now regarding sources on the Nair article: their ringleader has told us that, several times. But I will continue to ask, nonetheless. You have done some great stuff there of late; it is certainly much appreciated by me.

Screencap. Yes, I can see it. I also noticed that in this instance you had the option to download as a PDF, which means that it could be emailed or whatever. I'll have to sift through the stuff that needed checking, compile a list and put it up at WP:RX - see if anyone is prepared to grab what is available and dump it somewhere that I can collect from. Many of these old works (Travancore State Manual, Census etc) appear time and again in Indian articles & so if I can get the PDFs then that would be better still, since the PDF is the entire document & not merely a single page. Thanks for taking the time to prove a point.

I notice that you had previously appealed for some extra eyes at the INDIA project and, seemingly, got none. It does not bode well for trying again but as with my belief that I should continue to ask for copies of sources where I need them, so too I think that asking the project again is something that should be done. We are then at least continuing to demonstrate our willingness to collaborate etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rather vexing, their complete unwillingness to just play this straight. I don't know if it's a cultural gap, or just partisan blindness, or what, but it's amazing that they can list out dozens of cites "proving" Nair are Kshatriya, when most of them (and the most reputable ones) say nothing of the sort in the exact bit they're quoting on the page. A lot of the ANI folks seemed, if implicitly, on "our" side in this, but they were vague enough that I think the POV-pushers will act like it's a "everyone is equally overstepping" as opposed to "a couple folks are occasionally a little snippy or blunt... and 25 others just keep being negative, not doing any work, and announcing their unwillingness to to allow any WP:IDONTLIKEIT in." I'll file a WPINDIA request later, and though I'll scrupulously avoid canvassing I will note how emotional this is getting, and how popular a page Nair is (even prior to this drama getting 15K hits a month). There's always the POV Noticeboard too; I would imagine that some editors specialising in POV-prevention could have a field day here if we can get their ears to perk up.

Oh, BTW, feel free to ping me for whatever caps/pdfs of stuff Americans can get on gBooks. It's no trouble, and you're putting in a ton of work. I'll try to round out Diet in the next few days, and take a stab at Attire. Then I'll wander back to MilHist, maybe do a little about religion, but I'm not as comfy covering general history, or varna issues, given that I'm not a SIndia guy. Speaking of which, one of my major "problematic but can be salvaged" Maratha editors just popped back up, so I need to work with him some. And, saints be praised, the single most hostile and "barracks lawyer"-y Maratha POV pusher hasn't been seen in weeks, for which I am infinitely grateful, as it's allowed me to get a ton done at Yadav. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The article comes off PP in a couple of hours but I'll be in bed by then, hopefully - not slept for nearly 24 hours. AN/I is an odd place, I find. Unfortunately, my name gets dragged in there quite frequently. However, the page-protecting admin did have this to say, and I know him to be of the "firm but fair" nature. He'll most likely be quite diligent in keeping an eye on things, real life permitting.

Our paths have crossed once or twice on Ezhava/Yadav etc & I would like to do a bit more there, but I have another big row looming at Tamil Kshatriya as the "common sense" contingent move towards deleting the entire article on the grounds that it is about a subject that does not exist! I did all the source mediation work for that dispute but I'll guarantee it will kick off again.

I got a barnstar a few hours ago, relating to another subcontinent "mess". I think that the wording in it says it all for people in our situation. It applies as much to you as to me (apart from perhaps the "booting the baddie" bit, which was a reference to a SPI I filed).

Will bear the pinging offer in mind, thank you very much. Off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So far as WPINDIA, for me personally I have yet to get any negative results from asking for help there. I've had plenty of times I got some good advice/cites but no action on the page in question, plenty of times I got no response at all, but a few times that folks provided some great help. Also, though I can't attribute this precisely, after stating some of my troubles in caste articles I saw a sharp increase in watchlisters reverting POV pushing on Kunbi/Kurmi/Maratha articles. They could've been folks drawn to the page from other "edit war alert" listings, but at least a couple I recognised as WPINDIA folks. That's been a great help in blocking the kind of petty/clumsy POV-pushing (leaving all my cites in place but literally just changing "Shudra" to "Kshatriya" wholesale). It is interesting to me that, in almost all the caste articles I've messed with, despite vocal people demanding change nobody ever seems able to actually step in and prove their POV statements, and 90% of the time aren't capable of following the very basic "request change" on locked pages. No matter how many times you say "let me know what sentence you want changed, and what your citation is" most can't do any better than "XYZ is wrong! You must fix this! Check out www.mycasteisamazing.com and educate your ignorant self!" I do find it particularly amusing that you and I (admittedly not PhD Indiologists ourselves) are being told that we "know nothing about India" when we cite PhDs, and told that we "don't even understand the words Kshatriya and Shudra" when we refuse to accept apply OR to "this caste fought in some wars".

It'll be slow in coming, and I really am not up to that fight anytime in the next couple months, but someday I'd love to see Rajput tackled. It's inclusions actually aren't bad (I and a couple others did some basic cleanup of some poorly-sourced claims last fall), but it has some glaring omissions regarding the Rajput having been one of many out-caste groups that got pulled into varna in later centuries, and became ersatz Kshatriya simply because they made good troops and troops were needed. I also note that the Rajputs are well known for agriculture, and no mention of the sort appears in the article.

You may be amused by this American parallel: the joke is phrased in various ways, but goes something like "the reason we lost in Vietnam is because everybody's uncle who served there was either a sniper or a helicopter door gunner." The angle being that nobody's old veteran uncle ever sits around with a beer spinning yarns about being a truck driver, administrative clerk, or cook in the Army. A bit further off the mark, but I always liked the Irish joke about the 1916 Easter Rising: "Why did they build the General Post Office so big? So everyone's granddad could fit inside." MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair clothing

I've been doing some research into the upper cloth controversy (Nair women, bare above waist, then laws were introduced). There is an article specifically for it but it is not great. If you do not pick up on it during your "attire" work then I will add some bumpf about it. Still trawling through histories at the moment, and trying to work out how to avoid repetition between that and the Military section (which is much improved, thanks). - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries; again, as an ex-mil guy and an ethnology guy, I'm far more comfortable covering milhist, superstition (which CarTick did admirably and has gone unchallenged), attire, food, etc. (I do wish I could find a better cite for the mice thing; it's certainly colourful!). I'm also wincing in anticipation of "OMG you can't say the Nair woman went topless!!!" as I expand the clothing section, or "it is shameful to discuss a proper lady's undergarments." I'm honestly not trying to find "derogatory" material, but a huge portion of what I find that is at all interesting/educational is stuff that I imagine folks are going to balk at. Aside from the Nair kicking tail in some wars, and being higher than some poor picked-on peasants (both of which I've added as applicable), most of their interesting stuff is "deviation" from norms, kind of like everybody else. You can only get so much cultural distinctness from "they like lentils." I expected more blowback on milhist, especially on their fighting alongside the Portuguese, having some converts, etc. Honestly, 90% of the whole kerfuffle revolves around a)Kshatriya/Shudra, b) incredibly well-documented polyandry c) the infamous "dog" cite. I'm pleasantly surprised that there hasn't been much flack about the rest of the article.

The article is just getting better and better (if a bit long); are you looking to put this in for some higher-echelon article rating once the dust settles? I could see this hitting GA-class if we can get a GOCE guy to drop in, maybe get some outside parties to smooth out transitions in the text that we overlook from screen-blindness but would be choppy to a new reader. I got an old B&W photo of the Nair Brigade I'll try and add (though it has someone's digital caption on it, but I don't think that adds any copyright claim since it's not a substantive addition), and I'll poke around for a few more historical images. I think this could end up being an awesome article that will really inform the 15,000 readers a month this gets. Kudos! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think that any article that I contribute to significantly has the potential for GA but so far have only nominated three. It is long, but there is much to be said and the forks that exist are next to worthless. In fact, later on, I shall probably boldly redirect some of those forks. Unless I am losing the plot, the interesting stuff that you highlight is precisely why the story needs to be presented in one place. It seems to me to be rather difficult to treat it otherwise and still give the community (WP and the Nairs) the assembly that it deserves. But I could be wrong.

All my "significant" articles are long. I am a sourcing sort of guy & it tends to lead me into the byways. This one will actually lose a little of its original content to counter some of what we have added. I am crap at writing ledes, though.

It will need a fair amount of polishing and you are right about screen-blindess, although I usually resolve that by walking away for a couple of weeks. Not sure what GOCE means. For photo copyright issues, I have a very helpful contact at Commons but User:Moonriddengirl is excellent even though her primary interest is text copyright. Not sure how much time she has available at the mo because she has just started working for WMF, but there is no harm in asking. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors, they're real geeks for proofing. Unfortunately/naturally/fortunately, they don't even touch content, they just fine-tune existing text. I'm not sure if they do any continuity or de-chopping work, I think they just do fine details, but we should be able to work up some kind of labour exchange with a non-India-topic editor to get him to do a smooth-job in exchange for either of us doing a mission for him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

... and off we go again

See this. I have reverted twice, so it would not be clever for me to do so again. They have not produced one shred of evidence to support the kshatriya claim. I have even reviewed the first 20-odd sources provided by Shannon. The article they are linking to has been in my sights for a while but, hey, I'd rather not spread my fire too widely in one burst. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GBooks query

Can you see the article which includes page 22 of this journal on GBooks? Is it possible to grab a PDF? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I just have Snippet. What's the keyword? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is from the lead - "The Samoothiri Raja was a Samanthan Nair and the kingdom of the Ali Rajas of Kannur, which was the only Muslim kingdom in the Kerala region, also had Nair origins". We need the context here, so snippet is no use. I am fed up of caste-ists taking things out of context by using that view, eg: it doesn't show the first part of a sentence beginning, say, "It is claimed that ..."

I am inclined to bin the entire paragraph in any event, as being undue weight/too POVvy for the lead. If something turns up then we can always find an appropriate place for it in the body. I doubt that it is necessary as the history & social organisation sections are gradually expanding to include the general arrangements. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to canning the whole mini-para. I had likewise thought it seemed a bit "leading" to have it placed so prominently. And, of course, burden of proof is on the includer. The peanut gallery seems to have calmed down, and a few local folks with constructive opinions have shown up, so that's great. Sodabottle also linked me in to a good pic for the "Supernatural" section, so I'll add that. If I get a spare moment this weekend I'll aim to add some more anthropology pics to show attire, houses, temples, etc. Still really want a pic of a festival dinner-table, and now that a few locals are participating I'll see if any of them can grab a pic next time they're over at grandma's house. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I would however cut-paste the contested para verbatim into Talk, just in case someone later does stumble across a ref. Google is adding more books every hour; the pickup in gBooks hits I've seen even in just a year of leaning on that source has been impressive. BTW, do you use RefTag (http://reftag.appspot.com) to format your gBooks refs, or some other tool? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can code a book cite faster by hand than by using Reftag etc. And they're more likely to agree to WP:MOS guidelines. You might notice that I have started nitpicking on some stuff. This is primarily for consistency, without which it will be a real struggle to get GA at any point in the future. I have no idea if you have ever been through the GAN process before but in any event, no need to panic about it. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Khattak page

Hi Matthew,

About the Khattak page. The Contents are too long and I know how to fix it. A major part of its length is due to the tribal sub clans. It can easily be corrected by creating a table for the super-tribe>sub tribe and so on. However, this does not mean you should delete hard worked and well referenced research. You deleted major portions of some pains taking research material for which I had provided genuine references. It came from the work of not just myself but many researchers at the Peshawar University and in Afghanistan and the US. Please do not delete this. It was painful to watch it being deleted. You and I might not be Afghan historians or Ph.D scholars but the people who had worked on it are. Please respect their research about themselves backed by a multitude of scholars, western and otherwise. I feel, my words have not been very pleasant, I apologize. However, as I said, all this awkward content length can easily be corrected by creating a tribal table, like the one on the page Afghan Tribes under Afridi.

Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand

Hi matthew,

I was thinking about your deletions, and then I read this on your page: "Improving sourcing and academic accuracy of Indian articles on castes and social groups; the subject is woefully prone to puffery and pseudo-history"

My God, is this the reason why you just deleted a major chunk out of the page Khattak?? Well, I'll start by saying, I completely understand your line there. I have spent more than half of my time here sifting out useless and irrelevant pseudo history and claims. I actually give you credit for having the patience to do this, since I have tasted its bitterness myself.

However, coming from someone like myself, I assure you I dont accept things just as they are. I got research papers and articles from various professors I know on the subject, some forwarded it themself, I studied it and only accepted the references and material that I could myself verify in libraries or online. Do you know how seriously I take this, I took time out of my hospital duties and when I was free and spent months, (almost 6-7 months !!!) verifying it.

To further my point, just use one of the references and you'll know it checks out.

Dude, you just dont delete stuff, I literally cried when you just deleted hours upon hours of research. Research that has and is coming out in various academic journals and research papers.

Whereas, wiki is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, many put utter garbage, some pseudo material but there are genuine people who want wiki to be a genuine research oriented archive of human knowledge. That is why I contribute my time and energy to wiki. Please dont make me regret my choice.

Thank you, and no hard feelings. Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Table

Hi Matthew, I have a suggestion, I have re arranged and shortened the said page (Khattak) without affecting the related content. There is one last thinf that needs to be settled. The table. Once made, it will further reduce the contents table by shortening the Super Tribe sub tribe and so on headings. I have tried but I cant make one. You are the senior editor here, and I trust in your ability, please make a table from the following figure accommodating all its data with one more additional detail. The figure is: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khattak_family_Tree.jpg ] and the additional detail are the areas given in the super tribe sub tribe section for each of these names from the figure. For example, Super tribe > Khattak, Division > Bolak, Clan > Yusufzai-Khattak, Area > Lund Khwar, Tabar > Awwal Khel (this much is from the figure) and now the detail about their areas --> Areas: Mardan, Sawabi, Malakand, Charsadda. City Centers: Lund Khwar, Jamal Garhi, Sher Garh, Katlang, Hatia'n (alternatively Hatiaan), Sakha Kot.

Thus, using both the figure and the area info from the main article, a table will be created which will then replace all the headings and sub headings that lengthens the contents box.!!

I hope you get it. If there is anything you would like to ask, please contact. Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous cats

Hey Matthew!!

I read your reply, I completely agree with you. Those cats are erroneous. I will leave you to decide and put whichever ones you deem right. In that instance you are clearly the senior and more experienced wiki. No hard feelings man!!

I am glad that deletion of material was just a mistake and not an intended one. You dont have to apologize or feel bad for anything. Now that I know more, it was a simple mis understanding. I am glad you cleared it out. Thank you.

Finally, I would like to "recruit" ;) your help on that table making (wiki tables are a chaos too!! hahaha, I just cant get one to work!!) and that contents box on the page Khattak is also awkward looking with no text on its right side. (Its right side is more like an empty lunar crater!!). Cant we do something about it?

Would love to hear back from you. Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The whackos have woken up over there, I think

Geez, it's like pissing to put out a forest fire. And now it is running on two articles. I am not looking forward to Saturday, when our friends come off their blocks. Can you lend me a short rope and a high beam before then? ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, they're not tampering with the article itself. And for our current friends, I think I'm fixing to post a "I will no longer respond to you until you follow any of the points of advice given by two experienced editors and an admin: either provide proposed changes with proper sourcing, or file a POV concern at the Noticeboard.". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Some help over Nair regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User Talk:Vikraantkaka

I've blocked Vikraantkaka for 48 hours for repeated removal of cited material without discussion. Whenever you revert things from these people, could you please issue some higher level warnings on their Talk pages if they've done it repeatedly - that way a subsequent block looks better supported should it need to be reviewed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ezhava and Keralone

Just to let you know that I have issued a 3RR warning to Keralone for repeated changes at Ezhava. I opened a discussion on the talk page last night but cannot change anything on the article as I'll be over 3RR. Keralone is actually way over, but until a minute ago I thought that I would give them another chance. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ukulele Talk

You wrote on my page a few years ago asking me what brought me to the Ukulele talk page that was 3 years old. I'm not sure if you're saying that there should be a time frame that one should reply or not, but unfortunately I'm not one who obsessively uses Wiki as a means to exercise or assert some type of empowerment and for that I wasn't aware that you even left a message for me, so I apologize for that. I actually teaching English to Brazilians and as part of the history the topic of the ukulele came up and one of my students used this page as a source and that's how I stumbled across the discussion page. Sorry if i'm not adding these topics correctly either. I have a friend who is a moderator and hopefully he'll give me tips and to the dos & don'ts or wikis protocols. Mamoahina (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI for Chekon

Could you please let me know your thoughts regarding this? You can reply on my TP if you want (I suspect that the IP is Shannon1488 and he will be watching my page). - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird edits

Hi Matthew, As always, you are absolutely right in all instances. I will use the words you advised, and yes my tone indeed was excessive. It is just that, after trying so hard to maintain these pages from wanton vandalism and sometimes rightful but clumsy editors, it is difficult to remain calm. For instance, I have now spent more than a decade studying this particular subject i.e. Khattak and I know for a fact what the contributor added was not only incorrect, he used poor English, erroneous grammar, no references and worst of all, put it in Origins!! a description of battles that never happened in Origins!! whoah!! Sweet Jesus!!

