User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

Another blatant misuse

The article Bindeshwari Dubey requires massive restructuring to be able to qualify for a standard biographical stub-it has been reduced to loads of unverified facts unsourced for too long..Kindly check the same

Doncram's arts.

I accepted the ones I did because they complied with policy. That's part of what I do on AfC. I refer to policy when I review. I am sometimes lenient, but its uncommon. You'll find that I am very strict with what I accept, given my previous acceptance rate (of sorts) is of about 1.5%. If you don't agree with my acceptance reasons then garner concensus and let me know if the community doesn't want me to accept articles because they comply with simple guidelines for inclusion. I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I am just a guy reviewing AfC submissions. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately you are making a mess of it rather more often than is perhaps desirable. You've had some examples on your talk page, provided by other people. It is not just me that holds these concerns. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes what? In what way am I making a mess? Could you please state which articles weren't suitable for mainspace? There's a discussion I proposed at the AfC talk page, and I'd appreciate you chipped in there. The aforementioned concerns were addressed, however the AfC comments by Ryan Vesey were not expanded upon and I do wish a thorough analysis were undertaken, if possible in said space (AfC), where it belongs. Thank you for your time! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dissapointed

Hi Sitush, I am extremly disapointed at some of your comments about me here. You have known me for some time, and you know some of the battles I have had to get WP:NPOV on Jatt, Tarkhan, Ramgarhia, and many other articles. For you to say I am selectively quoting hurts me deeply, because I thought you new be by now. I'm hotheaded, sometimes forceful, but I never selectively quote. I'll go and sulk in a corner now thanks SH 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't sulk ;) Replied by email: there was an intended method to my perceived madness. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ezhava#position in society

The text isn't accurately paraphrased imo, we've already discussed it without result on the article talk page, I would like you to have another look at it, not in a hurry though, it imo doesn't adequately represent the writer's views. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. What alternative would you suggest? - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to write "Ezhava's practise untouchability in the contemporary context", you need to back it up with a more straight forward source, the present one doesn't say so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know what the source says? You were requesting quotations until recently - do you now have a copy of the source? Nor does the article say that Ezhavas practise untouchability in the contemporary context: you are jumping to your own conclusions there. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, YK has a point. Our article says at the time of writing, the Ezhavas continued to practise some aspects of the traditional system of untouchability in relation to the very low-ranking Pulayar and Paraiyar communities. I can't find any evidence of that in the book. What Osella says is that Izhavas don't accept intermarriage with lower untouchable castes and that someone who does marry into a lower caste will have to leave the community. Not sure if that is the same thing as practicing untouchability itself. I can't find anything in the book that says an Izhava won't work with a Pulayar or Paraiyar. --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, AGF --sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was using untouchability in the broad sense of the term - the social practice of discriminating against the "lowest" castes. YK was arguing that this doesn't go on because there are laws against caste discrimination, which is patent nonsense: the existence of a law concerning something does not mean something does or doesn't happen. If it did then there would be no need for many branches of the legal system.

The Osellas specifically highlight that some Ezhavas will work alongside Pulayars etc - the use of the word "some" is significant - and they specifically note that the Pulayars are still at the bottom of the heap despite anti-discriminatory legislation. As I said on the talk page thread (which is where this thread should be), I'll re-read the entire chapter when I've worked through the rest of the book. I'm finding it difficult to dissect which aspects of it relate merely to the one village that they studied and which are more general observations.

Ratnakar, I haven't got a clue what you are on about. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Sitush: "Untouchability" is a specific banned practice, not a broad term, it means you don't touch me, you don't let my shadow fall on you, you don't allow me to to use public utilities and so on. Discrimination is a very general and vague term, a matter of perception, we have news paper reports that allege that "Thiyyas feel discriminated against by Ezhavas", so if you wish to include "discrimination", citing good sources, I would have no trouble. Regarding the present version of the section, it is unreadable to me, additionally it mixes history with the present, so considering my topic ban I leave it alone. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

