User talk:Sitush

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

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.

Oh you Gyan...

“ Some believe that Manipuris are a fine stalwart race descended from an Indo-Chinese stock, with some admixture of Aryan blood. Some scholars consider that the Manipuris are Kshatriyas as mentioned in the Epic, 'Mahabharatha' ”

[1]

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)

And yet a 3d Gyan book, by yet another author, with the exact same cut-past text.[2] Wonder who wrote it the first time... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Another piece of copyvio:

• Human Rights Watch, original
• Gyan

-Sitush (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Koontz House

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Station1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you have recently been doing.BewarePETeacher (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.BewarePETeacher (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Who? And where am I warring? - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like trolling to me, Sitush. I've left the editor a warning. They've been warned before, for vandalism and not making sense, but a little bit more rope may just be enough. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent actions

Dear Sitush,
It appears you are mad at me for a lot of reasons. Especially for the Green Leaves shit. Anyways, I am related to that house, and am very knowledgeable about it, and know for a fact that it was built in 1838. And I do not have a COI. But I can understand why you think I do. I never should have created that AfD, because I was just mad. Also I've noticed that Green Leaves is not the only place you've been edit warring. Anyways, from now on lets avoid conflicts and stay cool.Atterion Talk•Contribs 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the pot is beeping the kettle here. Atterion, there is plenty of evidence in the history of that article, on your talk page, and in your block log that you should probably leave that article alone. Also, please don't make accusations about edit-warring without backing them up. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, I was out of line making comments in Talk:James Tod ("award mills") and DRN (the James Tod and William Crooke bit). I have refactored the DRN comments and replied at Talk:James Tod as well. I do appreciate your (thankless) work at the caste-related pages. Keep trucking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Kongu Vellala Gounders

why you removeing every one over there ?

last two generation of tamils will not use surname , clan with their given name, we will father name first letter as a initial

people mentioned over there were know to all in tamil nadu they were KVG , in Politics only 9 tamil nadu government ministers were belongs to KOngu Vellala gounder community even tamil daily clearly states this point

caste wise representation in Tamil nadu ministry http://www.dinamalar.com/news_detail.asp?Id=241980

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Time+to+realize+the+suitability+of+Federalism+in+Sri+Lanka+and+Some+aspects+on+the+barriers+of+Federalism+in+Sri+Lanka#pq=caste%20wise%20representation%20of%20tamil%20nadu%20ministry&hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=5i&xhr=t&q=caste%20wise%20representation%20in%20Tamil%20nadu%20ministry&qe=Y2FzdGUgd2lzZSByZXByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBpbiBUYW1pbCBuYWR1IG1pbmlzdHJ5&qesig=zmiqJodKnjog-iBrpLdaoA&pkc=AFgZ2tmLyxd1EY1ItUaQNTtarYRzmR6FDTUxQK6MNitMIHh0U4NY7Q3Bi_L0elysPZlzFmavK12lpIv1GjKCIa0abyR78_7-bg&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=caste+wise+representation+in+Tamil+nadu+ministry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1a2cc6000ca7d280&biw=1366&bih=682

even you deleteing many other known person of KVG caste to tamil nadu people

What is indent of wiki? and you delete good article of kongu vellala gounder with lot very good references(like peer rivewed journals)

and you deleted Kottam/clan names of kongu vellala gounder(list of kongu vellala gounder kottams) etc..

and you don't know tamil, see tamil daily references or tamil scolars books or you never understand about indian scoiety and caste ,diversity of people of india ,

what is basic goal of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.83.11 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Guide!

Hello Sitush, I need some guidance from You. May You please tell Me that why this revert is acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadu&diff=444465166&oldid=444462821 ??? I agree with User:MatthewVanitas' analysis there. Do You also agree to that! Since there was a demand for the reference of authors who are non-Jat earlier by User:Bill clionton history, I not only provided two references of non-Jats, but also of non-Indians! I would be grateful to You if You could please share Your views here. Sincerely: --Abstruce ^(Talk) 18:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abstruce, I saw your edits pretty much as they happened but had a bad day. Sorry for not responding earlier.

I am in an awkward place with this one. My gut feeling is always to prefer modern sources over really old ones, especially when it comes to India-related articles. There was a lot of nonsense written about castes etc during the Raj period, and in particular from around 1860 to, say, the 1930s. I use the word "nonsense" advisedly: many of those old sources have been discredited by more modern academics etc. This may or may not apply to the ones you used.

On the other hand, old sources can sometimes have something to offer. An example would be using them to demonstrate the opinion that existed at the time, even though that opinion may have been revised by more recent studies.

I am really, really tied up with some stuff at the moment and my knowledge of the Jats is not great. MatthewVanitas has experience, is not related to India and has been dealing with this sort of thing for a while now. Generally, I would trust their opinion unless I knew otherwise ... but that does not mean everyone else does!

So, two thoughts:

• see if you can find sources that are more recent, since this is never a bad thing; and
• drop me a note in a week or so to remind me that I need to get a grip on the Jats issue. No offence intended, but I am quite likely to forget unless you do remind me - my brain is spinning at the moment.