Well, I will be careful and will definitely use your advice. Please, do provide me with your much wanted critical observations and advice in the future. Thank You Mathhew. :) Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

forgot

Hey, I just forgot to mention that the said IP is banned in four different locations on the net (blacklisted). Take care :) Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reddy Imbroglio

Thanks for your information. As stated by me in Talk pages related to Telugu speaking social groups, Kammas belonged to Shudra caste but Kshatriya element got infused because of historical reasons. Of course, that does not make them Kshatriyas. The most illustrious Kamma of 14th century Musunuri Nayaks proudly and honestly claimed in their inscriptions that they belong to fourth caste. All social groups including Kamma, Velama, Telaga, Balija, Munnuru Kapu, Ontari belong the Kapu group whose basic profession was farming. The illustrious Prolaya Vema Reddy in his inscriptions claimed that he belonged to fourth caste and Panta vamsa (clan) a branch of Panta Kapus. Villge chiefs were given titles ssuch as Peda Kapu, Reddy, Choudary, Naidu etc., These titles are now confused and consolidated as "castes". Till fifty years back there was no separate social group like Reddy. Because of social and political reasons, Kapu gentry bearing the title "Reddy" started distinguishing themselves as a separate social group and Telugu society came to accept it. Too much should not be read into that.I can provide several references to cite that present day "Reddy" was kapu and that they are Shudras. However, I would not like to do that because I have other things to do. I leave it to Users like Foodie to improve his approach to Wiki and contribute more meaningfully.Kumarrao (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing Conflicts

Hi Matthew,

please help put in regard to the editing frenzy of this user AlimNaz, please look up the last deletions he has done and the comments he put as explanation. One go deletions without discussion or reasons cited, putting in his own views and beliefs contrary to all the references provided for the different articles and so on. His edits in question being on Pashtun people and Afghana articles. I am not going to engage him in vain conflict until your advice. Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's concerned with the use of sources. A western historian mentioning Afghani traditions is not saying they are fact. I'm concerned about the Afghana article and have made some revisions. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm explaining to this guy over and over that this section "Afghan and Afghana" doesn't belong in the Pashtun people article but he is ignoring this and trying to divert the discussion else where. He says that he's done years of special researches but I don't believe that, I believe he is the retired User:Afghan Historian who typed the word "Afghana" at google book search and copied all the book references he found there into Wikipedia articles. Anyway, he may go ahead improve and expand the Afghana article but him putting the "Afghan and Afghana" section in Pashtun article creates a big problem because the "History and origins" section concludes that "According to most historians and experts, the true origin of the Pashtuns is unknown... the origin of the Afghans is so obscure, that no one, even among the oldest and most clever of the tribe, can give satisfactory information on this point."--AlimNaz (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NAIR

I have not removed any sources just readded images which were removed and deleted one for which there is no consensus (see with Sitush).Rajkris (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If I have removed a cited source, i'm sorry for this. It was not my intention.Rajkris (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, it's a common enough mistake to select more text than mentioned; I accidentally wiped a whole chunk of a Pashtun article last week by editing an earlier version, so been there. We do still disagree on the photo issue though, but we're hashing it out in talk, and though you and I disagree on some things I do greatly appreciate your professionalism on these issues, as far too many other editors have been uncooperative. Will read through the photo discussion and comment later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Reddy . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuse lit, flameproof suit on

Oh, bother! If I go offline some time soon it may well be a direct result of this. It really isn't the sort of territory that is likely to make me friends. I just hope that there are some sensible people among the readers of that article, who take my point at face value rather than think it is some sort of equivalent to "call my caste the son of a dog, you asshole?" - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Were it me, I'd avoid the whole Jesus/Mohammed issue (which honestly isn't even that key to your post) and just focus on the fact that we can't accept everyone's personal histories at face value. Personally, I would change that if I were you to avoid any direct debate on actuality/fictionality of key religious figures, and instead focus on the general fact that people's claims about themselves, lacking outside critique, can't be accepted at face value. I don't see this as censoring WP, just finding the most productive angles of debate, given that there's no need to drag a largely unrelated secondary debate into a pretty minor issue of popular vice academic history. YMMV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right but it will be a bit difficult to backtrack now. I think that a couple of admins have seen it, so cross everything. My point was to make it even-handed, so that people didn't think that it was some sort of attack on Muslim beliefs. You may be right but I am pretty sure that if I said that we cannot rely on what the Maqbara website says then, in no time at all, we'll be at a "you are smearing our religion" situation. Kicking off again at Nair now as well. Looks like it is going to be another of those weekends, although I notice that activity here generally seems to fall away on Sat/Suns. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AiH

I HAVE respond you on ahir discussion page and waiting for your response.you have time for deleting article but not for healthy discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.47.37 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read up on WP:block evasion. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs

Sir,i have given source of kashatriya status of yadavs in Rajasthan,Gujrat Northwestern india and south india.but you are ignoring my contribution and deleting it from article.this is not fare.you must respect others work also.i had edit the page with full refrence.i hope you will recognise it soon.115.240.62.56 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, since you're using an IP, and are not specifying which edits you're referring to, I honestly can't tell exactly which contributions you're referring to. We've had a variety of suggested statements on the Talk:Yadav page, but I don't recall any particularly viable ones that we're not caught up on. More a lot of non-includable claims from Vedas, etc. which do not meet WP standards. Can you please be a bit more specific as to what you feel we're "ignoring" or deleting? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Education in India - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, MatthewVanitas, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Education ! The WikiProject Indian Education is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Education System(Schools,Colleges and Universities).
As you have shown an interest in article related to Education in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

naveenpf (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For cleaning up the caste-related articles with great patience and diligence utcursch | talk 16:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sitush for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Khudabdi Script

Dear Mr. MatthewVanitas, greetings, I refer to your enquiry dated 28/05/2009 and inform you that I have printed form of Consonants of Khudabadi Script in alphabetical order. I can scan and send by e-mail to you so that you can edit the same in this article. Please give me your e-mail address Gespee (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi/Kunbi merger

Hello,Thanks for the link, I've checked it. I'm a Kurmi, I think it will be good for both Kurmis and Kunbis to come on same stage.Merger will bring both group on common stage and it will clear many confusions, it will improve the article. I can say it's both academic and political advantage.--Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Note that I did not create this AfD and only became involved in this to fix a broken nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what purpose?

Any idea what purpose List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir” achieves? I am not good with categories but this seems effectively to be a substitute for cats, and it includes a template that also seems to be a substitute. I am tempted to AfD the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I also am not terribly fond of that format, as I think its redundant to the category trees. That said, there does appear to be a precedent for such things existing: Category:Indexes of articles. I would suggest a less-clunky title like List of Jammu and Kashmir topics, at the least. I'm just not sure an AfD would kill it, since there are (in a very inconsistent way) articles for similar topic lists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:OSE may apply in any AfD discussion. Someone said "well there are other articles about shopping malls in other Indian cities" recently when one such was sent to AfD. The argument backfired: they were all deleted, and without even being proposed by name! - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As my yeahbutal, the "topics of" is more like an established format, so rather than pick and choose, you'd probably have to call into question the entire utility of "indexes of articles", which spills over a wide swath of WP. I don't know how many people out there are big fans of them (similarly, I'm mad for cats, but I've seen other experienced editors support eliminating categories entirely), but they'd probably come out of the woodwork at that point to argue that Indices aren't redundant. Overall, I'd say pick our fights and just rename it and move on. I'm far more concerned about the huge batches of POV caste articles than I am about organisational minutiae like Indices that almost nobody uses that don't take up much space (and will at least look clean in title with a rename). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod

I am doing a little tidying up at James Tod and have also added a "Reputation" section. That section, which is incomplete, already makes interesting reading. Basically, it is likely to substantiate what I have suspected for a long time: we cannot rely on Tod here as a source for outright factual statements. When he is used as a source then we need a more recent supporting source (which kinda makes using him pointless in the first place), or we need to note in the text that it was Tod who said it and he is not exactly the most reliable of people. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Despatches

	Buddy, lend me a dime?
	Is your payment being drip-fed? Sitush (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Interest in the Nair caste blogpost

Dear sir,

I was perusing the ANI board and noticed your comment with regard to a rather angry fellow writing a blogpost on the topic of Nair caste members. As I am always on the lookout for (but have no interest in causing) humerous drama, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to link me to this blogpost where the rather angry gentleman accuses you and several other editors of having taken bribes for the purpose of slandering a caste in India. It would be appreciated, and depending on the inanity and paranoia exhibited in the post itself, might possibly make my day.

Your servant,
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (Note, I don't normally write like this, but it's fun in this case. :p)

You can find it in the ANI history, or on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011

I am going to be ignoring ThisThat2011 for the foreseeable. Conversation is achieving nothing of value and is becoming tendentious. I have better things to do with my time here than to be "instructed" on what I need to do with it. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Shia Islam article

Dear Matthew, I made some cleaning on Shia Islam, and will continue it in the incoming days. The article contains lots of redundant sourced materials, and I am afraid of being accused in the next days. So please have a look now and then, and if you see any of my edit inappropriate, just revert it or rewrite as you prefer. Regards. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You might be interested in what's being unearthed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi kshtriya

Thoughts welcome at User talk:Sitush#Kurmi kshtriya -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious seats section of Yadava article

After reading the subject section which you added, I found that it is most appropriate to include this section in Konar (caste) article. Please consider about moving the section, even though the article needs serious improvement. Joy1963^Talk 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That section was actually written by someone else, but moved by me during a merge, I believe. It's rather confusingly written, so I wasn't sure what to do with it. By all means, modify it or move it as you like, just leave us a clear edit summary (we've had a lot of vandalism and are touchy, so a clear ES would let us know you're a proper editor). Thanks for touching base on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please dont take ownership of articles

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Kurmi. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sitush and MatthewVanitas have assumed the ownership of the article as per the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#What.27s_the_deal_with_Humour.3F.

Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing. - your post

That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page? - post by MatthewVanitas

Let's keep wiki an open community. Please be respectful towards other users.

80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The version of this discussion that above user had on User Talk:Sitush has been copied to WP:NPOVN, in order to criticize the behavior of Boing! said Zebedee, SpacemanSpiff and myself (as "admins", even though I'm not one), as well as Sitush and yourself. It's at WP:NPOVN#One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi if you feel like commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I have just seen this (the original IP post here). Not only is it an unattributed copy/paste but it takes the conversation between myself and MV out of context in a big way. I despair.

I do not deny getting frustrated with TT2011. A lot of other people have been, across many articles, but what the IP should have done here is link to the conversation of my talk page, which is in full view for everyone to see. It should also be noted that when I did something wrong recently regarding a TT contribution, I apologised both in the edit summary and on his talk page. We are all human and mistakes happen.

I have an idea who the IP is but, well, until SPI are able to link usernames to IPs there is little point in pursuing it. Matthew, keep doing what you do. We sometimes disagree about sources etc but at least we work our way through those (rare) situations in an appropriate manner. You work in these really rather drama-laden articles is very much appeciated by me and, I suspect, many others. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning on term Shudra & repeated insistance on keeping it on prominant places in articles on Hindu communities

Hi,

A general warning is given here about terming Hindu communities as Shudra.

More legal info here details on discontinued use of the word Shudra and relevant punishments if 'insult or injury deliberately'.

This is regards to inclusion of word Shudra as also insistence on keeping it so, on pages such as Kurmi (edit examples 1, 2, 3 -- there are tens of edits on the page as can be clearly seen here), Yadav (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there are tens of edits as can be seen in the history here).

Please desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is not a 'threat' of any kind, just a warning. The website pointed out is for understanding legal standing in India. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently Indian laws don't carry a lot of weight on Wikipedia, so calling Indian Jatis as Shudra by standards of Wikipedia is not too offensive on Wikipedia. In any case, It is just a warning. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

!?!? You're not even reading you're own sources correctly. That site (a blog post, as far as I can tell), does not say that using the word "Shudra" is potentially illegal. It says that "There are many other offences causing insult or injury deliberately and details of punishment for such offences, and enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction." Note that that occurs in the paragraph about "causing injury or even insult to any SC or ST by forcibly removing his clothes or to parade him naked" (emphasis added). In other words, that law is talking about far more extreme things than using a particular word. Note, also, that the original claim that "they have not been called officially and academically Shudras or Dalits" is wrong. A search of gov.in sites shows over 200 mentions of "Shudra", with another 119 on nic.in sites. A search of Shudra on Google Scholar returns over 400 results--and that's searching for just articles published in the last 3 years (many/most of which are clearly published in India). I think, in fact, that this is the same problem that MV and Sitush have mentioned on both NPOVN and the article's talk page: you aren't reading critically. You see a term or phrase that has a sentence or two that matches up with your perception, but you fail to consider either the quality of the source or the actual entirety (the context) of the specific information you're quoting. Reading sources with a careful eye is absolutely critical when evaluating sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's fine if that's not your particular skill (we're all good at different things), but please don't keep rejecting the points made by those who are extremely good at analyzing sources.

Finally, please don't mention this issue of possible illegality any more. While I understand that you claim it's just information, not a threat, your purpose is still to "chill" discussion--that is, to influence us to not use the word out of fear of prosecution. That's the reason why we don't allow legal threats, and so, even if that's not your intention, why you need to stop. If you really think there is a legal risk to Wikipedia, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually Quyrxian, it is about seemingly serious stuff like parading naked, and also about other seeming trivial things like insults. The text of the act is there at the bottom of the article Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Insult is about perception it is very subjective. My point is ...just as you missed the insult part, so did Thisthat something else, please AGF.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can of worms

(1)I am giving one example of what even well sourced edits produce, a brown, tawny-coloured people, of average height, well-proportioned, rather lightly framed, and with a fair amount of good looks. They show well-shaped heads and high features, less refined than Brahmans, less martial than Rajputs, of humbler mien even than the Goalas; but, except when they have obviously intermixed with aborigines, they are unquestionably Aryan in looks. Grey eyes and brownish hair are sometimes met with amongst them. The women have usually small and well-formed hands and feet, this is of-course on the Kurmi page. You are quoting Dalton's ethnology of Bengal, which is perhaps considered a first class source. Would you quote from a Nazi Physiognomy manual? What value does such statements have? What do you mean by well-shaped heads or being less refined than Brahmans? Is it all not perverted? The point is you have opened a can of worms, I have looked at your talk page, and on Kurmi page, there are many registered and anon editors who have voiced their protest. Would you use Nazi sources to deal with Jew issues? Similarly British/Imperialist sources for Indians should be used with caution. (2)Your remark above in the edit ...ourcasteisawesome.com etc. is very interesting, I have read that some castes even arranged for Puranas to be written, and castes went up or down. So why use a dynamic lable when it is so pejorative and offensive?(3)One and two are suggestions take them or leave them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That quote has been there for years. It jars with me and I would be happy to see it go. However, when I looked into it the thing appeared to have been added by someone from India and so I thought that it might be one of those matters of pride. Regardless, this is a discussion for the article talk page, not here. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, it was in a version of the WP article from 2006 that was erroneously used as a source yesterday (at bookrags). - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the previous edit Sitush, if it was for me.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush how do you know where a person is from? I thought you were Indian as your username looks like Satish, your userpage says you are in Japan but edit in English, doesn't tell me a lot about you, same with anyone else.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Geolocate IP address and hope that it is not a proxy; and note that umpteen other people subsequently, who have professed to be of the Kurmi class and have edited in what might be called a "pro Kurmi" manner have left it alone. Regardless, my point is that MV did not insert this information. It existed before he edited anywhere here & I would guess that since it has been unchallenged for so long he made the same assumption as me: it is sourced and so, even if it grates with me, leave it alone. The edit introducing the mirror is here and the quote existed way back (I am not going through it all again to find the exact date of introduction). You have me confused with someone else, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed that Matthew inserted that text, I just used it as an example of the pitfalls of the system of wp:RS etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Have I (my confusion)? I'm sorry.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You said in your original message "you are quoting ..." There is no pitfall in the WP:RS system here: as I have explained, it has been left precisely because of RS. The fact that I am personally uncomfortable with it is not a reason for me to remove it.