sarvajna, WP:AAGF. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

It's not clear. Elsewhere in the book, the authors say that some Izhavas stand with the Nayars and other "upper" castes against the "real" untouchables (the Pulayas) while others stand with the ex-untouchables (Osella's term, not mine) with an anti caste Hindu perspective (page 256) . All this seems to be the usual upper and lower caste thing, not the practice of untouchability. --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I think that the biggest issue here was (I've removed it for now) a poor choice of words: "caste discrimination" or similar would have been better than "some aspects of untouchability". I know what I meant but clearly other people do not. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, I've never seen that one before. Anyone offering to raise it to AAAGF? Or to write an essay titled WP:TMA (Too Many Acronyms). <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:AAAGF? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Or WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha! It seems that there can be hours of fun spent noodling deep inside the hull of the Good Ship Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope that you at least know about WP:SPIDERMAN (or one of the more usefull shortcuts WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read that one several times in the last couple of years but it is more or less impossible for me to work out what the heck it is intending to say. It would probably be easier if the analogy involving spiderman, Reichstag etc were not present. I think it is basically wrt battlegrounds etc and, more specifically, choosing your battles carefully but embarrassment has never really been a feature of my character: if I am wrong then I kick myself hard and move on - no point in fretting about it or worrying about what others think of me. On the odd occasion I've seen it used at ANI, for example, my eyes just glaze over and I move swiftly on. Which is never a bad thing to do at ANI anyway. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ah, no! It's about overreacting to disputes. Wikipedia might be the most important online encyclopedia here is, but that doesn't mean that we should constantly fighting to the death about what you think is right. Especially when the dispute is about something like the background color of a template, the layout of the main page of a wikiproject, or something equally lame. If you ever start an ANI thread about one of those, or and RFC, or dispute resolution, you are climbing the reichtag dressed as spiderman. You may get attention for your issue, but you look like a complete idiot, and at the end of the day you're standing on top of the Reichstag in your pyjamas. Well, maybe not in your pyjamas. Or on top of the Reichstag. And it is not actually illegal in the wikicontext. And you don't have to go to germany, or the german wikipedia. but other than that it is exactly the same. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, I think. I am not sure that I've ever done something of this type other than the general idea of trying to insist on what is right. Given the sphere where I spend most of my time here, that insistence is pretty much a standard response to, well, just about anything. The entire subject area needs more clued-up contributors and more admin eyes and if it were necessary to make a fool of myself to achieve that then, yes, I'd do it. Perhaps that makes me Machiavellian? - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't applying it to you, if that is how I came across. Just pointing at the funny stuff to be found on Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It didn't come across that you were applying it to me. However, being aware that I cannot possibly be as perfect as I sometimes blithely assume, I occasionally muse about my actual (many) failings and aspects of my character that are perceived to be failings by others. There is a long list of both! - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

I'm about to make myself very unpopular with you, I realise ... but Human rights abuses in Kashmir and the ongoing disagreement on its talk page need the eye of someone who knows a lot more about the local history (and how widely we usually interpret "human rights abuses") than I do. Rather than being adminny or even talking about behavior, I decided to edit the article myself to make it more coherent, but I can't take it much further because I don't know the obviously very fraught field. If you want to punt the issue to a noticeboard, I think that would in itself be a help; if on the other hand you think I've in my ignorance left the article even more mucked up, I'll readily accept that. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a complete mess and I doubt that you could make it worse! It is exactly the type of article that hits the Indo-Pakistani religious nationalism spot and is of course covered by Arbcom sanctions. Alas, my knowledge of the post-medieval regional history etc is not detailed and there are (or at least were) some contributors to that article whom I am probably better off avoiding - specifically, the lethal combination of Mrt3366 and Darkness Shines. (Both of those can be excellent editors but they go at the Indo-Pak stuff like hammer and tongs). I'll have a think about it but can't make any promises, and I've no idea what noticeboard would be most appropriate although WP:NPOVN seems the most obvious. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I apologise; thanks for trying :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Meghwal page

