Jump to content

User talk:Sitush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nair (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 7 August 2011 (→August 2011: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Posco India

Hi Sitush - I read wiki pages on original research and synthesis. I then went back to my edits, and reflected on what I wrote. I can sense what might have confused you, but I am not sure because your comments were broad and generic. If you have specific comments, please share them with me. I will incorporate them and then attempt to rewrite the section. I can see from your discussion page you are a busy person. So, if you prefer, I can rewrite the sections paying attention to NOR/NS issues, post them on your discussion page or on the Posco India page, and then you can take another look. Let me know your preference. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news. My comments were indeed broad-based but that was because the problems were also - just one of those things. Sorry if it confused you.
Just do what you want to do on the article and drop me a line afterwards. I can't promise an immediate response but I will review the edits for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at ApostleVonColorado's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Sitush - Left a reply in the talk page of 2011 Land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. On Posco India, a quick update: it has taken me time to find more reliable literature and verifiable citations. Now I have 100s of pages, from NGOs in Orissa, government of Orissa, interviews of the villagers affected, as well as the office of Indian Ministry of Finance. I am reading through them to get a balanced, NPOV view of all sides. Posco India issue is very complicated, one side within India criticizing or partially supporting the other side within India. Before I summarize I want to read all of these reports. I would rather wait, read and do this right, than rush and do this wrong. Allow me some more time. Your understanding is appreciated. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little snack

Talkback at LoS

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

Talkback

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

See diffs [1] and [2], your reverts happened so fast that I didnot understand that you are reverting, if you don't want explanations from me you are welcome to have your way, was providing diff for what I said on AN/I. Don't want to bug you on your talk page. Bye. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because that diff is already at ANI in connection with your comment, and you should know this because you have responded. Furthermore, the poster was warned by BsZ and then the content was deleted because it is clear trolling/attack content. It is meaningless and you know that. Feel free to keep winding me up with your inane, repetitive rubbish and feel free to recruit people off-wiki to step in here on your behalf. You have argued ridiculously with LadyofShallot, Boing! said Zebedee, Salvio and several others recently. Sooner or later, patience will run out. In fact, I rather think that it has in one instance.
Furthermore, since you now claim on your talk page that you need to learn (and it is regarding a trivial point where you won't accept the advice given even when it is in response to your own question & comes from an admin), it may be best if you do not advise other new contributors as I believe you have been doing. You have been extremely misguided in your recent interpretations of policy and it would be a shame if you pass that poor guidance on. Yes, we all make mistakes and we are all learning but the sheer scale of it is staggering. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kongu vellala Gounder Related article

you removeing base lessly everythink related to kongu vellala gounder article,i can't understand your intention, you does not allow any one edit,banning every one,even with citation

every one in tamil nadu knows the person was belongs to kongu vellala gounder but you say not belongs to kongu vellala gounder,and also allowing article with citations also

i can't understand what is goal of wikipedia by not any editors , or citations every think else

say to us what is u r intention?

every one knows kongu vellala gounder clan oriented people even journal of tamil studyies say ,partically we following u does allow put clan names over there

u deleting every thing , say to us what is your intention? in the earth no people like kongu vellala gounder present

115.241.3.134 (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia requires that content is verifiable using reliable sources. I think that I know which person you are referring to. If I am correct then the issue is that in lists of people such as this it is necessary to "prove" that they are indeed relevant and worthy of inclusion. This is usually done by linking to an article about them that already exists (a biographical article, almost always), but in this instance there is no such article. The alternative is to provide a source as a citation.
I am happy to help you with either of these options if you can come up with some information based on reliable sources, or to generally advise you regarding what makes for a reliable source etc. However, until one of those options is available then the name should not be in the list. Unfortunately, it does not matter to Wikipedia whether someone is well-known locally etc: they need to be notable and this needs to be established as I have indicated. Those are the rules, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't...

