User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

Manspreading

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jat clans of Delhi

A tag has been placed on Category:Jat clans of Delhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz is there any way to see what articles were in that category? Our cat system is appallingly poor and the Jat people are one of those groups that attract a lot of POV edits. It is very likely that someone, perhaps of Rajput sympathies, has gone on a spree removing cats from Jat articles. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: - anything? Genuine concern because I don't follow the goings-on of the cat obsessives. I can see that it might appeal to people with OCD or whatever but there is a big underlying issue in this particular case. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: still no response? I realise it wasn't an admin action but you were an admin last time I looked and you are held to a higher standard. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I will keep pinging you until I get a response. This is appalling comms fron an admin. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, don't, it's being used against you by trolls. Acroterion (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion am I missing something here or are you actually suggesting that Liz is a troll? Seems unlikely. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No, Liz is getting unwanted talkpage traffic from trolls who've been looking at this thread, who are trying to complain about you. Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I just blocked one.[1] Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, I reverted an edit by that account here; I think it was their first. I haven't looked at Liz's talk page but unless someone thinks it best to clear this talk page every time a third party posts here, thus making it redundant, the problem will only go away when the sockfarm gets bored. Liz is not the only person affected.

I handle the crap, both here and elsewhere, with help from various admins and since Liz is an admin anyway I don't see why they can't handle it - it's par for the course with caste stuff & Liz should know that by now.

Equally, if Liz had responded to my query, which is a genuine concern, not a kneejerk "I don't like it", then this section would probably have been autoarchived long ago. I still don't understand why Liz has not commented and thus leaves us both in an unsatisfactory hiatus. There are two solutions that seem simple to me but presumably not to Liz. Either Liz responds to a reasonable request that incorporated some background info of potential use for future CSD nominations or I stop editing caste stuff & we let the lunatics take over running the asylum. Which would the community prefer? - Sitush (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another one.[2] Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Please have a look , a fox pretending to be a sheep

Observed a recent edits to Moopil Nair and found that there are a numerous pov pushes . It's written as a Facebook post rather than a Wikipedia history article.

Also user User:Outlander07 is a Nair vandal.

His all edits are hisown edits and it's reverts done by himself only. For every 50 other edits he does a Nair pov push.

He is using multiple sock puppets accounts. Recent edits to Channar revolt and Mannanar are from the same IP he is using.

Look at Moopil Nair and other Nair related pages like Samantha Kshatriya and Kiryathil Nair. Here all these pages you can find a numerous POV pushes like vandalising the article by stating Nair are Kshatriyas ( actually shudras ).

Source doesn't cite anything written in these articles. Also Samantha Kshatriyas are kings of Kerala ,they hold the title Varma and not nair.they are not Nair.

I request you to look these pages

Moopil Nair

Kiryathil Nair

Samantha Kshatriya

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:12A2:3CD1:557B:CB9F:7074:22DC (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let me tell you I am not into edit warring as you said above. Don't call me vandal as I hadn't done any kind of vandalism in wiki pages (No abuse from other users till now). We are using Dynamic IP and i have enough brain not to accuse you that you had done the disruptive edit as your IP series are shown in above said articles. I can even accuse you as a sock of Kalangot as your anonymous behaviour says so. Sitush The said OR and POV's in above Nair pages are not mine. I just reverted an edit on the article Moopil Nair and placed a citation tag on it . The above guy is still on British raj era calling names like Shudras and all. I can show the above guy doing disruptive edit in a sourced article saying "not in the source". The guy said above was correct I had made edits in Channar Revolt and Mannanar check the edit history and find out what I had done. I know the rules of Wikipedia as I'm a registered user, not an anonymous like above. Already left you a message on the talk page to make cleanup on the suspected disruptive edit pages. Please look into his statement "Also Samantha Kshatriyas are kings of Kerala, they hold the title Varma and not nair.they are not Nair" Last time he from other IP complained (How Dynasties comes under List of Nairs Page? Who cares?) He need the articles in his way if it is sourced or unsourced. Outlander07 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Numerous people have been edit warring. Thus far, I have stubbed Moopil Nair and Sambandham. Instead of fighting over stuff you think you know, I think you should all take a look at WP:V and WP:RS before working together to produce articles that follow our policies and guidelines. Ridiculous, all of you. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please look into this, most likely the above anonymous guy doing [[3]], [[4]].Outlander07 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Please check Samantha Kshatriya and see the above guy who accused me a vandal doing.. Outlander^07@talk 04:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Added some info about Yadu family