This page needs a major revision. A lot of the sources listed do not seem to exist or I can't find anything about them on the net. Also, I don't see the need for mythological origin of a caste. It can't be verified and almost every caste in India is claiming origin to some ancient sage or god. TimesGerman (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be available on the web. And you are wrong to remove the mythology stuff, provided that it was suitably sourced. That you think otherwise and feel it necessary to tell me that almost every caste in India claims a mythological descent merely confirms the point I made on your talk page, ie: you are practically a single-purpose account and it would do you no harm to wander around a bit more. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I only edit articles that I know something about. The article contains sources that have ISBN that produce no results. Since you yourself set pretty high standards of sources being verifiable and reliable on the Ramdasia & Chamar page, I am just following that standard. I am going to spend some time throughly editing this article. TimesGerman (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The text linked to 1871 book needs to go. You deleted H.A Rose sources on the Ramdasia page because it was more than a 100 years old. TimesGerman (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't, actually. I deleted because it was unreliable. Perhaps you might learn something if you researched something you don't know about? Wouldn't that be fun? - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Then can you tell me why You think that H.A Rose is not reliable and this author is reliable. TimesGerman (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't pass a comment on the other author & I've not even looked to see who that may be. I responded to your incorrect representation of what I had done. And, by the way, the Rose work is well short of being 100 years old. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my edit and said that the source exists. it does not, try accessing the source and see if it exists. I will not edit this page for a few days. I will give you a few days to review the page and check the sources. Also, you still have not answered why you think H.A Rose is not reliable and why this British author and his book written more than 140 years ago is reliable? Also, the Koli page is a mess, it needs to be cleaned up. TimesGerman (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I think we have another case of poor English comprehension here. I did not say that the "other source" was reliable; I said that Rose was unreliable and that I hadn't even looked to see what the other source was that you were referring to. To be honest, I'd rather you didn't edit that page, period, nor any other caste-related article until you have gained some experience in less controversial areas. You are hitting problems wherever you turn on the caste stuff, and not just with me. I can't stop you from editing the things but if your disruptive editing continues then someone might, perhaps by enforcing WP:GS/Caste. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, being born and raised in USA, I have much better English comprehension than you. You just admitted of reverting my edits without even reading the reasons of edits. Don't try to act you are more intelligent than everyone else. I am finding that you get very combative and defensive when someone challenges your edits, especially when it comes to caste based pages. Wp:caste may have to be enforced in you. Over the next couple of days, I am going to start discussions on the Meghwal Talk page, please join and start contributing by at least taking to read the description of the edits. Also, here is your own action of reverting something that you think is not a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:147.60.1.231&diff=prev&oldid=548727652. TimesGerman (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea where you were born but your comprehension of plain English is not great if your comments here and elsewhere are taken at face value. And still you show it: I have not admitted to reverting without reading your reasons but rather I reverted because they are invalid. I addressed their invalidity and I am pleased that you are now prepared to discuss your proposed changes on Talk:Meghwal. - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra

Hello! Not your forte but hey.. this is like ancient and you probably have means to find out the answer. Hence asking you.
This subject film's advertisement introduced the male lead actor Hormusji Tantra as "the 'Irving' of the Indian stage". Any idea who this Irving could be? Considering the 1917's release and the film production company's association with American/British films, i am thinking he must be some American/British actor who was famous then. I couldn't find any possible match on Wikipedia. And chances are also that he isn't notable to be here or anywhere in writing. But still thought of giving a try. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry Irving is the man. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wuupss! I asked this question to you so you could suggest a British guy who would fit the bill. And you did it that way. As i had my doubts of he possibly being American, i also asked MichaelQSchmidt and he gives me Irving Thalberg, an American actor.
I will invite the party here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he should be Henry Irving, who was dead in 1905 and had left a huge work behind him as compared to Thalberg who was just 18 and had barely started. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unlikely to be Thalberg, who was a young man when the movie was released. Plus, it seems odd to refer to someone by their first name in this context. Michael may think differently and, of course, has roughly 99.999999% more knowledge of cinema than me. - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless we find a citation connecting Hormusji Tantra to some specific Irving (first name or last), my own thought was to consider an Irving whose works would have international influence in a birthing Indian film industry. Being compared to a lesser known British stage actor is possible as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lesser known? In 1917? Henry Irving was a titan of the stage, India was ruled by the Brits. I agree that this may be awkward without a reliable source as it would basically be WP:OR but I think the issue could be considered in a footnote if nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, assuming that our Thalberg article is ok, there is no way that the poster refers to him. He was just starting out as an office boy in 1917/18. He'd be lucky if the people in the next street knew who he was, so to speak. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