Please don't walk away from India-related work - there are so few people working on them, and we need as many skilled researchers and competent writers as we can get. I understand the frustration, but these things do take time to get addressed, and it is a slow and painful process - but awareness of the problems is slowly being raised, and we do have the most egregious abuse averted (at least for now). Maybe take a break for a few days (as I do), and ignore the people making accusations? It's only when they actually affect article content that it really matters, and that seems to be reasonably well under control at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are affecting article content, if only because I am spending most of my time unable to develop content. I have managed to fettle Didda & Kalhana this week, plus do a massive overnight rewrite of what was hopelessly incorrect (and potentially libellous) content at Cash-for-votes scandal, plus have created Lohara dynasty over the last couple of weeks. I should be doing a lot more of that sort of stuff but am getting bogged down defending stuff that really should not need defending. My plans for further updates to the Malabar Marriage Act and to assist LadyofShallot + AN Other with the Madras Public Library Act are simply not happening, nor is the polishing that is needed at Nair. If I go there, I am sure these people will follow.
I appreciate all that you do but this feels often like me + MV vs the world. If I do not participate then MV is likely to be in big trouble on the basis of consensus and articles will be changed in a manner detrimental to the project's aims. Sure, consensus has to be supported by V and RS etc but it would be difficult for him to do all that alone, especially since admins cannot evaluate sources and remain uninvolved. Right now, that is the only reason why I am hanging on & getting involved with all the vexatious crassness, which I am convinced is being co-ordinated off-wiki. Myself and MV do not always agree and I have less interest in many of those areas he is involved in, but I do know when something is blatantly right or wrong and I do appreciate the huge effort he has been putting into these areas. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's holding you back from other work you want to do, that's true - and it's doing the same to me. But these ethnic disputes crop up all the time, and they are amongst the hardest to solve and they do take time. I'm thinking about how to progress this, and will probably seek some advice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would hate to see you leave the field, but, at the same time, if doing this is making Wikipedia unpleasant, then you shouldn't feel obligated. As I think I suggested elsewhere, how about we try a simpler approach: the first time someone expresses a concern (e.g., "They're not Shudra!!!!") we cite policy/guidelines. The first time someone brings in a bad source, we tell them it doesn't meet RS. When the person repeats the problem, we simply explain to them calmly how to pursue DR--point them to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, whatever. We respond to their concerns there, of course, but we just stop explaining the same things over and over again. We place the burden where it should be: on those who want to argue that a given source is valid, that their analysis is not original research, etc. If they want to declare that they're being abused, we direct them to ANI or wherever. Meanwhile, we keep evaluating sources, keep figuring out ideal article content. When someone is edit warring, we report them. When someone adds OR and gets a gang to try to keep it in, we take it to WP:NORN ourselves, and when NORN nearly inevitably backs up our position, we take it out again. If that ends up with the article fully protected; so be it; a that point, we should be able to legitimately run an {{edit request}} and say "See this discussion over at that noticeboard--every uninvolved editor said that X is the right way to write the article, not Y." In other words, we use the DR process just like we should. Sometimes, of course, DR will decide that a source we think is unreliable is, in fact, reliable; great, that's evidence of the process working. But every time we raise this, or get POV pushers to raise this, at a noticeboard, more and more people see it. Some of them watchlist the article in question. Others start to see a pattern build up. Eventually, enough people see the problem for what it is, and the community as a whole says, "Hey, we're sick of hearing this, time for some sanctions" (or time for ArbCom). Plus, over time, we will find good, helpful editors. I just found one today; the Shudra issue came up at Kamma (caste), where basically only one source was supporting Shudra status, while the rest of the article supported Warrior status (not with great sources mind you, but the Shudra was only in the lead). So I removed it. Then User:Foodie 377 came in with 3 sources, at least one of which appeared to be very high quality, which all agreed that Kanma count as Upper Shudra. Take a look at Talk: Kamma (caste)#Shudra, and see that xe even seems interested in improving the overall quality of varna issues on this and other articles. I know at this point I'm rambling (it's late here), but I do think that head way will eventually be made, and I also think that it can be done without completely overwhelming you or MV. Of course, please reach out when you have specific problems; to Boing as an admin and me as an editor, and anyone else you think can help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foodie is a great (albeit rare) example of a caste editor who can do good things when handled cordially. We started butting heads at some point (Reddy?), but we talked through it, and he basically came to the conclusion "I'm not upset about telling both sides of the Reddy story, I'm upset that Reddies look bad in comparison to the still-biased articles", so he's been really great sourcing Reddy (while telling both sides) and also smacking some neighboring castes who've been getting away with cruft. Not saying he's attacking other castes, just trying to even the playing field amongst quarelling factions. I dunno, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing. Some days I'll have more time, some days less, and some slow days I might just bail from India for a few days to catch up on my massive to-do list. I just really, really, really don't want to help establish a precedent of "you can always fix Wiki by calling your boys on Orkut, closing your eyes to every reply, and screaming racism when all else fails." MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring notice

Please see Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KURMIS, AHIRS/YADAV

Here are some refs which may interest you: [3], [4], [5]... Your opponents are right when they say that the word Shudra is not commenly used (i will give you more explanations later if I find time) but this is not at all a reason to add the word Kshatriya instead of Shudra... You were right to remove the classification eventhough I think it should be kept but instead of mentionning Kshatriya/Shudra stuffs, it should mention their traditionnal occupations that is: cultivators, cowherds... Varna classification should be explained in the article itself...Rajkris (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those refs have already been examined and (I think) are all among the batch of 15 quotes I have listed. I've got another 100+ lined up. I am sure that it is correct that the term is not commonly used now in India but that alters nothing: the article already says that it is a deprecated term in that country. The issue of the classification line in the box is part of a wider issue that I have raised in several places: the infoboxes for these articles are more trouble than they are worth. Using your alternate suggestion, some people would say (extreme example) "but my father is an accountant" and start warring over that instead of varna or OBC/ST/SC/FC etc. Since the population size fields are also hopeless, the associated groups are frequently warred over, the areas of significant population cannot usually be cited, and so on ... it makes sense simply not to use the boxes at all. 97% of WP articles do not have an infobox. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/t/tripura.html an RS?