I have used the name Sitush on what is now the web since before the web and PCs etc existed, back in the days of FIDO bulletin boards etc. According to a recent blog, I am in Liverpool although, if you look around you would see that I am in Manchester. I even said so in a message somewhere yesterday. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Oh I should have used the more formal Dalton is quoted. There is a term that comes to my mind, wp:RS is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted, I was not the originator of that text to the best of my recollection. I've certainly run across plenty of articles where antiquated-anthropological texts were quoted, and as Sitush notes generally it's been used as "look, even the British said Foo was beautiful and Aryan." Anachronistic? Highly. Useless? Not necessarily, it gives interesting insight as to the relationship between the British and the Foo caste. Not that the British are qualified to define a caste, but just that they were one of the greatest outside influences on India in the 1800-1947 period. I would be equally thrilled if we had access to Moghul descriptions, for example, so this isn't a "white people are right" issue so much as a reflection of our better access to British descriptions.

I wouldn't go out of my way to add it were it not there, but I don't see any major reason to remove it, provided it is clearly qualified as historical perspective vice historical fact. I also don't see it as a "pitfall of the RS system". Even if Dalton is agreed by consensus to be accurate on some issues, that does not make him RS for everything. A 19th century Norwegian may be RS for listing out the major shipping companies operating in Oslo in 1848 (since he can be presumed to be familiar with the topic and to have motive to coney the information accurately), but he is not an authority on oceanography worth of contradicting modern researches who have far better accesss and technology. Do you track my metaphor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have quoted Pagdi on the Kurmi talk page, please bother to read if possible. I have had enough with the Kurmi talk page, for some time at least. No offence meant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see no reason to disagree with anything you have written last.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whats this

at this link you will find probable vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israr_Ahmed#New_Social_Engineering_Program_of_United_Nations_Organizations after checking whether the said author has said this, I found it to be completely false and baseless. I am waiting for references but even if provided, they too might be false or pseudo. Maybe you would like to clean it up in time!! Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahirs as OBCs

you mentioned modern ahirs as shudra which is ancient concept and hardly relevent in modern period for modern community.this is also not useful for readers because you alredy deleted good amount of ancient history of this community.so much of tussle going on discussion page both side accusing each other.you as an administrator have responsibility to keep faith in wikipedia of other contributors.so sir ,i request you to use OBCs word instead of Shudra which more relevent today and useful for readers.i hope you will take it positively.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all an administrator, and any "ancient history" which has been removed has been so because it either was redundant to Abhira tribe and/or failed to demonstrate a linkage to the modern Ahir community. So far as OBC and Shudra, I'll take a look at the page again to ensure that the "Shudra" term is clearly labeled as historical, and the OBC as a modern concept. The Shudra term is hardly "ancient", as it appears the Ahirs were labeled Shudra well up to Independence, following which such official varna designations were phased out, though outside official channels they certainly maintain some vestigial relevance. Long/short, yes, we should ensure the term Shudra is put in proper context, but no, we will not whitewash it from the article to spare hurt feelings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ok I agree with you sir,keep shudra in article..but it is only one point of view of a controversial Topic ahir.there are other sources also mentioned them as OBCs, Cowherders,Nomads and Kshtriya.but these points have been completely deleted from article.we should have a comprehensive article for our readers with all relevent point of views from well cited information.it is very common in subject like history,sociology have different point of view of a topic.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

When were cited mentions of cowherds, OBC, and nomads removed? And nobody is objecting to mentioning Kshatriya claims by Ahirs (so long as properly cited), what we're objecting to is lengthy reams of mythology cited as conclusive fact, particularly when those passages are redundant to other articles. The easiest way to avoid edit-warring would be for you to put your suggested text on the Talk page, and ask for comment. If everything checks out, we'll have clear consensus, and it can easily be added and defended in the article by all parties involved. We definitely need to cover all significant sides of the story, but we need to avoid speculation, repetition, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given some sources with refrence of coeherders and ancient kingdoms of ahirs on discussion page.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the Ahirs page watchlisted, as does Sitush. I suggest you keep all the discussion on that page rather than ping our Talks each time. I'll go check out that page now, but the last time I checked you weren't very clear on which refs you wanted to use, and also I still suggest you provide a sample of what you want to add vice try to gain consensus based on vague intent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)As was obvious on the Kurmi talk page, you and Sitush do not have any specialised knowledge about the subject - caste, on the other hand you seem to have fairly good working knowledge of Wikipedia, which would have worked fine if the subject had been objective, however caste isn't that easy. I suggest as Bill above has that the Indian and State government classification, should be all that the article should mention, as these are unambiguous, at a given moment. (2)Jews and others were given the lable untermensch, would you use that lable in an article on Jews as a classification? (3)See these lables were given to people, they weren't self-designations. X classified a Y caste as Shudra, what authority did X have to classify a caste thus? Also we have Z a reliable source, that says that Y caste has shrugged that lable, and now has declared itself as no longer Shudra, and is agitating with authorities and with society to be considered so, why do you still make statements like what we're objecting to is lengthy reams of mythology cited as conclusive fact, do you considered the Varna system science, or scientific facts? (4)India under British had sign boards like dogs and Indians not allowed, do articles about Indians and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and Myanmarese, and Sri Lankans, and Maldivians, quote fine sources that in certain circumstances these were considered as equivalent to canine? (5)I am using this page as it about your editing and not any particualr article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken record, I think. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The "uttermensch" comparison doesn't fly: that is one specific era in a long history, and German-Jewish relations do not define Jewish identity overall, though it's certainly significant. Kurmi-Brahmin relations, however, are far more fundamental to an understanding of who the Kurmi are, and given that jati/caste/varna identity play a vital role in how Kurmis have functioned in Indian society, they certainly are notable. Again, I'm just not seeing how all of this doesn't boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have never seen anyone on Wiki apply a fraction of this critical mentality towards any "positive" descriptions; POV editors have for too long had free reign to indulge in glorification and puffery. I fear you are trying to guilt-trip us into feeling bad for using the term "Shudra", however I submit it would be far more shameful to whitewash away the discrimination that Kurmis have faced, and the socio-political mechanisms they use to address it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)Catholic Germany almost wiped out Jews, and you say they don't define Jewish identity, and then you complain that I am stuck in one rut. Gimme a break. (2)You can check my user page's history, it had a Sanskrit verse to the effect that one who is proud about his caste is retarded, I aint a caste chauvinist if that is what you wish to know.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For starters the only relevance of caste in modern India of any importance is Government classification as it is related to affirmative action programmes. PoV, nationalist, Hindutva that is a broken record as Sitush would have put it, get out of that, what is important is wp:DUE, wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE, which is regardless of wp:RS.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If the caste only existed at the time of "modern India" then you might have a point. Of course, it has existed for far longer than that. But we have gone through all this before. Something is clearly not sinking in. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that you are not a caste-chauvinist (unlike many others in these debates), and I do respect your concerns about the dangerous implications of caste-history in modern factional conflicts and social/economic discrimination. That said, my concern is that you are whitewashing history to avoid hurt feelings. If we're drawing metaphors, this is like asking all mention of slavery be stricken from African American "since it's degrading, and obsolete, and it was an imposed identity that the community itself didn't approve". A huge number of jatis were considered Shudra in the past, during the British era a large number of them tried to buck that designation, in the modern era many of those jatis articles are written by caste-promoters who are eager to jam in all sorts of Kshatriya superstition and pseudo-history (which, if citeable, is certainly notable) but then weep/wail/gnash-teeth when the full story of varna controversy is brought in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are using a long redundant terminology, I do not wish to ascribe motives to your actions. It is unfortunate that you have to mine.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And giving that terminology too much weight. That is all my complaint is.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)It would be wrong to single the British era as a period of social upheaval, on the other hand a view is that the British colonial administration made caste rigid[5], for example it is documented that Shivaji's army was not recruited on the basis of Caste[6]. (2)The subject cannot be dealt superficially and the present editors seem to lack the expertise.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebuttal to "Sitush and MV lack expertise" would be "YK and TT2011 lack objectivity". Or we could flip the script and note the positive attributes both sides bring. It would be quite lovely if we could combine skillsets. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• (1)Don't get it wrong. (2)Do you mean to say that you are an expert on caste? (3)All I charge is that the treatment is wp:UNDUE, why does that lack objectivity? I have suggested specific solutions, how does that make my treatment subjective? Below someone is trying to save poor Indian souls, is that objective? In all the long discussion have you offered or solicited any specific alterations? Would that not have been objective? (4)Is there a single line that describes how the Kurmis suffered because of their Shudra status, did I ask you to delete it, that would have been analogus to deleting mention of slavery. (5)Could you not have started from the Shudra article, adding it substance, and then used the word, so that the nomenclature would have been clear? You are using a non-English term whose meaning is not certain? Does it mean depressed classes? If not what is its English equivalent? Who then were the depressed classes?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminology and context are integral parts of an encyclopedia article, and we do not write articles as if the past never happened and the hunky-dory present is all that exists. As MatthewVanitas says, that would be like excising all mention that Africans were once used as slaves, on the grounds that being a slave is degrading. Yes, the way many Indian people were treated because of their caste was degrading (and there are clearly a lot of related problems in India still to solve), but that no more degrades any modern Indian individual than describing slavery degrades a modern African American. Oh, and regarding "the present editors seem to lack the expertise", that's the whole point of Wikipedia - it isn't written from personal expertise, it's written from reliable sources, and it's the sources that count in making content decisions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm an expert on caste: I don't hold a PhD in the subject, and I would presume that you do not either. What I am is someone who is very accustomed to seeking and summarising reliable sources, which is fundamental skill on Wikipedia. I am still literally not clear exactly what you would like changed, do you want it taken out of the lede/infobox (I don't think we should even have an infobox), taken out of the varna and political sections or what? I dispute that it's at all UNDUE, as it's present in-context at each point, and varna politics is a prominent aspect of Kurmi (and many jati's) identity and social role. So far as Shurda, I say WP:OSE; whether that article needs fixing or not is no reason to delay dealing with Shudra issues in jati articles. Rather than go round and round and round, how about you go to Talk:Kurmi, start a new section and copy-paste-italicise the specific phrases you would like to see deleted/replaced and why? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And what's this "saving poor Indian souls" nonsense? I certainly never said anything of the sort - I'm simply saying that we *should* be objective and *should not* modify articles to avoid offence or to hide past context or past injustices -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(1)You are in the dark because you never asked, I solicited to be asked and you are now offering it. (2)I have acknowledged your expertise about Wikipedia. No I am not even an under-graduate, but I have an emic perspective, that makes things easy for me, 35 years of input gives a person a little understanding (assuming I started to read at seven), things have been happening around me, I interact with people, that gives a person knowledge that would require an etic player exceptional effort to gain. (3)I feel the treatment is undue. (4)I disagree with the wp:OSE tag, you are using the term Shudra without clearly defining what it means, clearly we need to get the nomenclature in place before using it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, we have solicited suggestions time and again, but the problem has been mostly that the same suggestions have been put forward even when it has been explained that those particular ones simply will not fit in with how Wikipedia works. Please do not imply that MV or myself have been anything other than open to suggestions. On many occasions we have also asked for clarifications of what you want but, they generally did not appear. This is why I referred to the broken record thing above. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, the issue is not about your or my expertise, it is about sources. I don't doubt your expertise in your field, and I expect your interpretations of old documents is very likely to be better than mine (and, in fact, I won't actually attempt any interpretation myself). The only problem is, your interpretation is no good as a source in Wikipedia, and wouldn't be even if you were the world's finest lexicographer equipped with the best dictionaries. We simply cannot accept your interpretation when you tell us what authors of sources really meant - not even if we think you're right. We have to have clear sources which require *no* interpretation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)As I wrote on the talk page, what you (zebedee) write is ideal, no arguments regarding what the source should have said to have it to be acceptable. (2)Could we now have a definition of the word Shudra in the context of Kurmi, readers would like to know what Shudra is, what its implications were, once they know that Kurmi were sometime/onetime Shudra. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is utterly pointless. I am tempted to draft something up for ANI on the disruptive/tendentious grounds. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not explain Shudra within Kurmi, that is why we have Shudra. If there are aspects of Shudra-ness which are specific to Kurmi _AND_ we have a citation specifically saying "the Kurmi version of Shudra was distinct in that...", yes, we could add that, but not otherwise. That is why we link the term Shudra. If you have problems with that article, fix that article, don't try to fix it indirectly via Kurmi. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Then don't link it to Shudra, as long as you are not sure that the two are the same. Let readers work it out. (2)In Kurmi Shudras have agricultural communities in brackets, another has Vaishya as agricultural communities, it is like walking on thin ice.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction doesn't matter from the point of view that other stuff exists. However, I was aware of it and was going to fix the thing when the article got locked down. Now, why did it get fully protected? It will be sorted when we can get in there to edit - not worth bothering an admin to make a one-word fix. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)You are sadly mistaken if you think I am using OSE, the example is used to illustrate that the terminology is vague and ambiguous, like Indian would be in the US, does Indian mean Bharatiya or Abya Yala you cannot provide misleading links.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No. What you have shown is that some Wikipedia articles, when compared, are contradictory. Nothing more than that. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)It takes courage to say I was wrong.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Madia Gond

I would like MV and Sitush to have a look at the article Madia Gond, which I created and have been a major contributor. It is also about a community.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can ask for it to be peer reviewed. I see little point in getting involved in it because I have enough on my plate dealing with you elsewhere at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the purpose wasn't review, you are not happy with my talk page performance, I thought you might like to see one of my works, to establish my credetials either way. And also as an example of what I would like a community article to look like.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you now that it has at least one huge copyvio/plagiarism issue in it - the entire Dance section is a copy/paste from the source website. Back to the drawing board there, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gazette circa 1850s. Copyright has expired.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The advice remains that you should not plagiarise. Anyway, that's enough from me - the article clearly has quite a few problems even from a quick glance. Take it to another peer review if you are concerned about improving it etc. I simply do not want to get involved with it because the drama that will follow is something I do not relish. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)See article talk.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Dear MathewVanitas How are you? Please have a look to the ariticle Swami Nigamananda for its improvement. I really appreciate, I can say you are the director of this article and you contibuted a lot to it. I have formatted this article to a beautiful readable formate and added maximum reliable references(ISBN). Apart from this article, Swami Nigamananda, I have created many more articles like Nilachala Kutir Durga Charan Mohanty Nilachala Saraswata Sangha . I am expecting you to see those and submit your feedback as and when you are free. Best Regards India Dcmpuri (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the work on the article on the Marathas! Suneetk (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Firearms in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MatthewVanitas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Sitush (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi

Hello MatthewVanitas. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Malaise