Hi Sitush, I've added some new data about Yadu family on Ahir page. Hopefully, this time the refs are reliable. HinduKshatrana (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HinduKshatrana, the first source is authored by Ram Sarup Joon, who is listed by Sitush among the worst type of sources – see User:Sitush#Ones to remove on sight – although I am not familiar with that author. The second non-scholarly source is authored by a freelance columnist, and it just mentions that, The Ahirs believe that they are descendants of the moon and belong to the Yadu family, famous for their fighting spirit. So the non-HISTRS source is misrepresented by you. And the third source doesn't support your claim. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk is correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Diff as requested

My Village Pump (policy) comment. Ugh, I am sorry you're on mobile. Can you get it to switch to desktop view for each session? I am technically clueless, as you know, but Iridescent had some things to say about mobile access in a recent discussion on EEng's talkpage, including that Mediawiki will always serve up the mobile view and not save a preference for desktop view, but that one can switch on a per-session basis. Anyway, we are safe and well here so far, and I hope you and yours are, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, yes, it is possible to switch to the desktop version but you can imagine how much scrolling that involves for edit histories - one edit can wrap across several lines; worse now because of the relaxation on edit summary length. I am under instructions not to go out of the house - 14 weeks and counting! Thanks for the diff. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Objection on religion section of yadav article.

Respected editor, please note that 99.9999% of yadavs are in Hinduism so in section of religion only Hinduism should be written. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with at article talk. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone is in to disruptive edit

Hi,

Please have a look on the page Samantha Kshatriya. The very same IP Series who accused me as a vandal last week (check here [[5]]) for reverting his edits is into disruptive edit. I'm not going to revert it. Thank You Outlander^07@talk 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think someone else has reverted it. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have time keep an eye on the page Caste system in Kerala some POV pushes are going on. Outlander^07@talk 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I must be jinxed. I looked at that article recently for the first time in ages & it seemed to be in reasonable shape. I will look again tomorrow - it could be that the people xisrupting here are also involved there. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted to the mid-2017 version per my note on the talk page of 30 April. The thing had been affected badly by Nair POV pushers such as BreadBuddy. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Too many assholes

I've semiprotected this page for another three days. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Muhammadahmad79

Said editor tried the same edit(s) back in April 2016. Is it time to notify an Admin? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that. They are clearly out to prove a POV and are faking sources to do it. Same problem at Qutb Shah and poor edits at another article. They have also uploaded a copyvio image at Commons.- Sitush (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Brothers! I don't support the edits that happened back in April 2016. There was too much rubbish being published on the article. There was too much unsourced stuff and too much exaggeration of the stuff that was not even in the sources provided. Even at that time, In April 2016, I removed many edit coming from those unknown ips but one thing I believe is for sure and also known countrywide is that the Awan (tribe) is of Arab Origin, books are filled with it, and I think that mention of it should be in the article. I cited many credible and reliable sources, and sorry to say but I don't know why Sitush reverted my edits saying that the sources were unreliable (Every reliable source is not on Google Books). --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Awan. You were using a website purportedly run by members of the tribe, sources from the British Raj era, self-published sources and at least one source (the Jaffrelot book) that says nothing at all about the point in question. I think you should review the information at WP:RS - you say that not everything is available on the web, but nor is everything reliable or even relevant. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the sources from British Raj are unreliable? Other sources stated were not all self published sources. There was a video source of Naseeruddin Naseer Gilani as well, it’s not recommended, but can be used as a supporting source. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush/CasteSources. And we should not be using "supporting sources" in the sense you have used that term. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

With the latest evidence on the Talk:Awan showing that Muhammadahmad79 misrepresented a source, perhaps it is time to talk to an Admin.