I see this chap pop up a fair bit, any thoughts on his credibility: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/t/tripura.html  ?

BTW, have you seen the "$400/hr" kerfuffle on Jimbo's Talk page? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that website, yes. I doubt very much that it qualifies as a reliable source. We have no idea of his expertise and his footnotes tend to be on the thin side. Of course, those footnotes that he does provide might be of use independent from a cite of the site (!) Take it to WP:RSN if you fancy a run out with it, although I suspect the problem there will be lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject area. There is an equivalent for the UK that is quite widely used - Leigh Radiment's guide to the peerage, or something like that. However, that one has more sourcing & the compiler(s) have a track record.
Saw Jimbo's page yesterday and then again today just Jimbo replied to Yogesh's reinstated query. It will go nowhere, although I have now said my piece & it may get one or two other editors interested (mostly likely not ones that would suit the POV agenda, so it could be a huge own goal for Yogesh). - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ezhavas

I am trying to keep an eye on the page. Sorry I can't be more helpful with edits like this. I can't tell who's who. If it's simple, I'll fix it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had stepped in, and thanks for that. Basic rule: ignore the names and just work using WP:V & WP:NLIST - if an item is redlinked and unsourced then bin it because it fails to meet V and NLIST. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, my friend. Will do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. More importantly, thank you for your support across a range of articles, and ultimately, for your crazy hard work in the face of ridiculous accusations and sometimes very problematic opponents. I hope to continue working with you indefinitely, and hope that, one day, we can wrestle at least some of those articles into control. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texture King?

It seems like you and I have had to deal with the Govind Kumar Singh more than anyone, so I thought I'd ask for your input before acting on this. Vermapriya1986 seems to be resuming his edits at Govind Kumar Singh, which made me take a look at what redirected to that article. Among the pages is a redirect, Texture King, which redirects to Govind Kumar Singh. I can't figure out why, because the Govind Kumar Singh article doesn't address this in any way. However, you can't prod redirects, and I'm honestly not sure if G11 applies to it (although I think it does, I'm not sure). Thought I'd ask for a second opinion and see if G11 applies, or if I should take it to RFD, or just leave it alone. - SudoGhost 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred turned it into a redirect way back when s/he was using the Wnfck sock. It had a little content because Texture King was alleged to be Kumar's nickname. Best bet is to have a word with C.Fred but my gut feeling is to leave it alone because it does no harm & I don't think we actually need to comply with WP:V etc for a redirect. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kshatriya

Sir,i have explained about exclusion of jats with sources on disscussion page but inspite this you reverted my correction.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. You gave no explanation in the edit summary and you have not given people enough time to respond on the talk page. You removed a substantial amount of cited information and need to allow more than the two days that you did. Give it a couple of weeks at least, especially since I for one did respond and need more time. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK sir,i have already provided the other side of topic with sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your careful and helpful work on Fanny Crosby. Ockham would be proud of you, and I think Ms. Crosby herself looks on your work and approves. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeedy, although of course there are three involved in this exercise. It is great that we're at the point now where an edit doesn't throw an error on the servers, which is what was happening on every occasion a couple of days back & made things b. awkward. The edits went through ok then, but the error was consistent and did not happen on other articles I was working on, so I presume it was a size issue.
BTW, I am not sure that Ms. Crosby is capable of "looking" down, but I know what you mean ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An error due to a size issue...hmmm...nudge nudge? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction date

I am curious where you got the info about all those possible construction dates to Green Leaves. Atterion Talk•Contribs 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited sources that you removed. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no no. I mean before I removed them. Atterion Talk•Contribs 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Look in those sources - the info is there. I was the person who found them. If you cannot see the sources then, sure, I'll provide quotes for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as far as I can recall, they were all interviews with various members of your family. Unless your family has a history of misinforming the wider community, their views should be noted. Even NRHP say that something was there at an earlier time. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring

--QuickEditor (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Watch out for the boomerang. You are being ridiculously bumptious and it would assist if you slowed down a little & read the comments on the talk page. That's the article talk page, where you tried to close down discussion with a template. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

User:Smjwalsh has raised a complaint regarding the speedy deletion(s) of Early Life of Fanny Crosby and Rescue Mission Ministry of Fanny Crosby at User_talk:Fastily#Early_Life_of_Fanny_Crosby. Since you tagged the pages for speedy deletion, your input would be welcome. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your good humor at Talk:Kim Kardashian. Your recent contributions to Wikipedia on Talk:Kim Kardashian had me rolling on the floor laughing so hard that I almost died. I really appreciate how you lightened the mood at Talk:Kim Kardashian. I am giving you this Barnstar to show you my appreciation for your good humor at Talk:Kim Kardashian. Thank you. QuickEditor (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiConference India 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Sitush, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
Official website Facebook event 100 day long WikiOutreach Scholarship form