After further research, I would agree that my initial thought was incorrect, and agree it more likely to be Sir Henry Irving, specially considering the stronger British influence in India at that time. But this remains supposition unless we find a citation making the connection. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So we finally settle on Henry Irving. But of course we can't add that to the article without a ref and i doubt that would be available. Or can we in some wise way without attracting much trouble? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that your standards regarding application of policy are tougher than mine, Michael. And that is saying something! Not saying that you are wrong to apply in this way but I am pretty sure that this is capable of being noted along the lines of "This probably refers to Henry Irving" per WP:IAR. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just say it and tag it with a cn in the hope that someone will add a reference. Unlikely to be challenged. --regentspark (comment) 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case don't do it now. The article is a DYK nom and they have strict no cn-tags policy. Nothing stops us from spoiling the article after its once displayed on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, we can always ask on the article's talk page that editors share our search for the Irving connection, without falling afoul of DYK issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. This is one of the rare occasions on my talk page where an agreement regarding what to do appears to have been attained. I should print off this section and frame it! - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael, i have pasted this discussion on the article's talk page for future refs and for other editor's notice. Sitush, do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I have a lead on a reference. Will look it up sometime this morning. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did find several references but the outcome is best described as murky because they call Kavasji Khatau the Irving of the Indian stage (not Hormusji Tantra as in the poster). The Irving is definitely Henry Irving (Gupt, Somanatha, "The Parsi Theatre: Its origins and development", translated by Kathryn Hansen, Seagull Books, Calcutta 2005, page 164) and several papers by Kathyrn Hansen (who uses Gupt, the untranslated version, as her source). The poster is at odds with published work. I've emailed a query to Kathryn Hansen, hopefully we'll hear from her soon. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mers/Maher

Why do you people keep changing my article? I have messaged after requested to do so. I am a Maher and most of my knowledge comes from that. Look on Maheronline, most mahers come from gujarat the mahers of rajasthan are a very small proportion. Paragraphing and things like that can be changed but most the true information about mahers is in my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindoostani (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The principle reason is our requirement for verifiability. Like it or not, Wikipedia doesn't permit statements based solely on personal knowledge but rather requires that those statements are verifiable using reliable sources. Although there are some exceptions, community websites such as maheronline are not usually considered to be reliable because they are not independent of the subject. I did respond to your query at Talk:Mers and it would be best to continue this discussion there. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Frustrated

Yes, I am and hence the notice at the top of my page. Can I let go by reducing my watchlist etc? Probably not because I feel strongly that stuff that is not policy-compliant, and often complete POV crap even in the real world, should not be allowed to exist or to be inserted in the first place. But dealing with the fall-out is getting me down. I sometimes wonder why we do not just let everyone say what the heck they want and allow permanent warring. At least then I'd be able to walk away safe in the knowledge that Wikipedia really is a waste of computing space, as many who see me as the "opposition" appear to believe. Those people are mostly SPAs, of course.

I'll go do some reading for my own pleasure instead of reading stuff just to suit the acceptance or denial of stuff presented by others. I will be back, perhaps in as little as a few days, but right now I need a break from the frustration. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Stare at the bunny and sip herbal tea

The "soft bunny" of happiness and tranquility.

...and you will feel much better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin of word Caste.

Thank you for informing me about the change you had done to revert my edit. Perhaps the summary of my edit was not very clear. I do not mean that the Casts in India are based on race. All Indians are considered a single race popularly and the census in India is not race based either. The point which the article on Risley was not sufficiently clarifying is the origin of word caste which lead to Jati being confused as race in academic circles or was an attempt to introduce racial difference theories in Indian discourse which was unheard of in India before that. The etymology of the word "caste" makes my point clear. The English word "caste" derives from the Spanish and Portuguese casta, which the Oxford English Dictionary quotes John Minsheu's Spanish dictionary (1599) to mean, "race, lineage, or breed.". Origin: 1545–55; < Portuguese casta race, breed, noun use of casta, feminine of casto < Latin castus pure, chaste.