I never accused anyone of malaise. I have named no one. Perhaps I have a right to ask why I am named and accused of the same.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't at all recall using the word "malaise"; did I use it somewhere? I can't even think of why I would even apply that word to you. I'm more just baffled that you think its appropriate to bug top-ranking Wikipedia personnel with an absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theory off of an anonymous blog. I'm not upset, I actually think it's kind of hilarious, but I"m honestly baffled that you expect that somehow, if you keep pushing, someone is going to say that I'm wrong. I'm putting in a ton of work to improve caste articles, and now you go about spreading what is probably literally slander about me (though I emphasise I have zero interest in the legal aspects of this), and then you come here upset that I allegedly used the word "malaise"? This is simply ridiculous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Are you drawing some kind of comparison between me and him? That's a terrible Personal Attack if it is. I suggest you either retract or explain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on user talk:Yogesh Khandke, Yogesh, just today you've compared me to the Oslo bomber and also keep, and keep, and keep dragging up an absolutely ludicrous assertion from some random blog. If you had brought it up once in an appropriate arbitration committee, fine, that'd be your right, but you and MW have attempted to spread these smears across every page you possibly can, and rather than follow formal proceses went running to the founder of WP. Jimbo, by the way, did not say "awesome call, this needs looking into", he basically said it seemed unlikely but that if anyone has actual evidence they should submit it. It is appropriate to question others editing practices, it is edgy but sometimes necessary to accuse others of documentable bias. It is inappropriate to speculate "I bet So-and-So did that because he's Catholic/Hindu/Inuit/Ainu", and it is completely, ludicrously inappropriate to compare someone to a terrorist, and to continually spread completely unsubstantiated accusations about another editor simply because you disagree with his editing. If you do this literally one more time, I'm putting a grievance against you for blatant personal attacks. Feel free to dislike and critique my editing, but your recent comments are totally out of line. Reply: You are jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth, please keep the thread in one place. All I want to say is this [7], which is also all that I have ever said. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are free to do whatever you wish/can do. Though I know it is easy to take action against some, I can't however be coerced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Any way something completely tangential to the discussion, the bloke is described as militant by the Times of India, the world's largest circulating English newspaper. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, explain it to me like I'm a four year old: how on earth is "No MV you do a reassessment. You are mis-handling to whole issue" related to the Oslo bombing? Not a riddle, you're the one drawing a comparison. And you failed to respond to my asking where I accused you of malaise, and then insist I'm putting words in your mouth? How can I possibly read your above without assuming you're comparing me to the Oslo bomber? Regarding "keep it on one page", no these are different issues: I'm telling you I will take you to ANI if you attempt to smear anyone using that silly blog again. You have no reason to link to ludicrous accusations off-site except to attack others credibility. And you can quit your silly attempts to defend as "I don't support the blog, I just think it's interesting", especially as you've deflated those yourself with your implications that "it's just a matter of time" until Jimbo investigates and bans us over an unsourced blog. These are blatant personal attacks, and you're not backing off from them in the slightest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ton of work improve, well you can't be your own judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Does anyone think that people are retarded and think it is about money? (I said the same thing to Zeebedee, four days ago[8]) Or is a lot of noise being made to divert attention, also check this[9]. There is another editor with whom I won't interact, not atleast unless I see a paradigm shift in his behaviour, (he even reverted talk page edits [10]), if you think I am a pain in your neck, I won't let my shadow fall on you, I am wasting your time because you came across as reasonable to me. Please let me know. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a mature way to handle this, all these vague jabs and "you figure it out"s. This is ridiculous. Are you saying "MV, you think you're improving things, but the Oslo bomber thought he was improving things too, so clearly you are both incorrect and doing more harm than good in your attempts to improve things." If so, why not be an adult and just say that? Or be even more adult, and express your concerns without comparing me to a terrorist? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You used a simile, I used sarcasm, if you can use a figure of speech I too can, or are some people disallowed?? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am that other editor. I reverted some crap that Yogesh kept putting on my page, simply because it was distracting me from something rather more important. He has never yet succeeded in any of his numerous complaints to admins about me but has been warned for his own behaviour towards me. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

YK, again: if you don't believe the blog is accurate, why did you just today say: Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months. You are blatantly using this blog (whether you personally believe it or no) to imply that I/Sitush/CT/BsZ are under investigation and will be booted when the "truth" comes out, which is ludicrous. You're playing coy little games, but clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth to avoid committing to any stance and thus being hit for personal attacks, but you've established quite a clear pattern of those. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Incompetent handling of a subject, and incompetent admin role. wp:COMPETENCE. Anyways if you want to hang me, try, I've had enough of bluster.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was shocked to see CarTick, we had a few punches thrown at each other over the time, but I don't have a grudge against him, or anybody for that matter, CarTick I've mentioned because I am sorry that he is not around and I miss him. We (u n me) have had a limited interaction, I am sorry for that talk page reverter, I wondered then, "What on the earth does a person do this for" (I am not saying this sarcastically, believe me I am saying this from my heart)? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Well it is almost 1.00 am, I and I'll be taking the bails off, in a few minutes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I spoke with CarTick recently. He is fine, although glad not to have to deal with all the POV pushing going on at present. He is ok with how the articles look & a little concerned about the socks and the attacks. Does that help you? - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Take us and BsZ to ANI, then. You have been told this umpteen times. Oh, I forgot, you did that and got nowhere. When will you learn? - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, I had forgotten about that revert which you have now sneakily inserted into your earlier post. Were you aware that the other person in that discussion is an admin? She saw those reverts. Did she take any action against me? No, she pretty just told you to shut up, but more politely than that. Subsequently, she complained about you at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, If I weren't involved, and I'd seen the above Oslo bomber quote, and then the fact that xe refused to retract the statement, I'd have immediately blocked for NPA. Don't worry about taking it to ANI; I'll do it myself, right now, on the basis of that comment alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and wow. Catching up from the sidelines, where I've been vaguely watching some of the battles, I'm regretting my comments from a mere two weeks ago, [11]. My optimism has largely vanished. Amazed that you and others have not walked away, been driven away. I know I would have. Pfly (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nameisnotyaddayaddayadda

FFS! - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For sub-categorization of the items in Category:Rajputs. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

One small note about edit requests. Those who are "readers" (i.e., not really editors) may not actually even know about the talk page's existence. If a page is semi-protected, there's a button that a user can push that says something like "Suggest a change to this article". That gives the user a pop-up box to fill in what they think needs to be change; when they submit it, it automatically goes onto the article talk page. So the IP who asked about kshatriya may be genuinely unaware of the massive conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that either. The code needs rewriting! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajput

is this source of any use to you? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, esteemed Sitush, that you aren't Indian and simply can't understand India. The "rigid" social structures are actually quite fluid and it's impossible to define any group concretely as... oh, wait. Nevermind.  ;) . MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed in all of the recent kerfuffle, but Qwryxian stripped the 36 races out of Rajput clans earlier today on the basis that Tod is not RS. He has commented on the talk page. Surprisingly, there has not been a nuclear incident yet. The plan is to take it straight to WP:RSN if there should be any dissenting viewpoints, and then apply the outcome from RSN across all articles (ie: if RSN agree that it is unreliable then strip Tod from the lot). It is a bold move and he has more guts than I have, but it is based on sound argument. I shall be putting James Tod up for WP:GAN in the next three days, having had three different admins look over it in the last 24 hours or so precisely because I wanted an opinion regarding whether, given what the article says, Tod is RS. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

? - Oh, okay, out of Rajput clans, not out of 36 royal races. FWIW, I do think that there should be mention of Tod on 36 royal races purely on a historiographical basis. I'm still just pleased with myself for having put up a tamper-proof page-cap that both provides "the list" and also keeps IPs from mucking with it. Though I'm still annoyed that there technically is an RS that says "Tod says Ahirs are one of the 36 royal races" when Tod's actual list says no such thing. If an otherwise RS says something verifiably untrue (such as misquoting someone) can that be removed by common sense, or is that OR? Or, is that subject to endless wikilawyering with "well, maybe Dr Smith read Tod's 1832 version and not the 1834 version you're using... maybe-possibly-theoretically..." MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the wayward RS? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

Greetings. There is a discussion in Talk:Kamma_(caste). Please can you give your response there. thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas

I have left a message for you in the Kamma Discussion Page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Infoboxes and varna

I assume you watch User Talk:Sitush, but just to clarify your input would help on Varna infoboxes. Of course, we eventually need to take this to a wider audience, but easier to start with fewer. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

As I said above, I've taken Yogesh to ANI, in the course of which I mentioned your name; you can see and respond to the discussion at WP:ANI#Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill

Thanks Matthewvanitas for your guidance.Bill clinton history (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named: this is just so you know, given your heavy involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It really has been going on for a long time. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Hi MatthewVanitas, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions. We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

3rd opinion needed

Hi Mathew. When you have time, can you please go over the following edit @ Kunduz Province. The IP has added percentages and used a source which cannot be verified. According to all the sources, Pashtuns are in majority in Kunduz. Discussion page, [this source and Kunduz_Province#Districts might help as well. This IP clearly has an anti-Pashtun POV agenda based on his current contribution. I really don't know why admins consider his edits as content dispute rather than disruptive editing and vandalism. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

the caste template

In which pages has the Caste template been used? Is there a list? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Use the "What links here" on the template page; for the caste page, that gives us [12], which shows around 70 inclusions (rough estimate), a few of which are talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source check

If you can see it, please could you have a look around page 277 of this. I am expecting it to say something about a Muslim ruler's tolerance towards Hindus in Kashmir c. 15th C. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Says "No Preview" - can't get anything. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for trying. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tain Museum

In May you commented about this proto-article; thank you very much for those comments.

Some work has subsequently done with the result now at Tain Museum.

Please cast your eye over this again and let us know your assessment.

Thanks - MrDuthac (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

reply

I invite you to this discussion [13] Pass a Method talk 01:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

did you know anything about indian history

do you know who was Khafi khan and who was jayram, khafi khan was mughal historian and jayaram was poet of shivaji court in 17th century , the claims made by dalits is just a way to motivate the low esteem dalit people, plz provide one evidence of shivaji belonging to non-rajput origin which dates back to shivaji era(not books by historians) just because Einstein is einstein it dont mean we will believe anything similarly untill not evidence is given to prove shivaji non-rajput origin nothing can be said or written, i guess shivaji know more about himself than jadunath sarkar and he was sure about his rajput origin and untill no evidence is provided i will not let any non-rajput origin came in the way because history is made by evidences and not by historians.115.240.7.109 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, you're wrong, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We always look to what historians have said about subjects, not what a primary source may or may not mean. In fact, as a general rule, primary sources aren't even allowed as verification on Wikipedia. Now, I don't even know what article you're talking about, but if the bulk of historians are saying one thing, and one specific letter from 400 years ago says another, Wikipedia will side with the historians, every time. We may, depending on the exact details, also include the info about the old source, but that depends on a lot of complicated issues to be worked out via consensus. However, please do not attempt to edit Wikipedia focusing only on what one specific historical document says; that violates several of our policies, and so can't be allowed. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

give evidences

if you are on wikipedia for so much time then plz give me one single piece of evidence from shivaji era(not now) which gives the fact that shivaji was not a rajput, so first give the evidence just as i have did, the letter of shahji(siivaji father) is still in ghorpade museum which he writes in 1643 in which he calls himself a rajput and the link is already provided, historians with vested interests specially dalits are trying to claim shivaji in order to show their bravery but first give evidence then their will be additional origin of shivaji but untill then only rajput origin because historians no matter how much famous they are dont create any evidence you need evidence from that era.115.240.7.109 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check the book by noted historian Jadunath Sarkar on how the brahmins of the day regarded Shivaji as a Shudra and how he in turn got the learned Gaga bhatt to create a Kshtriya lineage for him in order to get crowned. The book also talks about the greediness of the brahmins of the day.[14],page 242. The gbook is searchable. . When the local brahmins denied his Kshatriya claim, Shivaji in turn asked all his brahmin administrators to resign and get back to their traditional pursuit of puja and surviving on "bhikshuki". The book or certainly this section is very entertaining.

Also if Maloji Bhosle cared much about his Rajput Hindu heritage, would give names with islamic undertones to his kids such as Shahaji and Sharifji ? All these varnas are /were created by brahmins for their own benefits. Did Shivaji really need the stamp of being Rajput to gain respect ? I don't think so. After all,the brahmins of the day were happy to serve him before he got Gaga to create a Rajput genealogy for him. For me, his Maratha identity is enough. I don't care about a lineage from a far away land like Rajputana. Shivaji and Shahaji were Marathi Bhoomiputra and that is good enough. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

yes this shows the knowledge of history the sons of maloji named shahji and sharifji because the sons were born after a muslim sufi saint "Shah Sharif" give some food(Sawai-muslim dish) to maloji so that his wife can bear sons and from their came the name shahji and sharifji. OMG these are wikipedia administrators who do not know how the muslim names of maloji son came. Second who the hell is jadunath sarkar was he their when the so called local brahmins refused shivaji. And whats the gurantee that if shivaji was coronated by local brahmins then these historians would have not "accused him of getting coronated by a local marathi brahmin who has no reputation". Be it "albert einstein or issac newton" all of them have to prove the fact and not to speculate and second James tod is much bigger and better historian(not only historian but an arachaelogist as well, findings of many ancient artifacts are credited to that man). Similarly many historian "KHAFI KHAN" was a mughal historian of 17th century and he knew more about Shivaji rather than the useless jadunath sarkar, India's best historian was "RC MAJUMDAR" but unfortunately he did not do much work on shivaji his interest was Maurya empire and chandragupta similarly many other prominent indian historian like RK MOOKERJEE(also the former MP of indian Parliement) did not do any work on it therefore we cannot take the voice of only one man Jadunath sarkar. Khafi khan and James tod are much closer to Shivaji era and has better understanding the non-rajput origin claim started as late as 20th century(300 years after shivaji death) which itself shows the dubious intention of those who create such claims. And things like "Brahmins were given money to make Shivaji a rajput then how about this why shivaji didnt give money to local brahmin infact as a marathi he should be more partial towards shivaji."

Things like this "that local brahmins refuseds shivaji" or "gaga bhatt was give so much money" these will come in category of speculations and not evidence and DR RK MOOKERJEE once said "SPECULATION has no space in history". Let the ancient facts be their and provide the facts and evidences which prove non-rajput origin of Shivaji. I am betting right here i will not make a single edit on wikipedia after that if someone can furnish a single evidence from Shivaji era of his non rajput origin. further if i am not wrong the Persian sanads(documents) released by mudhol state was after jadunath sarkar wrote his book the persian sanads prove it beyond doubt that Shivaji house(satara) and thanjjore were descendants of sisodia rana of mewar.122.161.14.246 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

second thing mate to say that one historical account i dont think so the historical accounts which prove shivaji rajput origin is confirmed by all writers be it hindu, muslims, persian. The indian writers and historians of 17th 18th century have confirmed shivaji rajput origin, mughal historian khafi khan(the documents are kept in aligarh muslim univ(AMU),UP dept of historical records of mughal era), and by persian sanads now what you want so mate to dismiss these 7-8 historical accounts just because one famous historian(jadunath sarkar) say so will be completely wrong and will show bias the fact is that the article do mention that Jadunath sarkar opposed the theory and similarly it mentions all the historical accounts(all of them point towards sisodia origin) then why are some editors so nervous let the users decide which is right and which is wrong the article gives various origin(though only one is supported by evidences). By that can we say that Alexander the great was defeated by Hindu King Porus because most historians write that alexander faired poorly against Indian King Porus. Therefore i think you guys are not going through the complete article infact most of you are strongly biased know almost nothing about shivaji and his family(the user who said that how maloji named his sons sharif and shahji) Dont mind but the "JI " you see in the names of these marathi rajputs have come from SINH(rajput title) the corruption of word "SINH" turn it into "JIH OR JI" but i guess most of you are very innocent of indian history and grammer.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"It is related that Shahji's father Maloji was childless for a long time, and it was only after he had prayed at the tomb of a Muslim saint Shah Sharif that he was blessed with two sons, one in 1594 and the other in 1597". ... i guess from most of your attitude i fear for neutrality on this great site(no offence some editors are great), the thing which i have understood is that most of you are completely ignorant of shivaji life and history.