As you are part of WP:IND 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

naveenpf (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once more out of YK and I'm taking him to ANI

Stellar day: YK yet again brings up that blog, and implies that Jimbo is doing an investigation that will take you and me out in a month or two: 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. Also, class act, compares me to the Oslo bomber. I wrote him back, told him one more comment like any of that and I'm taking him to ANI, as this is just freakin' ridiculous. If you catch him dragging that silly blog again (again, not that I care about the blog, I care about him PAing), or throwing around more ridiculous insults, please let me know, and if you want in the ANI too that'd be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have just been reading his comment on your page, after seeing your on his. The guy is extremely bad news, IMO. He'll be chewing my leg again before too long, I guarantee it. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, however, that he doesn't say Jimbo will sort it all out in 2 months. YK has that peculiar way of numbering his points and the (2) is his second point in the message. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean the (2) was the months, I was just referring to his "matter of months" as a silly "you'll get yours, MV and Sitush, it's all just coming down the pike in good time." He keeps jabbing at this on my Talk page, showing zero signs of "okay, I phrased that poorly, but I'm still concerned". Any reason I shouldn't just take it to ANI now? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to if you have the diffs etc. The problem is, he is slippery with his language and may fall back on the "I didn't it that way but, you know, Indian English is different". I keep meaning to dig up the diffs for his general rabble-rousing but for some reason seem never to have sufficient time. I wonder why that is? Have you mentioned the latest reference to BsZ? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to pull BsZ in again, because I guaran-dang-tee the reaction will be "wellity well! Look who dragged in his pet POV attack editor to prevent me from telling the truth... (and exposing your $400/hr scheme...)" I'll pull it up at ANI when I get a moment. He keeps falling back on "not saying the blog is actually true, just saying it's a WP credibility issue", but then in the same breath he'll talk about "actions needed against certain editors", imply I'm trying to cover up the blog, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen his wording etc. It is an example of his slipperiness. He knows full well that he is getting his POV across and then backing out of it after the target has been reached (ie: another mention). Note that he never backs out of it at the venue where he posts the comment, thus not affecting the impression he has given to a new bunch of viewers. He has also just bolded the "I'm only saying, not believing" comment in a msg he posted on his talk page a few days ago - a peculiar bit of refactoring to do at this stage, but clearly done for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much at all about the badlinks thing, but maybe you can get that URL added so that it can not be added again. LadyofShalott 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that; WP:BADSITES is what I had in mind, but it's a failed proposal. Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links is the relevant policy, but y'all probably knew that already. LadyofShalott 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may have hit on something there, LoS: edit filters. It has been agreed at ANI to be an attack site, I might have a word with Reaper Eternal and see if filtering is possible. Although, of course, there is more than one simple way round a filter. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, an edit filter might just be the thing. LadyofShalott 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The will

Figured I'd reply here since I didn't know if you'd see the reply in the middle of my page. On the Tod will, the solution is "easy"--write your own, solid research paper on the will, get it published, and then let us know and we can consider it for citation in the article. That should only take a few years, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about it! Seriously, there is a way round this that would still provide info for the dedicated. At Isaac Perrins I added available archive information to the External links section, just so people would know that it existed. The same could be done at Tod (or in this case it could also go under Further reading). There are a few things scattered among the archives. It all goes to show that where there's a will, there's a way <g> Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varna infoboxes

So...there's a variety of ways to proceed on those. If you think you can get consensus, probably the "easiest" is to propose Template:Infobox caste for deletion at TfD. The main problem is, I'd say you stand no more than a 50% chance of succeeding, given that we're talking about a Template that is transcluded on over 50 pages, and the argument you're making is one based in logic more than any specific policy. One could argue that WP:BLPCAT applies, and that these infoboxes, by definition, will always violate BLPCAT, but that requires stretching the definition of BLP to cover a group of people, which is sometimes done but always questionable.

An alternative would be to simply start a discussion on the talk page of the template itself about removing the parameters which will always be disputed and thus impossible to cover in a single line in an infobox (even sourced). Publicize that discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Then, if there's consensus, we can just remove it from all of them as a deprecated parameter (allegedly easy to do with AWB, I just never got the hang of the tool). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to do something about it but am unsure of the best method. Your suggestions above are welcomed. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the users at Talk:Kamma (caste) seem pretty willing to pursue it; I've just directed them to the template talk and the noticeboard to get a discussion going...it looks like...looks like something good and positive and collaborative is happening! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based strictly on the conversation above (I have not looked at the infobox in question) - if it's a BLP-related issue, you could also publish the link to discussion at WP:BLP/N and ask for input there. LadyofShalott 13:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A point to note

Please avoid making casual remarks about freedom movements just to make colonial rules appear as civilized as today's laws, regardless of your personal indifference, as you mentioned in this edit; while making point against "Rebellion against british aint an offense" as mentioned by IP.