Hope this clarifies the issue. I will modify the article to include the etymology question to make the summary clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoscope (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The caste system was made by Aryas.and It was the priest class (now known as brahman in india) who made this system.cast and race are totally diffrent. but many people consider races as casts.for example, JATTS.'jatt' is a race, not a caste.but people usually mentions word 'jatt' as a caste.caste was based on professions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.54.12 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not something that I am in the mood to discuss at present. Suffice to say, Indoscope is introducing WP:OR to a Good Article, regardless of their (correct) exposition of the etymology of the word "caste". I have tried previously to explain on their talk page that inclusion of this material there is an oversimplification of a contentious issue and is unnecessary given what the sources at Risley actually say. They have done a similar thing at Caste system in India and were reverted by someone else there. Right now, I can't be bothered getting involved in yet another squabble even though I know this is a poor edit. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Modi

Just letting you know that I've unwatched the article, as I find Yogesh's nonsense games to be infuriating. Rarely have I met a more ridiculous POV warrior - and I have interacted with quite a few. It looks to me as if CorrectKnowledge is turning the article away from the propaganda piece it was four days ago, so I don't need to suffer his BS. If there are any problems in maintaining the article neutral in the future feel free to let me know. I am pretty sure that any admin who sees his behavior on the talkpage will deal out an immediate topicban since the POV pushing is so blatant. Someone needs to do something about the articles on the Tehelka tapes and on BJP and RSS - but I am not the one. Life is too short.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Yogesh is not as awkward a contributor as he once was. But, yes, this particular instance harks back to the bad old days of tendentious filibustering and pro-Hindutva POV etc. He really needs to find the middle ground at Narendra Modi, otherwise there will be nothing but a stub. I am deliberately limiting my involvement because the one admin who is involved simply does not seem to get it yet, probably because of an understandable failure to appreciate what has really been going on: there is a lot of contributor history involved and we cannot expect people to wade through it all. Sooner or later, it will end up at a drama board and then the eyes of people more familiar with the antics of Yogesh and Ratnakar Kulkarni will be drawn to the issues. RK, of course, is also often a decent contributor: the pair just have a block of some sort when it comes to BJP/RSS/Hindu nationalism/anti-colonialism etc - very unfortunate, but there you go.

I am about to do some work on a subject that has nothing to do with South Asia - it will be a relief. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Joyson

Hi, I've found his IP address [1]. He removed the messages in January to him.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Remark I'd like to share with you

"Discussion of the digital currency known as Bitcoin... Those who are citical of Bitcoin tend not to understand the currency very well and, as a consequence, their criticisms tend to be superficial, misguided, or just plain wrong."[2]

Replace Bitcoin with anything appropriate, good generic statement. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that can be applied generally. For example, I know practically everything there is to know about a past employer due to my "privileged" postion within that company. They are, nonetheless, very deserving of the criticism that I and umpteen others heap upon them and which has resulted in various court rulings. "Tend not to" is the writer's get-out clause, of course! - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We are two people with two perspectives. Nothing out of the ordinary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nasrani

Hi Sitush,

I guess this is your cup of tea. Please do the needful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nasrani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrani_(disambiguation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians

Thanks.. PalakkappillyAchayan 06:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No anti-British, anti-colonial point of view

	Absolute neutrality
	Your contributions to Racism in British India and Talk:Racism in British India are welcome. I fully agree with you that there should not be an "anti-British, anti-colonial" approach to such an article. I admire you for your efforts to keep articles neutral. Susesisa (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ongoing projects

They were not having the references, so i added the references now. i hope everyone will agree now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preethan87 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Thoothukudi. You were reverted by myself and another person, and references were only a part of the rationale for reverting. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As i feel that you are reading the stuff.

I am feeling that you are reading the stuff about BABA BANDA SINGH BAHADUR.I also wish that you confirm yourself about the disputed fact.I am sure that the result will be positive and you will find that i am correct.And i hope that you will not take too much time. So i am stopping my daily postings for sometime which i used to post to remind you.Waiting eagerly to see that information to be correct.

                                                                                               thankyou
                                                                                           --117.205.51.205 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Paramsinghantaal

Bazaars in Karachi

I've tagged this new article and left a note on the talk page, but would prefer someone that is a bit more worldly than this North Carolina hick to take a look. Ping me if you think it needs more attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

View sought

Considering your views there,[3] your views are sought here.[4] This may be considered canvassing, so perhaps you may share your views here or on my talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)