That user who said why a rajput will name his son "SHAH JI AND SHARIF JI" i guess i have answered your question now take this "VIR HAMIR SINGH" hamir is a muslim name isnt it but he was a sisodiya rajput(shivaji ancestor) who defeated alaudin khilji army and recapture the rajasthan from muslims. Take this "GULAB SINGH" the hindu rajput general of Sikh empire who led sikh forces in the capture of kashmir, multan, yousafzai tribes who was once regarded as right hand of "MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH" of sikh empire . Now most commonly "gulab" is a muslim name. Your question is so silly that it made me scare that editors like you edit pages on wikipedia and editors like me who hold far superior knowledge is cornered so that the truth (or say one opinion) does not come out in open.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah shahji was a marathi bhoomiputra!!!!! , who the hell said you the letter of shahji which is kept in ghorpade museum in which he wrote to adil shah he clearly wrote that he is "RAJPUT" and not a marathi bhoomiputra. Who is the CM of maharastra Prithviraj Chavan he is a rajput just because chauhan become chavan dont mean he is not a rajput and second thing what you want to say , you are asking me to delete those because those facts and evidences prove the rajput origin of shivaji. The poem on shahji was composed 23 years before shivaji coronation and it mentions maloji as the descendant of rana of mewar. Now what that poet too is a marathi brahmin search the legendary marathi poet of 17th century who also was in shivaji court. Most important thing just as you all know gaga bhatt what was the name of that so called created Marathi brahmin who refused shivaji demand to coronate him, this is nothing but speculation how can anyone know this was their any writing from that time which prove this fact and if gaga bhatt was greedy why not a single marathi brahmin was greedy even though poet of jayaram is a marathi brhamin and he mentions maloji as rajput of mewar . The claims of 20th century needs to be dismissed as a pure fiction.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and you plz read the book by much more noted historian,archaelogists and head of british india intelligence Col james tod and sir williamson hunter their books prove it without any doubt the rajput origin of not only shivaji but many more maratha generals and soldiers like "RANE","MORE""JADHAV""DESHMUKH""CHAVAN""PAWAR".

i think most people here refer to only jadunath sarkar because he is opposing rajput origin what about HC ojha he is also one of the most prominent indian historian and what about much more famous and more noted historian Col James tod he was criticized by many but his works are just too solid to be challenged , even einstein was challenged and mocked when he gave theory of relativity and now everyone of us know einstein because of that and not because of photoelectric effect.HC OJHA and Col James tod easily tackle the questions raised by historians who oppose rajput origin.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry but i fear that editors with knowledge like you handle all these articles, if you want delete that from shivaji page but wil you not violate wiki policy that as many origins should be proposed. Similarly one of you said one historical account. Are you serious khafi khan was a well known historian in mughal era who used to sit in delhi. Similarly at one side the critics are saying marathi brahmin refused to coronate shivaji its false because the writer of poems on shivaji and shahji is a marathi brahmin himself , similarly many poets of that era who were brahmins clearly mention shivaji as rajput. Further now its impossible to find his real caste but those people who have live their whole lives with shahji,maloji and shivaji were fully aware of their rajput origin now whatever you try you cannot have surety. The evidences are from indian writer, from mughal writers and from persian writers and if someone says that this is one historical evidence then its disgusting and shows the bias. Jadunath sircar point is already their so is rajput origin let both remain and let the reader decide some will say shivaji a rajput some will say shivaji a non rajput.But the big fact if shivaji is not rajput then what was his caste did sir jadunath sircar answered this question , has anyone of us seen "Nuclear forces" answer is no but untill any alternate explanation is given till then nuclear forces will remain like that similarly the non-rajput origin is under cloud some claim he is lingayat, some balippa, some hoysale and some claim he was dalit . I guess most of you will try to see the reasoning sir jadunath sircar was great historian but many great historians do not agree with each other. The best example is of marxist historian such as rs sharma, romilla thapar the books by them are banned(yes banned) in india top most univ such as DU(DELHI UNIV), BHU(Benaras hindu univ), even AMU(aligarh muslim univ). The most trusted historian in india was RC MAJUMDAR most university of india recommend one rc majumdar and hc raychoudhari in foreign writers sir alexander cunningham and vincent smith names are eminent but unfortunately not a single of these writers wrote about shivaji origin. But james tod contribution to indian history is equal to that of vincent a smith and cunningham in foreign writers and he proved shivaji rajput origin, therefore sircar views are not undisputable at all.122.161.14.246 (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Those who are saying most historians have this view is mainly false because apart from sir jadunath sircar no prominent historian opposes shivaji rajput origin. Historians such as Col James tod and HC ojha consider shivaji and many more maratha as rajputs they further stated that neither the colour nor language of these maratha matched those of dravidians(south india people). The thing can be said if atleast one of the major historians such as rc majumdar, hc raychoudhari or rk mookerji have confirmed it but none of them wrote anything about shivaji origin(though rc majumdar wrote extensively on shivaji but not his origin).122.161.14.246 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I only scanned all of that, but one thing caught my eyes at the end: James Tod is one of the best examples of terrible sources that we could ever use on India related articles. Tod is well known to have written only what his benefactors told him, without doing any fact checking of his own. This, in fact, is a problem with using many of the older sources. We need to focus on high quality scholarship, not "histories" written by interested parties. If your other sources are similar in quality, I can understand why MV may have undone your edits. Finally, please note that no one is going to read such a massive text like you've written above; you need to be more concise if you want to be heard. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and let me tell you a second class editor like you will JUDGE "JAMES TOD" hahahahaha this is going to be the most disgusting day of my life. The most well researched articles are that by james tod. Almost all univeristy have a course on James tod his life and achievements in india, among foreign historians only 3-4 names pop up one is sir cunningham, va smith and mostly james tod. The fact that this is called partiality you dont like tod because he writes against you similarly i dont like marrxists historians such as thapar but many like her this is called the natural tendency of human. James tod name is also among very very few which is recognized by Indian Parliement. Jadunath sarkar is lucky that india's greatest historian RC MAJUMDAR skips the origin of shivaji otherwise his word would have ended the discussion just as he has done with chandragupta origin. Further what about GH OJHA the great historian of repute from india . Jadunath sarkar has one of the most limited knowledge apart from mughals and all that he never did any work whereas much better historians are rg bhandarkar, rc majumdar, hc raychoudhari, rk mookerji and km panikkar. Yes jadunath sarkar himself belngs to lower caste(strike the interested party argument). The thing is human nature Tod is always rated above sarkar and most of indian historians his word is the final word when historians of likes romilla thapar who call herself pioneer of ancient india(even though she did not know sanskrit, pali) then any historian will be dubbed as great. And second thing i have seen the knowledge of wiki editors hahahaha they are illeterates with no education or very little for example " why maloji kept muslim names for his sons sharifji and shahji" do you think you guys have any right over shivaji who dont know the reason for this incident. I guess most of you are simply jobless who remain on net 24 hours and do one thing try to show themselves as the greatest historian ever!!!! further GH ojha is enough to tackle the useless jadunath sarkar who has not suggested any alternate and without alternate their is nothing neither science nor history. 115.241.246.57 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Q, and IP, I would suggest you post a cogent summary of your concerns on Talk:Shivaji. Note that accusing others of ignorance and making inflammatory statements is not going to help your case, and neither is appealing to centuries-old texts. Your best bet would be to do the Wikipedia standard, and calmly/dispassionately state a case using modern, recognised historical authorities. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding to IPs comment above: Sorry, no, I'm not passing judgment on Tod, it's the general community of Indian historians. Please read James Tod#Reputation, which has more than a dozen references explaining problems with Tod. Note, it also says that Tod is revered in certain Indian communities, but that's because he praised those communities and said things not supported by other historical references. His word isn't even close to the "final word" for Indian historians. Based on the clear evidence presented there, a large number of Wikipedia editors (including those not directly involved in Indian articles) consider Tod to not meet our reliable sources guidelines. Unless you can somehow present references that refute that large body of research showing Tod's problems, he cannot be used to verify anything on Wikipedia (other than his own words and opinions). I don't understand most of what you wrote, because you're using all sorts of names that I don't know, don't give any references, etc. However, I will tell you what I do understand: the personal attacks. If you don't stop them (calling people illiterates with no education, for example) you will be blocked, because personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia. As MV says, we work calmly, using modern authorities, not the very old, biased references we happen to prefer, or primary sources. I hope you can agree to change your editing style; you obviously know a lot, but if you're just going to be combative, then you're not going to be able to employ that knowledge on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yadav - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Info about what SpacemanSpiff and Crusoe8181 are at

... namely deleting content on populated places in India. [15] SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Norman Barrier: Census in India

Hi, I think that it must have been you who added this source to Yadav. Unfortunately, the citation does not give a page number & I can only see snippets. Can you narrow things down a little please (here - I wouldn't try inserting it into the article while the whole issue is at WP:DRN).

The book is a collection of papers by various people, I have one chapter in full & I know someone via WP:RX who has a copy of the entire thing. They can scan the relevant chapter if I know which one it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to my version of Kayastha by another editor

MV, I saw the changes made by Melotown. At first glance, there aren't any obvious mischievous edits. The only thing that jumped out was the crafty addition of "Kshatriya" to the lede - a phenomenon which you know much better than me. I am watching this page to ensure it stays free of puffery. Foodie 377 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kodava

Hi. I appreciate your contributions to the Kodava page very much. It is true that the Kodavas were exempted from the Arms Act, but the support of some government soldiers and officers from the Kodava community shouldn't be seen as support from the entire community to the British in 1857. This could be misinterpreted by any bigot who might read the post. Infact the British on the other hand saw the small-numbered community (then numbering a few thousands) as being harmless. (source: G. Richter's book "Gazetteer of Coorg") 1857 saw great uprisings in North India. On the other hand, near Kodagu, a few Muslims took arms against the British. Government men from Kodagu, who were from the Kodava community suppressed them. In 1837 the revolutionaries were led by Guddemane Appaiah Gowda while their oppressors were led by the Coorg Dewans. But the revolt was not due to Gowdas alone nor oppossed by all Kodavas. (please see this link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Z0nZzbFDSAoC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=1837+coorgs+revolt&source=bl&ots=BIxxeoarcd&sig=oEPJ86aejSWnU1mxHk5pdW4egH8&hl=en&ei=4NFMTtWfM4asrAfzj4i0Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false) It is noteworthy that there were freedom fighters from the Kodava community as well (Gandhians who preceeded C. M. Poonacha). Apologies again for having removed your text. Many thanks. Theonlynitin (talk) 14:35,18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi at ANI. Sigh.

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurmi_page_protection. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox caste

{{Infobox caste}} was expanded mostly based on your feedback. Editors are now discussing the deletion of the very same content you requested to be added. The discussion is on the Template_talk:Infobox_caste template talk. I am not going to participate in that discussion as I don't care if the content is kept or removed. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nappa and Blood type diet pages

Hi Matthew, I believe I accidentally sent you an alert via your MatthewVanitas/A section, not realizing that was dormant -- sorry about that! My question was re: how to change the spelling on a main listing, noably "Nappa" to "Napa" (per Merriam-Webster, m-w.com -- "Nappa" is not a proper or alternate spelling).

But also, the entry here on Wikipedia for "blood type diet" is a real mess. If you look at the discussion, there are some angry birds in that discussion who keep clicking "undo" whenever a reviewer makes it sound less one-sided. Is there a way to "Wiki-flag" that entry? It's been awhile since I created the Levenger page here, so I'm already a little rusty! Thanks!! Grattan33 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Grattan33

ANI Comment

Your comment at ANI about me is inaccurate and hence a problem. I suggest you read more before you comment on something as serious as this. Once you read up on it and get a grasp of the situation, please strike out the inaccurate portion. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To help you read up, see Wikipedia:Topic_bans#Types_of_restrictions for the Zuggernaut entry. There are four aspects, all rounded up in the same ANI proposal. On the face of it, there seems to have been an anti-British/pro-India POV issue rather along the lines that you and I have seen elsewhere regarding other people. But these things are complicated. It might be worth asking Zuggernaut which bit of your statement they feel to be inaccurate - I do not see why you should be expected to read their mind. My guess would be the word "nationalist", since POV is mentioned frequently in the discussion. ErrantX seems to be involved in overseeing & may be able to guide you further. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Pakistan

Given the type of articles you edit and your contributions to Pakistan-related topics, I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani history if you are interested. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

menon

Am sorry for reverting it to kshatria.My appologies I think it should be more appropriately written as Kshatriya like cast. I have added some more detail in to article. but very few articles can be found on net or real library about this caste. its going to be hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.95.242 (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

& another thing is some one is adding 'tamil word melavan'. but is that not a malayalam word? 117.98.95.242 (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for dropping me a line. It's not at all that I'm out to block the term from the article, it's just that we really need solid references for such a clear classification. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of castes like to claim Kshatriya status, with varying degrees of historical precedent, and without clear footnotes it's hard to tell how to properly explain the complexities of each caste's politics.

I agree that it can be difficult to find information on some Indian communities, but hopefully that will improve as more books in more languages are digitised and become available to a wider community. In the meantime, unfortunately, we do have to operate under "cause no harm" and sometimes add a little less than we'd like rather than add to much unproven info and risk mis-informing readers, even with things that "everybody knows".

Not sure about the "melavan" word, as I don't speak either language. Have you tried messaging the person who's adding that term to ask them? Though you're welcome to keep editing as an IP address, it'll make it easier for people to communicate with you if you sign up for a Wikipedia account (takes less than 5 minutes, is free, and also hides your IP address from others), since if I send you messages right now you might get them if your IP fluctuates.

Thanks for writing in, this is always easiest when we communicate, and I'll look as well to see what footnotes I can find for the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The user tamilian101 is again & again changing menon in to tamil word . there was citation needed tag for long & he failed to provide any citations. menon as a malayalam community is by default a malayalam term right? Doesn't he has to provide citation to prove it other wise?? Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on those languages, but generally speaking the community's name in their own language should follow the title term.There's a little flex for also including other languages they commonly speak, or the official language of the country(ies) they inhabit. However, if the Menon do not generally speak Tamil, I agree the Tamil spelling should not be in the lede. If this continues, make sure you do not simply get in a pattern of undoing his edits by yourself, as per WP:3RR that can get you both blocked for a day or two regardless of who is right. Instead, suggest you contact Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics to ask for assistance. That will get additional experienced eyes on the page, and make it easier to get an admin to step in if the page needs protection or a non-cooperative editor needs to be temporarily blocked. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

After a nearly three year hiatus from editing, I've come back (for a while at least). I was perusing the user pages of editors I remember and found yours. I just wanted to suggest archiving your talk page - it really is quite long! Just trying to be helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Socking

Geolocate Special:Contributions/64.105.174.210, Special:Contributions/8.18.192.2 and compare their contribution history + edit summaries. If those two are not our friend at Talk:Yadav who has also been blocked fairly recently by C.Fred then I will go out, buy a hat and eat it. Obviously, the actual style of writing is also significant. How the hell are we supposed to deal with this sort of thing when checkuser cannot/will not link to usernames. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know block procedures that well, so I'm not the person to ask. And no matter how disruptive an editor is, there will be an "established" editor willing to champion and say "hey, let's hear him out" while keeping their own hands clean. Funny how some of the people with the most to say are the ones with the fewest refs, or even specific examples of things they don't like amongst the shocking and appalling mess of the articles they tut-tut over. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a rather rhetorical question borne out of frustration. This continual socking and general disruption gets on top of me from time to time. There is nothing that we can do, although a friendly admin might sometimes impose a short block on the IP. Basically, it is a massive loophole and some people know it. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Some users are deliberately defaming the yadav article

The Article yadav is being deliberately defamed. Please correct the article.

Even till 1400 AD some of the dynasties in India called themselves Yadavs ( Suena yadavs of Devagiri ). This article needs corrections. The introduction is wrong. Unneccary stuff has been put in.

. Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra Page 209 http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line&btnG=

2. The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge page 246

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHiBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=the+golden+book+of+india+yadav&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadav&f=false

Two reliable sources mention yadavs as chandravanshi khastriyas. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I will reply to you at Talk:Yadav#The_introduction_is_wrong._Some_is_trying_deliberately_to_defame_them; please do not post identical messages on multiple pages, as it splits the conversation into pieces. Instead, consider using the template: {{talkback|Talk:Yadav}}, which is a way of alerting someone that you have written something they may want to respond to at such-and-such article; just put the article name after the "|" line. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article regarding yadavs need changes in introduction

various scholars have agreeded that yadavs are chandravanshi khastriyas and some have not.

The following link can be used to verify that yadavs are khastriyas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RfdtUUnVQLQC&pg=PA388&dq=Yadavs+OBC+kshatriyas&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Yadavs%20OBC%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://www.sishri.org/velir.html ( This website clearly mentions in some parts of india Yadavs are khastriyas ).

http://storyofkannada.blogspot.com/2008/05/origin-of-seuna-dynasty.html

Also till 1400 AD there were dynasties which claimed that they are yadavs. The descendants of this dynasties still would be living in India. Also the article mentions that only from 19th century yadavs are trying to raise their status. Its wrong. In 1400 AD a dyansty claimed they are yadavs ( chandravanshi ). These people cannot disappear just like that.

proof some scholars claim yadavs as khastriyas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RfdtUUnVQLQC&pg=PA388&dq=Yadavs+OBC+kshatriyas&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Yadavs%20OBC%20kshatriyas&f=false

book : We and our administration By K. C. Brahmachary page 388 many scholars agree yadavs as khastriyas and some scholars dont.

I request kindly to correct the introduction. please dont neglect these valuable points. So far there is like three books which mention yadavs as khastriyas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.174.210 (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP and ANI

The 8.x.x.x IP mentioned you at ANI before you posted the note on their page. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the sections at Hazarajat

As you suggested, I did a bit of work at Hazarajat removed the intros as you suggested. please have a look and let me know if there is something else I can do. Thanks once again !!! Hazara-Birar (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

mair rajput page

(cur | prev) 20:03, 17 December 2010 MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) (3,242 bytes) (Article has steadily _declined_ over last two years. Reverting to Nov'08 chop back to only footnoted info. Please restore other info as you find good footnotes) (undo)

On the above date you have deleted the entire page named Mair Rajput!!! Why??? What do you mean by steadily _declined? I will report this to Wikipedia if you do not provide genuine explaination or do not restore it and delete only the objectionable part of it, if necessary.

SKV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.201.243 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire page had almost no citations, and what few citations it had were not properly formatted, verifiable, or generally constructive. The page had massive amounts of very odd information about Mairs ruling Cambodia of all places, tons of WP:OR about how the Mair were disadvantaged by a Western insistence on last names, etc. One of the early sections is a meandering description of neolithic cultures in the area where Mairs happen to live today, with no content as to how this milleniae-old history actually ties to the topic. The "Mair Rajputs Today" section, despite the word "today", discusses Egyptian and Medean goldsmiths. It had a massive "See also" of highly tangential articles, a whole section on religions that mentioned the Mair all of once. There's an entire section of explicit WP:OR labeled "More Rajput Clues" which is just some editor making guesses based on similar names, concluding with "Finally, it is a logical conclusion to relate the Merh Sonars of Madhya Pradesh to the Mair Rajputs of Punjab."

Fundamentally, the article had massive amounts of unsubstantiated, and often suspect, information. The entire term "Mair Rajput" gets very few hits on gBooks, which is not a good sign for WP:Notability. Overall, it was just a bad article, and rather than risk it misinforming people, it seemed safest to remove almost all the text and reinsert items as they could be substantiated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Drum makers

Category:Drum makers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why you are changing mukkulathore wiki

I don't know why you are giving the wrong information about mukkulathore do you know anything about that community why you are keeping changing all the information about that community and you have removed more information from the wiki.... This is not good dude i don't know what is intention on this.....

Atleast don't change herafter...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenvinay (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check out the "History" tab of the article (which particular article are you referring to? Kallar (caste)?) you'll see I give an explanation for each thing I remove, and each thing I add is cited to a WP:Reliable source. Can you let me know specifically what's concerning you? We could also take it up on the Talk page of the article so more people could see the discussion, just let me know which Talk page you're going to post on so I can go reply there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

While we're asking questions, what evidence do you have to support "Kallar (Tamil: கள்ளர்) meaning 'Greats' in Tamil". Do you have any links to any reliable sources which back up this claim? Not fansites, Facebook, etc. but actual articles by academics? If you have them, you have to provide them, as I've provided a clear cite for the "thief" etymology, and if you simply search "thief kallar" on GoogleBooks you'll see this is frequently mentioned. I'm not saying it's definitely right, but it is an attested theory. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See kallar are chola ( Moovendras is calling as mukulathore now ) Please refer purananur and all old tamil history and i hope you heard about ponniyan selvan if not please read that book..... in tamil nadu most of kallar were fight against birtsh governments because of kallar became "theif" in the british rule.... More over kallar are old heritage in india M130 gen has found in kallar caste and it has been proved in london scientied ok So don't change whatever you seen in eyes before change just check and ask from the people from the community I hope u will change it........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenvinay (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, all we're asking is that you read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability. The issue is that you have no provided any sources for your changes, so all we have is "Praveenvinay says so", which isn't something we can base an article on. If you have objections to anything in the article, please go to the article's Talk page and concisely, clearly explain what you want changed/removed/added and why. You must include some kind of sourcing or referencing to a reputable information source for it to be credible. Feel free to post back here with any questions about this process. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not able to change with reference.... Please find the below reference and change it....

http://mukkulam-thevarhistory.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html

History of mukkulathore http://mayadevar.blogspot.com/

Please let me know if you require any more details.... i will give you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenvinay (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, blogs, fansites, etc. do not count as WP:Reliable sources <-- this policy is worth reading if you're looking to narrow down where to look for evidence. The reason for this is that there is no quality control for blogs. For example, if someone has a blog claiming that the Vietnam War was started by America because of Vietnam's offshore oil deposits, and puts it up on vietnamwarforoil.blogspot.com, how are we to know this is accurate? Whereas, if an academic with a PhD is Southeast Asian history writes a book "Causes of the Vietnam War" and it gets published by University of Canberra Press, then both the professional scholar, the university, and the press are staking their reputations on the accuracy of the argument.

So far as changing with references: if you want to add material to an article, find a reference (GoogleBooks.com is one of the easier and more centralised ways to do this) that supports the statement, add the statement to the page, and type <ref> at the start and </ref> at the end of the citation, and it will automatically format as a footnote once you save. If you just past in the URL (http://www...) it will appear just as that, but you can also use the app at reftag.appspot.com to automatically turn any GoogleBooks URL into a proper footnote.

Again, your enthusiasm is great, but materials on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources, otherwise people would just write down whatever they personally believed in blogs and just cite the blog, and we'd end up with all kinds of inaccurate information. Wikipedia is not about creating new information, it's about compiling knowledge from reliable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reg. Mukkulathor

I've replied here. Do have a look.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong continues to make accusations but refuses to take it to ANI

Greetings, I tried to speak my piece and leave MW an olive branch on his Talk. I and a bunch of other folks who edit Indian caste articles, including folks who've clashed in the past, are sorting things out over at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Varna_status_in_the_lead_of_articles and coming to some agreement. MangoWong, however, continues to loudly insist that Sitush and I are actually ruining caste articles, and when told to take it to ANI he and another disaffected editor insist that ANI is "biased" and they both refuse to go to it (diffs).

If he's going to continue making huge accusations about Sitush and I adding "lies", "defamatory content", etc. but refuses to take it to ANI, what are we supposed to do about it? Evidently Sitush and I are doing something so terribly ungodly and wrong that he's compelled to show up on a large number of caste pages, revert our work, wikilawyer every tiniest point in our edits, while completely failing to help out in any cleanup of blatantly incorrect/POV/uncited text that we few are trying to fix. So basically he's complaining that a crime is being committed, but refuses to go to the police, so he's just going to keep hanging out on the corner and loudly proclaiming that we're criminals? This is simply not a sustainable course of action. I debated putting this on his page, partially because I don't want to fell like I'm narc'ing on someone, but he's already told Sitush not to post on his page, and yells at Q. accusing him of being a "blot" on adminship whenever Q tries to mediate issues on MW's Talk.

Your call as an outsider, but I submit that he either needs to stop insisting that absolute travesties are being committed, or else find, somewhere amongst the DR options, some place where he can actually feel he's getting a fair hearing in "exposing" us. Though part of me suspects that no matter how many uninvolved people tell him he's reading the wrong things into the situation, he'll insist that they're biased Westerners, demand "an Indian admin", when confronted with any of the WP:INDIA Indian editors who disagree with him will claim they're biased in some other way, and will darkly comment upon "someday, when we get enough real Indian editors we'll be able to fix all this biased material..." MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel this is somewhat like the proverbial situation where a drunk, driving the wrong way down the highway and smashing into other cars continually, hears on the radio that there's a drunk driving the wrong way down the highway causing havoc. He looks out of his windscreen, seeing the cars driving towards him, and mutters to himself, "There's hundreds of them!"

I am absolutely certain that MW is well-meaning and trying to do what he believes to be editorially necessary, and I am also certain that he genuinely believes the WP:INDIA articles have a systemic bias. I believe also he feels, by extension, that since the content (in his eyes) is biased, the editors must be biased also. I tried, as you read, to discuss the issues with him, but his reply was not particularly useful and I really don't think I made any progress whatsoever towards him getting the point. But we must also reflect on the fact that he has resolutely failed to engage in meaningful dialogue with other Wikipedians (including me), that his eccentric interpretation of Wikipedia's policies is largely self-exculpatory and used as a justification for his own efforts, and that the problem is localised to his editing only. Therefore, a cost-benefit analysis is necessary and I believe that a topic ban from the WP:INDIA articles would be appropriate; he has regretfully become a "tendentious editor", irrespective of his ethics and motives.

I suggest that a topic ban is drafted and posted to AN/I for a community vote (this should be noted on the WP:INDIA noticeboard). He is disrupting article progress on a wide diaspora of articles with little net content of his being kept, and is not being productive in this topic area. After he's been forced to edit in other subjects for a while I wonder if he might get the picture a little more, and the ban can of course be reviewed then. --Tristessa (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho

Hi. Don't know if you noticed this, but this editor is currently banned from Wikipedia, so it's unlikely that he can act upon your request.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rolled back Pasi (caste) to your last version

Thanks for the editing. Unfortunately, a lot of the of the people making edits think its there job to extol the virtue of their caste grouping, instead of putting down encyclopaedic and verifiable information. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a lamentable state. My watchlist grows ever-longer though, so I catch a decent number of these as they occur. When a few slip under our radar, like Pasi, I've taken to just tracing the article as far back as needed to find a clean version, copying and bringing forward anything actually good added in the interim, and including those in the reversion. Feel free to ping me if you need any help on cleanups, or have caste-related articles that need more eyes to watch for tampering. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yadav

A recommendation: the next time someone posts more alleged sources or arguments on that article, unless they are actually new and useful, just respond with something like "Already discussed extensively above; please see prior discussions, including in the Archives. If you wish to pursue the matter further, please consult Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, as it is simply unnecessary to re-answer the same questions over and over again." Saves you time and hassle. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would generally do that, but I think at least one or two of these were new resources. He had run the previous set of references by MW, who told him why each was not usable, but then he came up with these. Always hard to tell who's just an IP who doesn't read Talk and doesn't understand WP, and who's just messing with me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to never fully getting to grips woth the Yadav/Yadava arguments, which is why I tend to stay out of them except when the reliability of particular sources are being discussed etc. I will try to do some digging on this issue but, yes, I tend to agree with Qwyrxian: continued engagement regarding what is pretty much all old territory is somewhat pointless. I can't help feeling that there is something a little unusual about this latest spate of IP involvement but it is unlikely that we will ever know. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

E. A. H. Blunt

I just thought I'd let you know that I say your article E. A. H. Blunt in the New Articles list--However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors: the references in the article do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is a tutorial on formatting citations at Wikipedia:Referencing.It would be great if you could also improve the related article Cyclopedia of Western Australia. Amy Z (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go work the footnoting style in a bit; you're just referring to the author/publisher/etc. info and its order, yes? Not content errors? And I'm not quite sure how Cyclopedia of Western Australia is related, since I specialise in India topics. But thanks for the heads-up on Blunt. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm surprised that the editors at Wikipedia have allowed the article on Bengali Brahmins to go wild with unsubstantiated claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Brahmins (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree with MangoWong that you would be well within policy to tag material as "citation needed", and then if footnotes are not added within a few weeks, to remove it. If you make substantial removals, I would leave a note on the Talk page basically saying "on X date I came in and removed a large number of uncited claims about A, B, and C for the following reasons..." As you remove, make sure each time you save you include a clear edit summary, something like "Claim regarding 1883 Delhi court case uncited for six months, removing" or "Point re: involvement in mining industry not supported by given footnote, removing". Not a requirement, but I would suggest you make some attempt to add citations if the data is actually plausible yet uncited, as there may certainly be very true things that simply don't have cites, and it would better to improve the article vice simply reducing it. But removing clearly incorrect or highly controversial but uncited data is still a step in the right direction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashraf Ali Thanvi.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ashraf Ali Thanvi.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nagarathar

Hi! Kindly check this out. Most of it is nonsense.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project

Hello,

My name is Victor Grigas, and I'm a storyteller at the Wikimedia foundation. We're telling stories of Wikipedia users, editors, donors, programmers and staff to paint a picture of who uses Wikipedia - for the 2011 fundraiser.

I am in the process of planning a trip to India to gather stories from Indian Wikipedians in face-to-face interviews (possibly on video).

My primary goal is to conduct 15-20 interviews, and hopefully enough of my interviews will make compelling stories that will effectively solicit donations from the public. These stories may also be used for other communication purposes by the foundation.

I found your userpage on a list of prolific Wikipedians and thought I’d reach out to you. Prolific editing is always a good story to tell!

If you are interested in participating, please contact me via my email:

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Thank you for your time!

Victor

About me: I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and have a background in film, video and audio. My userpage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

Maratha

Hey Matthew,

I left a reply to your question on the Maratha talk page!