Such casual attitude against freedom movements, according to me, is a thing of the past in all countries officially. No need to flog a dead horse for anything. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I have made any remark about freedom movements recently, anywhere. I recall that you did but I did not respond to that part of your point because it was irrelevant and tangential to the matter at hand, as so much of that which you write seems to be at present. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be this edit could clarify it further. Anyway, all I am pointing out is that colonial period is over long time back. No one has to keep dragging anything if he doesn't like it, world has moved on. Though one should not insist that the colonial times were as civilized as post-colonial times, and differ with anyone on these lines, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not getting involved in another long, pointless thread with you about some imagined wrong. Do not puts words into my mouth by use of your overly vivid imagination and heightened sense of post-colonialism. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no point to ask for any clarification about 'Rebellion against any governing power is, technically, an offence. But if the rebels succeed then obviously they will not punish themselves :)', as it may be termed as no more than out of heightened sense of post-colonialism. Thank you. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means what is says. If you choose to read something into it that is not said, then that is your vivid imagination etc. Believe me, when I write something I write what I intend to say and I expect people to read it with that in mind. I could not do subtlety to save my life, as you should well know by now. So, drop the bone please. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

WP:WQA concerning User:QuickEditor

Hello, Sitush. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I mentioned your talk page in a diff, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention, just to cover all my bases.. - SudoGhost 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: The above is a perfect display of the friendship between User:Sitush and User:SudoGhost, a perfect explanation as to why I am being personally attacked by both users. --QUICK EDITOR 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not seeing how the above comment (which is a pretty standard notice template) is evidence of anything, kindness and collaboration between editors is a good thing at Wikipedia, not evidence of some dark conspiracy. - SudoGhost 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011 (a recent edit that you made on User_Talk:QuickEditor)

A recent edit that you made on User_Talk:QuickEditor was removed or reverted because it was a misuse of a Wikipedia template. Thank you. --QUICK EDITOR 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appeared to be a very valid use of a Wikipedia template. - SudoGhost 15:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University

Hi Sitush. As a Columbia alumnus, I can access certain electronic databases (such as JSTOR). When I tried to access the dissertation through the link you provided using my ID and password, I got the message "File missing: docs/logup.htm". I guess that means I can't get it. Sorry.

You might want to contact one of the other members of WikiProject Columbia University; maybe one of them is on campus and has better access than I do. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill

After reading the Tamil Kshtriya topic i have presented my views on discussion page of Kshtriya in support of merger many days ago.Bill clinton history (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of that. My point was that the discussion on the merger has been ongoing for two months or so now - there is no rush, there or anywhere else, unless the article is a WP:BLP with problems, or there are copyright violations etc. For basic content issues, Wikipedia is timeless. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put message on proper discussion page

Hi, Why have you put remark "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)" on my user page and not my talk page.[reply]

Please do the needful. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am obliged to inform you. You have been informed. Period.- Sitush (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thisthat, the AN/I page says at the top that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." Any message on your page with that notification is simply a user following the rules required at AN/I. - SudoGhost 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I have been notified, though incorrectly. Notifying User can be considered as straightforward action of posting message on User's talk page instead of otherwise. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... or it can be done as suggested by WP:AN. Look, you are tendentious enough elsewhere - please do not bring it here as you have already once this week. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The message was placed on his user page, not his talk page, which is presumably what Thisthat is complaining about. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That's my mistake - trying to get the message out to everyone before I get accused of not getting the message out to everyone. Sorry. I couldn't understand "Please do the needful". Still do not, for that matter. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only means that it leaves unwanted lines on my user page, which are already reverted without wait. Never mind about anything else too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not fully understand that ^ either. I notice that MangoWong has also had some difficulty understanding you today, although usually you are fairly clear. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it means those lines on my userpage took me by surprise. It could be put on talk page that is all. Nevermind. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologised for that. It was a mistake, caused by the reasons given. But, seriously, you are pretty hard to understand today & usually it isn't difficult. Hope you are ok. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, You should still post a {{subst:ANI-notice}} message on the talk pages of all users who might be involved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to apologies. I am ok with anything really, the Undo tool is great. ..ईती ईती नॆति नॆति.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. I will excuse myself from the ANI. I took your advice and I do feel that it's best to keep out of such places. I wanted to add a photo of Indian PM with President Obama on the India page, but it seems there is a strong opposition to that from a few editors who seem to 'own' that Page.