So far, Muhammadahmad has received:

• 4 edit-warring warnings[6][7],[8],[9]
• 2 removal of content warnings[10],[11]
• 2 discretionary sanction notifications, [12],[13]
• AND has misrepresented at least one source,[14]

Your thoughts Sitush? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. @Bishonen and Vanamonde93:, though Bish may already be trying to sort out an earlier ping re Deepcruze. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A polite reminder, Sitush! Actually, I don't think I can handle that awkward Deepcruze, sorry. Let's hope User:RexxS saw your ping. Also, did you notice Deepcruze recently reverted User:Aman.kumar.goel's redirect of the pretty poor article Vandalism of Ambedkar statues? I have looked into Muhammadahmad79, though, and posted a topic ban warning. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the reminder, Chère. I'm sorry, I must have missed that ping about Deepcruze. I've now attended to that and left a note on their talk page. Please let me know – or take it straight to WP:AE – if things don't improve. Thanks for all your hard work, Si; it might not always be obvious, but there are lots of us who really appreciate it. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Me sitush

I would like a reply from u for reverting the changes I have done. Rimeg (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which article? I usually give explanatory edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr sitush ur very active on wikepdia ....I would like to discuss something on kapu page Rimeg (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The source u have given on kapu stating shudra status only shows that reddy and kamma were different class than kapu kulana ( u can read it) and in kapu page u have edited that kamma branch of kapu and all so it's become confusing Rimeg (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So atleast u can explain above that anceitly kapu name was given to a tribe and these castes branched of it while the caste kapu ur refering on this page is different . Rimeg (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I will take a look at it. These conversations are better done on article talk pages, where everyone with an interest can see them. So, if anything needs to be done or explained I will post something there.- Sitush (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Kerala

Hi Sitush - I hope you are well.
At Religion in Kerala an editor is edit-warring (5 deletions today, so far) about one of the stories about St Thomas - he doesn't like one version so he is repeatedly deleting it. The section he is deleting is sourced to:-

1. "The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple">Ishwar Sharan (2018). The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple. New Delhi: Voice of India Publications.
2. "How christianity arrived in kerala through syrian immigrants". www.madrascourier.com. Retrieved 2017-08-25.

I am unfamiliar with either source - do you have an opinion on their likely reliability? (reliability for myths is rather a contradiction in terms) - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, how weird - I've just been trawling the history at Awan (tribe) and you're all over it! Nothing from Voice of India is reliable - they're a Hindutva front. I know nothing about the Madras Courier, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - As I recall Awan (tribe) suffered from mass puffery and multiple additions of people a) without articles and b) with an article but no mention/reference of Awan in it - I'm not as strict as you for self-referencing - I'm becoming more (probably too?) lenient in my old age. Best wishes and thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Arain

I differs but respect your views. Did my comment at talk page providing this RS made you angry? Can I not suggest even a RS at talk page? ScholarM (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a self-published book. Not a reliable source. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

I am not angry but I am incredibly frustrated at the moment with having to deal with so many liars, disrupters, glorifiers and incompetents at articles relating to subcontinental society. It is horrendous.

And, no, your source linked above is not reliable. See WP:SPS. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Rigvedic quotes on homosexuality

Would you mind taking a look at the recent editing history of Hinduism and LGBT topics and Homosexuality in India, and giving your thoughts? Further context can be found on my talk page - essentially, there is text asserting that a certain phrase occurs in the text of the Rigveda, which is an entirely spurious claim, and attributed to sources that are not competent to comment. The text in question appears nowhere in the actual text of the Rigveda, as is easily established by searching through an online database like Titus. It also appears nowhere in any of the academic sources on the Rig Veda itself, including the authoritative translation and associated commentary recently published by Jamison & Brereton. The citations are mostly to newspapers which appear to be uncritically repeating this factoid without further citation, and it has been picked up by one or two academic sources on queer theory that are not competent to comment on the Vedic corpus or translations of it, and which do not themselves source it. I'm not sure what the appropriate solution to this is. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)