AMbroodEY Reloaded

Karanam

I'm not sure if Karanam is on your watchlist still or not, but I just came across it accidentally (I was cleaning up See Also links on Kayastha). While sometimes I just ignore problems with pages I encounter cursorily...wow is that page a problem. I put a serious challenge at the bottom of the talk page, because, as far as I can tell that article currently has no sources, even though sources were discussed extensively on the talk page. I only glanced at the talk page (an OTRS report!) before making my "source it or lose it" challenge, and now after looking at it in more detail, I see that you were involved in previous discussions. In any event, you may want to weigh in on my challenge there...no hurry, as I said I'd wait at least a few weeks, and, knowing me, I'll likely forget about it for a few months before it just pops back up to shock me. But my opinion is (as I think you know), I'd rather have an unsourced stub that might be true than a 21K article with no sources of completely questionable veracity. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I come in peace now. But maybe you didnt read my reply on the convo you started. That could easily happen if you forgot to watch my talk-page. But as i will surely like to keep that conversation moving in a positive useful direction, i am here to remind you of it. Take your time. No rush! - Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aheer is a Jat tribe and not Muslim Aheers

There seems to be a lot confussion on the actual connection between the Aheer tribe of the Thal Desert and the Pothohar region and the Ahir or Yadav caste of North India. This tribe is actually known as Heer or to in some cases also Porawal. Rose refers to it at page 331 of his glossary calling them Her or Aher. Ibbetson at page 122 of his census report acknowledges that the Aher as he spelt it, are Aher Jats and not Ahir (his spelling) by caste. They are apparently one of the original tribes of Jats. It depends on the dialect of Punjabi, those of central Punjab always call themselves as Heer, or while in the Lahnda (Mianwali Thalochi, Shahpuri and Pothohari) areas they are known as Aheers, while many Sikh Heer prefer the name Porawal. Not sure why they call themselves Porawal. At page 368 of Rose's Glossary on origins of the Jat tribe, he clearly refers to the fact that Heer or Aheer claim descent from Qutabshah, the supposed ancestor of the Awan and Khokhar and tribe, and those in Gujar Khan area of Rawalpindi claim to be an Awan clan. The Mianwali and Shahpur gazetteers (will provide references when I have time) also refer to the Aheer, spelt Ahir though, as an ordinary tribe of Punjabi Musalmans. In J M Wikely's book at page 112 he refers to the Ahir as clan classified as Muslim Jat. Curiously, he gives a separate entry for the Heer. The Sikh Hayer might also be the same clan. Having personally known a few Aheers, they tend to be split between the Qutubshah or Jat origin. Obviously, I cannot use them as source. However, what I can say with some certainty is that I cannot find any reference in connecting them to Ahir or Yadav caste. I also know that there is an Urdu book written about Gen Naseem Aheer, Zia's Interior Minister (spelt his name as Aheer), will try to get hold of it, who has claimed Rajput origin. The famous Aheer family of Khushab, to which he belonged to claim a Rajput origin, but none of the British sources refer to a Rajput origin, actually saying that Aher are orignally Jat, together with the Maan (spelt as Man in all the British sources but now changed to the phonetically correct Maan) and Bhullar. This tribe is clearly not Muslim Ahirs, although there are groups of Ahir descent among the Muslim community (such as the Gaddi caste of North India), but this tribe is not one of them. Nor can I find any connection with the famous Rao family of Rewari. I am quite happy to re-write the article, based on the four sources referred to, and hopefully cleared the confusion. Trying hard to get hold of Naseem Aheers book, as it would provide an update.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello MatthewVanitas! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

WP India in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject India for a Signpost article to coincide with WikiConference India next month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the interviewer, Belugaboy. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pocketknives

Category:Pocketknives, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake History

I would like to point out that the article "Reddy" is a bunch of manufactured lies, falsehoods and a mega exercise in self-glorification. Reddy is a sub-group of Kapus, few of whom became village heads carying the title "Reddy". It is not a caste or varna. In fact, the title 'Reddy' is shared by other social groups of A.P., although not in large numbers. The so-called Reddy dynasty was imaginary. Ruling a few districts for 70 or 80 years does not make one Dynastical. Absolutely ridiculous and fraudulent!! The map covering entire caostal Andhra depicted as 'Reddy dynasty' is another great travesty of historical truth. Please take corrective measues right now. Protect the sanctity of Wiki from history manufacturers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.236.4 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi MatthewVanitas,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Hello again. You may rember a edit war over Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism some time ago. Well yesterday i added a new criticism that was suggested on the discussion page on nikah mutah. This is a big source of criticism for twelvers. I gave good intellectual sources that clearly mentioned it was critidism. But a sectarian editor has removed it the next day. I remember you are a respected editor who had could make both sides agree. Could you please have a look at the edit to settle the problem. I think you will dind that there is no readon to remove it.Suenahrme (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong Block review -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cajun accordion players

Category:Cajun accordion players, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Baghlan Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Temür

Shi'a Islam in Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Hazara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments invited

Could you please take a look at WP:NPOVN#Qais Abdur Rashid. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help in cleaning up article Nadar

The article Nadar is not neutral and is missing many facts with valid references.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nadar+shanar+untouchables&hl=en&gbv=2&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1625l14984l0l15078l40l38l1l22l5l0l266l2578l2.7.6l15l0&um=1&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&oq=nadar+shanar+untouchables&aq=f&aqi=&aql=

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11caste.html

Caste, caste conflict, and reservations by Ishwarlal Pragji Desai, Ishwarlal Pragji Desai - Social movements in India: a review of the literature Ghanshyam Shah

Converting women: gender and Protestant Christianity in colonial ... Eliza F. Kent - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Falak music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ammunition magazines

Category:Ammunition magazines, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Magazines (firearms). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Raja Ali Mardan Khan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raja Ali Mardan Khan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Ali Mardan Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raja Qadir Baksh Khan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Raja Qadir Baksh Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Dhangar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Dhangar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dhangar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muhandes (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

This is an FYI: edit war momentarily averted, but your attention is appreciated. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Kunbi people

The article List of Kunbi people has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the names on this list were unsourced and were in violation of blp.there is also list of maratha people which has similar names.this is conflicting.if their kunbi status can be verified please add the names and recreate this list.otherwise add them in the main article of the etnicity with sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pernoctator (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Ror

The article List of Ror has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

if there are any notable ror people with reference we can add them in the notable ror section(create if not) of the main article.if the list becomes too long.we can recreate this list.delete for now.it is blank

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pernoctator (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Menon

The article List of Menon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Menon is a title of nair caste.we already have a list of nair page so unrequired

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pernoctator (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Malis

The article List of Malis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

if there are mali people notable enough with references we can add that in the mali caste main article.if the list becomes long we can recreate this page.delete for now

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pernoctator (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mastana Balochistani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sirsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Vishwakarma

The article List of Vishwakarma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no names left delete.because were unsourced.some sources used do not verify caste status.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pernoctator (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To do

Desert golf? Desert golf? Why not add "Paint drying" to your to-do list? <g> Hope you are ok after the incident last year. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, though "*Fo Halloo, Manx nationalist group" looks promising... Though in all seriousness I might just try to get WikiProject Golf to write the other article since I know nothing about the sport; I just have some interest in xeriscape. Doing fine overall, just work got far, far busier, and I also felt like I was getting too personally wrapped up in the feuds, so tried scaling back for a while. I'm holding off on caste for a bit, though am attempting to hold down a few India religious group articles that have a tendency to suddenly revert to propaganda pieces. Other than that, all well. Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw to Fo Halloo entry a few days ago. That's the group which is fighting for the right to keep their own kippers and wants to sue Rolf Harris for nicking their three legs idea. <g> More seriously, I go over there sometimes - got some friends that live on the island & have in the past mechanic'd in the pits for the TT and Manx Grand Prix. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

How does that matters that the reference is from the own website of Dera Sacha Sauda, when the referenced content also contains the photographs in support to the content, eg, the scan copy of any certificate from Gunniese Book of World Records is published on the own website of the organization, does that lowers down the importance of the certificate? Even after my numerous explanations that the controversies which has been proved false in the Court, and has been proved to be a plot to defame the organization also the content from some unreliable source should not be welcomed, also you are talking about neutral content, does only putting good things means someone is putting non-neutral content? if someone is putting some negative content, eg the cases that are now proved false is again and again welcomed by the volunteers, that is also a non-neutral approach, please help on this else wait for a legal notice from the organization as per the link given below. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Fed/socialmedia-updates/Delete-anti-religious-posts-Court-to-networking-sites/Article1-786483.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajdba (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter that content is on DSS's site, even if they're referencing other information sources. Generally speaking (not accusing DSS of this, just explaining the principle) it is best to go straight to the original source for several reasons: a) the article subject may be presenting 3rd party info but giving their own slant through context, b) some less-ethical organisations might present false claims of 3rd-party support, c) having links to the organization other than the "External links - Official site" or a few appropriate footnotes to an organisation to highlight their direct statements, leans towards giving the organisation a "soapbox" for self-promotion vice a neutral explanation of the organisation.

Regarding neutrality: putting "good" things about the subject can certainly be neutral, provided that good references are provided and "negative" things about the subject are not obscured. To be blunt, this article has seen several "SPA" (single-purpose accounts) that have done nothing but make the article a blatant propaganda piece for DSS. Other editors have attempted to balance the article through better sourcing, and also discussion of the widely noted criticisms of the organisation. These are not fringe complaints: major media sources and academic papers have noted public accusations towards DSS. Whether accurate or not, such criticisms are themselves noteworthy in explaining perceptions of DSS in South Asia. As I have stated many times in the past: if charges were dropped, the dropping should definitely be noted, but that does not justify attempts to remove any mention of the trial, especially when it receives significant media coverage, and/or is discussed by academics as part of the organisation history.

If you have further concerns, I suggest you take them to the Talk page of the article, so that more people can see them. Though do please read the whole Talk page first to make sure the issue has not already been resolved. If you want to send me a reminder here on my Talk page letting me know you'd like input at the DSS or RRS page, that'd be great. I just didn't want to keep the conversation just on my page when it's really about broader issues about DSS coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics.
Message added 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assassin'S creed ^{T - E - C - G -} 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of League of Small Nations

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on League of Small Nations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Horologium (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[16]]. McKinseies (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boots and Saddles

The article Boots and Saddles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication given of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Mandole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kabyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dera Sacha Sauda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBI

Esteban Laureano Maradona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Toba

Fo Halloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Celtic League

Oterfløyte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lure

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Iranian rial banknotes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Iranian rial banknotes, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Doon School

Many thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding Categories. I have noted what you say and will keep that in mind for future edits. Thanks :) Merlaysamuel :  Chat  22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blacklight poster

The article Blacklight poster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scripts in lead sections

There was a recent RfC which determined that no Indic scripts should appear in lead sections, although IPA is acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, forgot about that one. I didn't weigh in at the time due to being tied up with many things, but I'm on board with the Project overall. It's somewhat lamentable that the issue is so contentious that it can't be done practically (as often the case on India issues), but that's where we're at. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Advicing on Poikayil Appachan

Dear Matthew,

Many thanks for getting through the wiki article and suggesting. I will edit and correct this soon, and will revert back.

Regards, Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almithra (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My last edit 'Kurmi'

Greetings and Thanks for ur feedback. Regarding Varna in lede i cant agree with u as i have seen so many articles with mention of varna in lede. moreover, i have not introduced varna topic in lede but just elaborated preexisting content with balanced info and accurate ref. regarding tortoise totem in etymology its not my speculation i just completed existing sentence from the same ref which was already there. Plz refrain from straightaway deleting well-referenced content just like that. plz use appropriate tags if need be.Jaychandra (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thorneycroft carbine

Thank you for your appreciation. I like digging in patents regarding some uniqe or historical firearms. Thing that makes me sad is that I failed to find on espacenet.com many interesting patents older than from the 1890s. Kekator (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

George H. Chirgwin

Thanks for the note. One of the things I like to do is create stubs and sub-stubs that others may then grow into articles as seems to be happening here. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seraiki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Furqan Force for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Furqan Force is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furqan Force until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Determinator p t c 17:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincolnshire Bagpipes

Hello Matthew, Many thanks for the tips on editing wikipedia articles and for the changes you made after my last edit. I am happy to discuss the Addison pipes further if you are interested. Al Garrod Contact: http://www.lincolnwaites.com/booking.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trombone-angel (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mahar

Many thanks for your kind invitation to aid in revision -- salvaging -- of the article "Mahar". Regrettably, my near-total lack both of non-Western languages and of sufficient time would impair my being of any real help in your commendable effort. I shall, however, look forward eagerly to reading the result! With all good wishes, Firstorm (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ayanosh

Thank you for the correction. Ayanosh (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Balakdas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

Ghasidas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

Guru Ravidass Jayanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magh

Nihang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Granth

Ravidassia religion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian calendar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Shia Islam

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Shia Islam. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Irānshahr (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary in full:

"Firstly, anyone can "waltz in unannounced" and make any changes to the article. Secondly, you have reverted many unrelated alterations I made to the article most of which are obviously uncontroversial, rather than selectively removing what you say you question, thirdly, it is for you to articulate a reason for what you seek to remove and not for me to 'ask your permission' to make any changes." Irānshahr (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you question one of the [relatively small] changes I made to the article on Shia Islam you are held to articulate your questioning of it on the talk page and engage in dialogue with me on the matter. You will find me reasonable and cooperative in my approach. You will not achieve anything, however, by blanket reverting every contribution I have made to the article (this is considered insulting and has no logical justification). Again, if you have an opinion on something you are asked to share that opinion with me and engage in due dialogue until we come to an agreement on the matter. Irānshahr (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it is ridiculous to make an absolutely extreme (and uncited) statement about being the "oldest branch of Islam" and "Islam began during the lifetime of Ali (in the 630s), and preceded the development of the four schools (madhhab) of Sunni Islam." and then try to defend a counter-revert by insisting I comb through all of your edits to find it. Secondly, this isn't about "owning" the article, this is about your unilaterally deciding to make substantial changes to the lede, and even first sentence, of an article with massive readership. Further, regarding your "obviously non-controversial" changes, you have provided no clear justification for why you chose to recalculate the numbers, why you chose the estimate ranges you did, etc. Given your obviously controversial changes earlier on, it rather impairs our ability to WP:Assume good faith with your "non-controversial" edits. In short, it is inappropriate to make substantial changes to a major article without any attempt to gain consensus or consult with other editors, particularly as issues like "oldest branch" etc. are by no means novel, and if they aren't in the article it's not as though the community never discussed the issue in the past.

As a minor sidenote, it is rude and passive aggressive to label the section "April 2012" and give a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning banner as though I was some newb who was just unfamiliar with wiki editing. I did a proper WP:BEBOLD to revert your unclear and undiscussed edits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree: the burden of proof should be on the one proposing substantive changes. As a reductio ad absurdum, if I were to waltz into Peanut butter and make major edits to the lede claiming it was invented by Martians, how would it be proper for me to counter-revert anyone and sagely advise them "let's leave my (totally uncited) claims for now and discuss it on Talk for a few days"? You've provided no citation, the statements are blatantly religiously sensitive and even the statistics are clearly an issue of controversy. The article has been semi-stable for a while, so it's not going to do you any harm to take a few days to go to Talk to gain support for your proposed changes.

Did you actually expect that you could make substantive changes on such a serious topic, with no warning and precious little explanation, and nobody would have any concerns whatsoever? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is axiomatic (and commonly known to anyone with a knowledge of Islam) that Shia Islam began during the lifetime of Ali. There is nothing "extreme" about stating it. A simple cursory reading on the subject is in itself enough to qualify the fact. To suggest that it is burdensome to remove a single sentence (or add a citation needed tag) it what is ridiculous, to use your characterization. When you accompany mass-reversions with edit summaries such as the one you gave, then it is apt to be interpreted as article ownership.

As for your next claim, you are categorically wrong. If you had actually investigated the matter (as my edit summary gave an indication of how to do), you would have seen that I was actually restoring the referenced figures which had been changed. I was restoring the referenced figures which had been changed. On your next point, I have in fact extended to you an assumption of good faith which in your approach to me seems to have been lacking. It is in your interest to assume and demonstrate good faith with me, as it is my interest to demonstrate good faith with you. I have not made "substantial changes" to the article. I have made a handful of unrelated minor changes. You are asked to specify which of the changes I made you question and on what basis, and we can then discuss proposals on what should be done.

As for your last paragraph, I did not manually label the section "April 2012" I served you with a general notice on article ownership via Twinkle. Experienced editors are by no means exempt from misconduct and being served notifications of this kind. Adopting WP:BEBOLD as a retrospective justification for your reversion strains credibility as it wasn't cited or suggested in your edit summary. I suggest assuming a stance of good faith unless you want to waste the rest of your day talking to me. Your attitude up till now seems to have been one of kneejerk reactionism and jumping to incorrect conclusions (such as not having enough care to check the figures in the table with the referenced figures, then wrongly assuming I was changing them of my own accord). To assume that the article was, somehow, perfect and accurate before my edits is wholly incorrect and illogical. The article is in fact poorly monitored and authored. This is not the article on Islam. Lastly, I hope you are not inviting me and other editors to revert all of those contributions you have made where you have not first given proposals on the respective talk pages. You cannot hold other editors to different standards than those you practice yourself. Irānshahr (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I don't dive into major articles like World War II or Australia and just start tweaking the ledes without any discussion whatsoever, so its disingenuous to claim that I'm hypocritical for not seeking consensus on major articles. It's not like Shia Islam is a smaller article where people only drift by on occasion.

Secondly, edit summaries such as "Restored the referenced figures" is exceedingly vague, and people in the past have used claims of "fixing" figures to mean they're adding their own personal analysis and calculation onto numbers. If the numbers have actually been tampered with (an ever-present risk and part of the reason we're wary of sudden changes on Shia Islam), it woould've taken you minimal effort to say "figures given do not match Edward J. Smith book cited, correcting figures to match Smith ref". A "I'm fixing things" is not very convincing when it's a tamper-sensitive area.