I have been to UK several times, and I love it. Reading, Southall, Wimbley, London , etc. were my favorite places. Let's stay in touch. I may not come to WP as there are more pressing things that have filled my space. Take care. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India-related articles tend to be one of the somewhat contentious areas here, But there is much to be done on Wikipedia that does not involve India and in which your input would be appreciated, I am sure. It is often actually easier to concentrate on areas where you do not have a possible conflict of interest because you can view the subjects dispassionately. You appear to be keen on finding sources and so perhaps that might be something that would interest you? I know that you have doubts about the usefulness of Google's various search options but there are also resources such as www.archive.org and www.hathitrust.org that contain large libraries of texts ... and there are tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands!) of articles here that are in need of citations. I could point you in the right direction for that if you would like me to, since there at lists of these things and you can pick at them either randomly or sequentially as you prefer. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you Gyan...

[6]

Doing a little research for Manipuri Kshatriya, and found more Gyan loveliness. Also note that this same passage is also part of another Gyan book by a different author, though it appears to be more a compilation than plagiarism. I dunno, "fine, stalwart race" just doesn't sound academically credible post-WWII, if not even earlier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a 3d Gyan book, by yet another author, with the exact same cut-past text.[7] Wonder who wrote it the first time... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gyan on sight unless it is definitely a reprint of a 19C work. And even then, check it carefully because they mangle the things. How they get away with it is beyond me but presumably copyright law in India is even more liberal than I thought it was. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crooke volumes 2, 3, 4

Unfortunately, I can't search for "Kurmi" in the archiv.org versions of volumes II, III, and IV. Volume III, especially contains the bulk of the description of the Kurmi. The Google books version, by the way, do contain the complete books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried the archive links for Kurmi - will have a go. I only today realised that archive had the things at all. GBooks here is no preview/no snippet etc. Nada. As a rule, archive.org is better for several reasons: aside from being able to see the full book (if it is hosted at all), it also works pretty much globally whereas GBooks does not. Further, you can view the book in different formats etc. If I cannot find Kurmi the easy way then I would just go to the text version, search that & note the page number if I wanted to view the "real thing". Works every time. So far! I will try it on volume 3. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Gbooks has snippets. Just click on "view all." Besides the Google search algorithm is the fastest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this interruption, sorry. Snippets are useless. There is no context. If you are using snippets to support statements then you are in trouble, somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if the ref contains the page number then the reader does not need to search anyway. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But in a book with many references to a certain topic, they need to search. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not. That is what a citation is for. We need to search but the reader does not. Tell me, why is GBooks better when it cannot be seen at all, whereas archive.org can be seen and there are various options for those who might want to search for their own purposes? - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On which continent can a "full view" Gbook not be seen? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work by continent. Here in the UK I cannot see any of Crooke bar the basic detail page for the book; often we can only see snippet views of things that in the US can be seen in full view. On at least a couple of occasions, there was someone in France who could not see that which I could see. In China, they can see even less. This is basic stuff: GBook views are known to differ around the world. There is an article/essay on it somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, GBooks has a counter - view a book enough times and you get thrown out. I am not sure if this applies to full views but it does apply to previews etc. There are plenty of books at archive.org & hathitrust.org that can be seen in unrestricted full view but only in restricted view on GBooks. Obviously, in the ideal world we use ISBNS but that is useless for old stuff and, indeed, for a lot of fairly new output from India (who seem to have adopted the isbn system rather later than the US/UK etc). - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Given that Wikipedia gives Google books pride of place in its BookSources, and given that Gbooks are now favored at FAC, I'm surprised. This is the first time in my five years that someone has objected to Gbooks. I'll grant you that the digital page quality is better on archiv.org (I've used in the past for images). Fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless some talk page stalkers will be along in due course. I am not objecting to GBooks but rather saying that if archive or hathitrust have the same content then better to use them. Perhaps you have been mixing mostly with people who don't care, or perhaps you have been working with sources that are not available at archive etc. The phrases "five years" and "FAC" carry no weight with me, I am afraid, but if you are telling me that FAC allow snippet views then I'll be tempted to have a word there. I am trying to find the essay. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delivery from tps: User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TK. Feel free to weigh in. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the thread and just logged in but it kept popping up, so I peeked. I do use gbooks for research with the understanding that the pages will disappear and that they're very unreliable. If I get access to a page I need, I take notes immediately because in most cases I can't get back to that page, and then have to order the book from a library - which is my preferred method anyway. I don't use snippet views (useless!) and never link to gbooks in an article for the reasons spelled out in Uncle G's essay - the links aren't stable. We can get to the book via the ISBN so I think the links are redundant, but I know a lot of editors do use them and do like them. Not sure this is any help, but that's my opinion on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I do link but I am often working with sources from pre-ISBN days anyway. I am aware of the limitations but "owt is better than nowt", as they say around my area. Archive is as good as a hardcopy, as is a lot of stuff at Hathitrust but I, too, like to have a book in my hand & have about 5000-6000 here at home. One really common mistake when people search GBooks is to forget that it distinguishes the singular from the plural: if you search for "cat" you won't get any hits for "cats", for example, & so multiple searches are often needed. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Truthkeeper88: It's true of course that for "limited preview books," Google keeps a tab and you might easily overstay your welcome with them. (A few hours later or the next day, they can apparently relent. And it is not really Google, it is the author and publisher who want it so.) But we are talking about the "full view" books, whose copyright has long expired, whose scans Google has received as a result of the generosity of many American universities (UMichigan, Harvard, Berkeley, etc.). It is hard for me to believe, as Sitush claims, that "full view" Google books are not available in the UK or are only available as bare "book information" form. But, unfortunately, I find Sitush to be thin-skinned and argumentative, so I won't belabor the point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is the phrase you are looking for <g> - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @ Sitush- For some articles I find gbooks extremely useful - my most current expansion is almost soley based on gbooks augmented with a few journal articles and library books, but I have to say that it's an exception - in fact it's the first time I've found what I need on gbooks. I don't like archives because I have trouble with the reader for some reason, but that might just be a browser rendering issue. Anyway, sorry for butting in, as I said I peeked and knew where the essay was so linked it for you.
@Fowler&fowler - as I said I butted in & didn't know the context. I don't know much about out-of-copyright volumes - I tend to go to recent scholarship. Butting out now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, I've just taken a screenshot of the GBooks result for volume 3 using the link that you had placed at William Crooke. Let me know where you want it. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and there, in TK's last message, is the point I & others have made about the validity of numerous 19C sources. Basically, they aren't valid if there is a newer source available, and often not valid regardless. Sourcing is trickier than some people think. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) No one is saying that Crooke is the last word on the subject. We are talking about the Wikipedia William Crooke page and the books listed under "Works!" Users don't need page numbers there they need to browse and search the book as and when they want. Please post the screen shot right here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot post it here. Basic copyright issues, unless you think it qualifies under free use rationale. On the Crooke page we have no responsibility to provide a link at all, but it we do then it does not have to be a searchable link ... although, of course, it is searchable & I have explained a way to do this if all else fails. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. What copyright? Google doesn't have any copyright on the book. The author's expired long ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have copyright on the website, surely? I would be astonished if not. - Sitush (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, use "Fair use." We are not using it for commercial purposes. If there is a problem, they'll delete it in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother to past it here. I just saw the jpeg you uploaded. Btw, what happens, when you click on this link? Are you able to read the book? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same happens. This is common & does not merely affect the UK. The old Gazetteers & Manuals etc almost always have the same outcome. I wasn't lying about this. - Sitush (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I learned something. (I didn't think you were lying, but rather that you hadn't clicked on the preview button or hadn't logged into Google, although I just checked here and that doesn't make a difference.) That's amazing. Thanks, btw, for taking the time to upload the image. So, obviously yours is a superior choice of link. What about modern books with limited "Google preview?" Are you able to preview them? I'll post a link in a minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to preview this book: Rough guide to West Africa? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Same page as before (well, you know what I mean: different book cover, details etc but the same "No preview available" message at top right). - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So that means that editors outside the US have a definite disadvantage when it comes to looking for sources on-line, because even access to academic resources, doesn't give them access to current books as Google books partially does. I suppose Amazon.com often gives more access than Google does, and that is an option. I'm guessing though that Amazon also has a limit (and it might be related to the number of books you buy from them). But still ... this is not exactly fair. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment. I have to go now. Google books unfortunately won't feed the cats. And they are pacing ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I tried Amazon.com for viewing contents it threw me out to the UK site (geolocated the IP, I guess) & I was told there that it could not be viewed. Of course, I can see book content on Amazon.co.uk but presumably not always the same books as can be viewed at Amazon.com etc. As far as I am aware, the US is one of the more liberal places in this regard but I think also that Google runs a bit scared of copyright issues outside the US and slaps metadata on the page without really evaluating the source in terms of which countries might be ok for full view etc & which might not. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great sum-up of caste flexibility and claims:

Even back in 1883 folks noticed this going on. Not that it's really RS, but just more perspective on the issue.

--">Samuel Mateer (1883). Native life in Travancore. W.H. Allen & co. pp. 385–. Retrieved 2 August 2011. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is around the time that the various groups started canvassing, so it makes perfect sense that it was recorded. Off the top of my head, weren't the Ezhavas the first to form a community association for the purpose? I think the Nairs based theirs on the Ezhava model. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sengupta