Thirdly, WP:BEBOLD is not an "olly-olly-oxen-free-o" chant that must be called prior to doing such. I saw substantial changes made to the lede of an article, and major tweaking of numbers, with very sparse edit summaries that in no way reassure of positive intent or proper caution. I check Talk, and there's no mention on Talk of "here's why I'm making some major changes" (which you may note I often do, and have very recently done, while tackling POV cleanups on religious articles). You took it upon yourself to add uncited claims about when Shiism began; are you saying there are not those who would contest it being the "oldest denomination" of Islam? And though minor you chucked a "[ˈshē-ēz]" in the lede despite no other spelling having such a phonetic. Again, these are undiscussed unilateral changes to the lede of an article, and it's pretty reasonable that folks request you discuss such issues without just jumping into an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for work above and beyond the call of duty on India related articles. SH 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Shia Islam. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have not given a rationale for reverting all of my edit s and this seems to be nothing other than harrassment and/or lazy editing. Your approach is not working in your interest. Irānshahr (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are now being completely inappropriate. You have labeled your last edit summary as "identified as vandalism". It is in extremely poor taste to mark legitimate differences of opinion as vandalism. It is clearly laid out in WP:Vandalism that vandalism is just not a label for "things I don't like" but has a very specific definition. It is rude enough that you post automated warnings on my page, but it is ruder still to accuse me of vandalism for my objections to your, again, highly contentious claim that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination of Islam." I have posted on the Talk page explaining my concerns, and am considering filing a complaint as this uncited and uncaveated claim treads very closely on pure POV advocacy of one religious sect over another. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong Twinkle button. Talking of "extremely poor taste", it is in extremely poor taste to revert all (100%) of a user's contributions because you take question to 10% of them. This is usually done by lazy editors, because it is easier to click 'undo' or 'revert' than to remove the specific part they have a problem with. However, this inevitably backfires on you, because through saving 20 or 30 seconds performing the revert, you lose 20 or 30 minutes in subsequent argument. I have voluntarily removed the edit which states that Shia Islam is the "second largest and the oldest denomination". I will not re-insert that edit unless it is accompanied by a reliable reference. I have done this a gesture of goodwill to accomodate your fears. Irānshahr (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that when a series of edits are made, and several of them set off immediate alarm-bells, reverting the lot makes a fair bit of sense. To follow on the above peanut butter example, if it had 10 edits in a row, and two were pushing the "invented by Martians" theory and several others were tweaking the chemical formulae for the components of peanut butter, it'd stand to reason that I'd be skeptical of the whole series, vice assume the editor had made a mix of contentious and totally non-contentious edits. In any case, we're talking on Talk now, so looking forward to sorting out the "oldest denomination" claim. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain Image

I strongly support your suggestion here. I have seen your Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India‎ too, but, it is not my subject at all. So, I don't think I can help here, if you are an expert of Indian public domain images, then I have some questions! Best --Tito Dutta (Message) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Sado Khan etc

Hi! Just a small note to let you know that I read your stub/starting article on the above subject. Im sorry but I felt that there were a few basic problems and issues with it, factually speaking, and I hope that you dont mind but I have made some basic corrections and also left a detailed note on the talk page, that I hope will help clarify the exact status of the Sadozai clan vis-a-vis the Abdali/Durrani tribe. Do take a look, please, and v best regs, Khani100 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

YSR at Reddy

You've just reverted the removal of YSR from Reddy, noting that it was unexplained. At List of Reddys, the IP did leave an edit summary when removing the person, and it is reasonable: the YSR article clearly sources the guy as being a Christian and has no support for him having ever accepted being of the Reddy caste. In view of his recent death and his surviving family, I reckon that keeping his name in there is tantamount to a BLP vio. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Isai Velalar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DK and DMK

Bhangi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mohammad Yousuf

Dalit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roma people

Dwivedi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gauda

Sado Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shah Shuja

Shadi Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abdali

Ulla Katajavuori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rauma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rugby union in Afghanistan

Hi, Thank you for cleaning and improving the article Rugby union in Afghanistan, I am not sure why Mr. Ziar who appears to be chief of Afghan rugby (and so has a conflict of interest here) in not responding to your messages. He clearly seems to be ignoring our messages , he had read the messages once here [17], any suggestions what to do now ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just filed an ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming_at_Rugby_union_in_Afghanistan. Hopefully a block of a week or two will force him to calm down and pay attention. He could be really helpful to the page if he would just listen to the advice he's been given.

Minor sidenote, do you speak any other languages? I got the Spanish wiki article made up for it, but more would be good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• yes, I saw your edit at ANI i have responded there, I do speak a little french but that's not enough to translate the article to french. regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bathani Tola Carnage

Hi Matthew,

Could you please review my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/1996_Bathani_Tola_carnage before I move it to public ? I've added similar details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India#1996_Bathani_Tola_Carnage

Could you please review both and let me know corrections/suggestions ?

Regards Almithra (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mukkulathor

Ref. Tamil Wikipedia article: முக்குலத்தோர் English Wikipedia Article on Mukkulathor MukkulathorR♣Muthusamy^Talk 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Muthanga Incident

Hi Matthew,

Could you please review the Muthanga Incident write up ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/Muthanga_Incident

Surprisingly I couldnt find books/articles written on this issue: might be my bad, will try again.

Regards Almithra (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Christians in Kerala

Hi Matthews,

I found the section for Christians in Kerala a stub. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Christians I would like to expand it. Please share your thoughts as it is a vast subject for me.

Regards Almithra (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ramabai Ambedkar Incident

Hi Matthew,

Requesting you to please review the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/1997_Ramabai_Ambedkar_Incident

I will definitely introduce myself into India Projects and get assistance from others too:

Thanks in Advance Almithra (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I put it in Wiki Peer Reviews - Please have a watch there too as I might require guidance for some more time till I learn the process. Thanks AgainAlmithra (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MatthewVanitas. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sitush (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor change in your post!

Hi, how are you? Just want to let you know, I have made minor change in your post here. Feel free to revert/edit it. Best, --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Saini crap, again

Are you able to sort out this mess of edits at Saini? I could do it but right now I am soooo depressed with that article. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave the wrong diff. I meant these edits. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem the tippy-toppiest of the caste POV articles; at this point Salaria seems mostly to be fixated on trivia of landholdings and whatnot. My primary concern is keeping the article from going the "truly awesome Rajput Kshatriya Chandravanshi warriors and only haters say otherwise" direction. I'm not thrilled with the whining and nitpicking about the Malis renaming, but the Saini partisans seem content to hair-split it to death, which is better than just calling the Malis liars I suppose. I'm sure it's vexing in principle, but the lock keeps the IPs out, and Salaria's current fighting points are quite minor in actuality. I'm actually more annoyed that he's been adding "Saini-names.com" or whatever it is to tons of bio articles, basically backfilling in whatever List of Sainis would be from the opposite end. Is there some way to nail the dude on GS for having no evident interest in contributing to an encyclopedia other than uplifting the Sainis? That doesn't seem to be a kosher "just a niche interest" defense, but full-blown CoI, and what's worse with a name that appears to be tied to Saini hotly-contested Rajput claims. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree re: Salaria. I am unsure whether the sanctions can be used in this situation but will dig into their edits and see what shows up. BTW, I have opened an SPI regarding Thiyyar - something very odd is going on there. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked it out. Although Salaria did have a spate of such edits in March/early April, and I was involved in cleaning them up, there appears to have been just the one during the last two or three weeks. Have I missed something or could it be that the pattern is changing? - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

MicroFinance Institutions Network

Hi Matthew,

Need your help in setting up the page. I've drafted a little information I know about the page. Please go through the page when you get few minutes and let me know your view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/MicroFinance_Institutions_Network

Regards, TIA, Almithra (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deobandi/Barelvi Issue

I am agree with your statement then please remove this "The movement is known as Ahle Sunnat to its followers" line from barelvi section because there is already mentioned that the movement is under sunni islam so no need to repeat that it known as Ahl e Sunnat again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's different; that's a cited point in the Etymology section. If you have a footnote from a WP:Reputable source indicating that "the Deobandi movement refers to itself as Ahle Sunnat", go ahead and add that to the Etymology section at Deobandi. Though, as I understand it, the situation is different since Deobandis refer to themselves as Deobandi Sunnis, while the Barelvis (and I agree that this is not factual of them) refuse to be identified as "Barelvi" and insist they are "simply" Sunni. So the two situations aren't really comparable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bhai go and read the artical that's also mentioned in Introduction of Barelvi along the Etymology section(either remove that from there or allow me to add Ahl-e-Sunnat in Deobandi Article) plus my Source was the official website of Darul Uloom Deoband so wasn't that enough reputable source ? Plus about Barelvis You are right they call and consider themselves "Sunni" and rest all Wahabi/Deobandi but Deobandi call themselves Muslim. I am also a student of Deobandi Madrissa but whenever people ask me i told them that i am Hanfi/Muslim not Deobandi. plus tell me how to edit the Box of deobandi movement on the right side of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the issue. Nobody says that Deobandis don't consider themselves Sunni, we're saying that Deobandi is a recognised movement of people, and those people happen to be Sunni as well. You add absolutely no new information by writing "Sunni (Ahle Sunnah wal Jammah)" except confusing people. There are very, very few people who would read the page who are totally unfamiliar with the term Sunni.

In contrast to the page Barelvi, the sentence there is "The movement is known as Ahle Sunnat to its followers." This is significant, because it helps the reader understand that the group does not generally use (or even recognise) the name "Barelvi" for themselves, but claims (and I am not endorsing them on that issue) the term Sunni/ASwJ for themselves. Now, if Barelvi said "The Barelvi are Sunni (Ahle Sunnah wal Jammah)"then that would have to be changed as being again redundant. But that is not what it says.

Regarding sourcing: the website of Deoband itself is a WP:Primary source, and also is not a WP:Neutral source. This is not to say that they are "incorrect", simply that they are not a disinterested party. Quoting from the Deoband website would only be appropriate in terms of things like "The Deoband Institute claims over 100,000 alumni" or some such thing. It can be referred to as the "voice" of Deoband, but it itself cannot be considered a neutral authority, in the same way that, for example, the UK's Labour Party's website can't be considered a neutral commentator on the Labour Party. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not very few but mostly people i must say don't understand the term Sunni due to barelvi majority propaganda that they think and believe that Barelvi are only Sunnis in Pak/India rest all are Wahabi/Deobandi. and this was my point of view to add Ahl e Sunna with sunni because general public consider Deobandi a new sect and out of Ahle sunna due to majority barelvi propogenda they confuse them with Wahabis that Deobandi and Wahabi are same thing.

OK i will also add a line same like that they movement is know as Ahl e sunna to its followers. but read the full article, many times they are replacing the word Barelvi with sunni there like

• "the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation gives such estimates for the vast majority of Sunni Muslims in Pakistan."
• "Like other Muslims, Sufi Sunni base their beliefs on the Qur'an and Sunnah"

and read they are using word sufi too. so can i also replace the word sufi/and sunni with deobandi some times in article ?

Ok about sourcing i got your point, let me find the some other sources with sense of neutrality Thanks :)

Barelvi

Dear MatthewVanitas, I have no particular axe to grind. I never added the names to the article. They have "always" been there. It's interesting that both you and I have never taken exception to the inclusion of the names throughout all of our recent edits. It's also unusual for someone to remove a large and apparently carefully compiled section without first flagging up an issue via templates. But, as I said, I don't mind either way. And as you said, there should be sources. Thanks for chipping in. I watch this page because it occasionally becomes home to some very strident inter-sectarian squabbles. I certainly don't want to fuel one. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gorge, no hostility meant at all. I hadn't messed with them before because getting involved in BLP issues has not generally been my thing, except when problems arise. In this case, the other fellow is, as I understand it, quite correct per WP:BLP. The issue of lists is generally held to be analogous to WP:BLPCAT; we've been dealing with that a lot these days in "List of Foo caste people" and the like, where, for example, folks want everyone cool and awesome with the last name "Foo" to be listed. The general consensus at WP:INDIA has been that unless the article for that person mentions their identification as a Foo caste member ("born to Foo parents", "has remained active in the Foo community", etc) then it is a BLP violation to label them as Foo caste. I'm not messing with the listing of scholars right now, since that gets a little weirder because they're less labeling them Barelvi and more identifying that they wrote/commented for Barelvis, so unless that somehow becomes contentious I'll let sleeping dogs lie.

Note that the editor who removed them is being a little WP:POINTY since he and I had some disagreement at Deobandi and he pointed out Barelvi as justification (tough, WP:OSE). So just for context. So nothing at all personal in reverting-your-reverts, just that even though he didn't cite WP:BLP literally, noting "who says they're Barelvi?" is a very legitimate question, and as a WP:BLP issue burden of proof is upon the includer, not deleter.

Thanks for checking in on this, glad to be remaining colleagues in keeping the article clean(ish). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for your kind reply. you are an excellent Wikipedia editor. I really applaud you for the careful and scrupulously judicial way in which you always deal with contentious issues on some of these pages. Thanks again. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Baba Bhaniara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congress Party

Dera Sacha Sauda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBI

Gazeebow Unit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. John's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Central Mosque Wembley

Dear Matthew, I hope you are well. Sorry to ask, but I wonder if you could please cast your eyes over the article Central Mosque Wembley. I have absolutely no issue with this mosque, and actually have no knowledge of it whatsoever outside of Wikipedia, but I feel like I am fighting a losing battle in my attempt to keep it free of trivia and subjectivity. One user (Abir1998) seems intent on stuffing the article full of building / construction information and excessive descriptions of its facilities. I'll be grateful if you could take a look at both the page and the user’s editing and perhaps help me think of ways of keeping the page encyclopedic (tight, neutral, accurate). I have tried giving him advice on his talk page. Thank you. Again, I'm sorry to ask. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hindu movements and organizations

Can you see how this can be best split? It integrates too many disparate clusters into one, clearly the Bengal Renaissance, Kanchi Matha and Bajrang Dal do not belong in the same group! —SpacemanSpiff 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Please see Talk:Nair#Selective legend in the article. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pampady John Joseph

Hi Matthew Vanitas,

Could you please help in reviewing an user page for Pambady John at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/Pampady_John_Joseph ?

Cheers Almithra (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please help to edit this page?

Hello Matthew, in the past you helped to edit the page of author Gabriel Wilensky and I was wondering if you could please help to also edit the page about his book, Six Million Crucifixions. Recently someone added a new section on that page that I think improves it greatly and addresses the references and other issues marked on the top of the page. Thanks! --Esautomatix (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Esautomatix

Mentioned you at WT:INB

I have mentioned you in this thread at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ainu task force

Thanks for the invite. I put my name to the list, though I must confess I am not an expert on the field. I do movies, so I knew about some of the Ainu documentaries. One thing about the filmography: While a list of documentary portrayals is important, I think many would also be interested in a list of fiction films in which Ainu appear. That could be a separate page, or the filmography page could have two sections, one for documentaries and one for fiction films (the lede would have to be rewritten, however). Let me know what you think. I'll put this question on the task force talk page just in case any others have opinions. Michitaro (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a few more notes on the stub proposal page and also invited an editor who is quite handy with project banners to take a look. Agathoclea (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agathoclea, thanks for the help on the stub. Michitaro, the help on the Filmography was great; I think for the meantime the easiest would be to just have a separate section in the same article, an "Ainu in fiction" section or similar. We do already have a Category:Ainu in fiction, which I made because another editor insisted in having some manga comic book in the parent Category:Ainu and it just didn't seem appropriate to have such a minor connection placed so high in the cat tree. I suppose we could cross-list the filmography in "in fiction" although that's only one aspect of the article, and maybe cross-cat it in "Documentaries" as well? I anticipate this Task Force won't be the busiest, but even little chips at a time are positive developments in coverage of the Ainu, so any level of involvement at all is certainly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar

June 3, 2012.

Dear Mr. MatthewVanitas, Greetings, Please see what has happened to article "Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar". I do not how to put back the original article. The present short version do not explain the ancient view of the community. You and me had work hard to shape the article. I request you top please try put back the original version. Thanks180.215.181.122 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)