I was working on Pallar, and saw info about research done on matching Haplogroups to castes by Sengupta. That sounds familiar--is that a source that you've mentioned before as being discredited? Or am I confusing it with something else? I would almost assume it is, since I thought that even racial genetic analysis was nearly impossible, much lest something like "caste" level analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, genetics is a big, big thing in India and is taught from quite a low grade in schools. The problem from a WP perspective are several-fold:
  • there are numerous small studies of small groups which may or may not be statistically significant (and I use that phrase in the sense that statisticians use it, which involved "degrees of significance" as defined by use of tools such as chi-square tests).
  • the sources used have in my experience often been either abstracts or even marked along the lines of "not for publication", "draft", "not to be taken as gospel" etc
  • because of the comparative nature of the studies, it is far too easy to cherry-pick a sentence or two out of context. If this information is to be included then we need expert help. High school genetics classes do not cut the mustard.
  • this is WP, not a science journal. I am reasonably intelligent and my eyes just glaze over when I see this stuff. To the layman, it is pretty much incomprehensible. I have argued that this type of information should be included only if we can find a RS that provides a clear-cut statement in plain English. Perhaps something along the lines of "Caste X have been studied by geneticists and the current thinking is that they are related to/descended from/have their origins in Ycite"
  • particularly on issues such as the Aryan/Dravidian etc origins, from what I can gather it would seem that there is actually little agreement at all among genetic studies. Further, all of those genetic studies which I have bothered trying to read rely on self-identification: the subject's tell the researcher which community they belong to, etc.
  • it is another element of the warring: associating your community with origin X is similar to associating your community with varna X. It is rarely clear but there are reasons of prestige which cause contributors to introduce the info. It would not surprise me if this extends to the genetic researchers themselves.
  • ultimately, we are all related to some primordial blob.
Does this help at all? I thought not! - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sengupta et al, I do recall reading this one. I won't say that I fully understood it! What stood out was the use of weasely words - "indicative", "possible", "probable" etc - scattered throughout and the fact that it had to rely on historical sources in order to complete what ever picture it was trying to suggest. Those sources were the ancient texts that we know to be inherently unreliable. Not worth the paper it is printed on for WP, imo. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it was hyperlinked; I looked at it, and found an easier reason to exclude it--it has nothing to do with Pallar (it's a general article about overall Indian groups). This actually looks legitimate, if only suggestive. The journal, Current Science has an extremely low impact factor (0.782), but it's published in part by the Indian Academy of Science. Scanning the article (though skipping past the deep scientific stuff), it looks not like they looked to the ancient texts to verify their claims, but, rather, considered whether modern genetics could help them understand whether or not the info in the ancient texts is believable (also considering things like linguistic and social evidence); the study is supportive of certain theories of migration, both into India, and possibly from India outwards to the rest of South Asia. It is, of course, highly speculative, but one should think so for a science attempting to guess what happened 40-60K ybp based on current genetic samples. I'm curious (in an non-WP way) what similar studies have shown. Alas, I must reserve my research time for either Wikipedia or something that will actually assist me in research topics related to my real life work. Nonetheless, since it has nothing to do with Pallar (other than that one of the many groups they studied were Pallar), it can't go in that article. I'd probably argue it shouldn't go into any article, not because of reliability, but more because of WP:PRIMARY--this is an initial research project, and it would be much more important to see where a review article on the subject of Indian genetics situated the results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an easy solution for the Pallar usage. I was thinking more generally. It is a while since I read the thing but there were alarm bells ringing all over. Your point about a review article on the subject of Indian genetics is pretty much the same as my point about needing a clear-cut statement in plain English etc. The WP:PRIMARY argument is not one that I had considered but, yes, that also seems to be a valid position. I am so used to dealing with that in relation to old texts that I probably should have picked up on it for a modern one! - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil kshatriya

Stop always pushing your POV!!!... You have removed sources contents!!!...Rajkris (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting revert by you, with an edit summary that says "we do not agree with you". Is that not POV? There are countless contributors to the talk page who have said that this is original research and synthesis. You have not connected Tamil Kshatriya to the rulers and so, indeed, it is. You have had weeks to do this and still cannot manage the feat. Therefore, per policy etc, it should not be in the article. You can add as many exclamation marks as you like to your messages but it does not change a thing, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other editors which say this is not original reseach.Rajkris (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... but have been unable to provide a single reference, other than Dumont, to support what they say. They have put forward the better part of 50 sources and none of them support their point. At some stage, you have to give up because even if you now find a source there would still be overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I do mean "overwhelming", to the point where it is not reasonable even to offer a "dissenting view". - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For excellent work on India related articles that have been troublesome like Jat People and Khokhar SH 17:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Troublesome? Should I be donning my flameproof suit yet again? Argh! but thank you. Much to be done on Khokhar, I think. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well my nickname is Asbestos Man now :p. --SH 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Even though you obviously know since we're talking about it right now on my page, just to be completely transparent, I mentioned your name in a discussion on WP:AN regarding User:Atterion. Feel free to comment if you wish. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help!! sending this to you and Acabashi

HELP!! I tried to archive my talk page and its gone wrong!! pls help fix it for me, I have no idea where I am wrong. I was terrified of doing this, lol. Pls dont be offended if other user gets there first, I just need my poor page fixed - MANY thanks to you both for helping. Panderoona (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Nair's talk page.
Message added 12:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&oldid=443502007"