And a final thought: do not panic. I tend to do that and it is not a good thing. We will get to the bottom of this issue and it is almost certainly better to "do as I say rather than do as I do". I am learning this myself, but very slowly. Things always come out "right" in the end. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill

OK sir,but I did not know how and where to debate on yadav topic on DRN.PLEASE clear me.and please dont rejects my points irrationaly.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:DRN#Yadav_discussion. It is just like a talk page except please do not create a new section. I would advise you to read and understand all that has already been said there before adding any comments yourself. As explained at Talk:Yadav, the DRN thread is not for discussion of your theories about Ahir/Abhir etc - you can continue to do that on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks sir for guidance.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the issue and have the absolute right to express it in the appropriate place. I am sorry that you were unable to work out where and why the procedural things are as they are. Clearly several of us have failed to explain the situation as well as we might have done. You must let me know if this is still confusing to you.

On other other hand, you have learned something new and it is great that you have done that. It will stand you in good stead for the future here on Wikipedia, which I hope will a long one. You, me and everyone else are going to be on the "wrong" side of a decision from time to time. That is, a decision will result in something that does not appeal to us. We have to live with that because of the consensus requirements but, on the whole, this can be a really great place and there is little doubt in my mind that you have something to offer it.

One piece of advice that may help you is that you can always ask. Indeed, you are encouraged to ask. When in doubt or confused or frustrated or just plain lost, then seek another opinion. One way to do this is to make a note on your own talk page regarding what ever the problem is and add a {{help me}} tag to it. That generates a message and someone will be along shortly to respond. It is pretty much random, so you get a truly independent piece of advice, although obviously the respondant probably will not know the details of caste articles etc. It is very handy for procedural matters and the like. Or you can just yell at me - I am not the monster that some people like to claim that I am, honest. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas

Way to clean house. Considering it's about people, it's necessary too. Nice job. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Overdue, I reckon. It will grow again, of course :( Sitush (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian numbering help?

I was wondering if you could convert this into the Western style numeric system? Its written in the Indian numeric system and I am not sure how to convert it. The number is 30,56,579. Many thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is all explained here. I would be wary of converting from that system to a Western style if the article has adopted Indian conventions, but you could always stick the Western style in parentheses. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. The whole article was written so poorly that I had a hard time distinguishing what was what, but I will do that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Independence day wishes

Happy independence day! Please review this page and reply on my talk page. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If this message is good enough, I will add bits to it and send to all Indians on wiki at around 6. Please suggest improvements. If you give good additions, I will add your name after mine in the message. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't, I am afraid. I am not even Indian. You are making a massive assumption on that page when you welcome your "fellow Indians", just like the Mumbai "sort of" spam that has been circulating of late. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh. I made an assumption that you are a member of WP:IND, maybe you are English. Although its not spam, its just wishes, info, and a reminder for WikiConference India. Anyways have a look at 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. I have formatted 77 refs. Will complete rest ~40 around today or tomorrow. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs, although I guess that someone can be a member of IND and still not be Indian. I have been keeping an eye on your work at that article. It desperately needed the overhaul which you are providing. I keep meaning to return to it myself because the general format is all wrong and there are numerous issues with the sources used. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually planned to spread the message, and now will, because there are 1893 Indian Wikipedians but only 285 WP:IND members, so, I realized that the WPP would do well with a few extra hands. So I even created a topicon so that Indians can just add that and become a member. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I rather have the impression that a lot of Indian and Indian-origin Wikipedians do not announce that fact and that of those that do, a fair number deliberately want no involvement in the project because it is such a hotbed. Sodabottle, Fowler&fowler & SpacemanSpiff are three that I can think of who may know more about this whole issue. In principle, your idea is a fair one but I am unsure about the detail. Maybe it needs running through the project pages itself first? Just to get input etc? - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility and Assumptions of Good Faith

How about you drop the attitude and start contributing to the issue (at the dispute resolution noticeboard) constructively. The exercise is to get all the disputants to present their reasoning concisely and without unnecessary descriptions. Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who is offering to find extra sources, who is suggesting possible rephrasing etc. The other "side" is stonewalling. You do not know the back story. The entire thing is a farce. - Sitush (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ever come across James Burgess?

Specifically [http://books.google.com/books/about/Indian_antiquary.html?id=6BooAAAAYAAJ James Burgess's Indian antiquary , Volume 23]? I found an article with a history section relying heavily on this book, and I'm always doubtful of alleged stories of Indian history written in the late 1800s by British colonizers. I don't want you to join the article (you've got too much else going on), but this sounds like the sort of thing you might have run across before. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is the same Indian Antiquary then it was a quite well respected publication, founded edited by Richard Carnac Temple. I came across it while doing some work on William Crooke. Having said that, it is old, it had all the usual gubbins about anthropometry etc in it & it was essential reading matter for the colonial administration. So, a few grains of salt might be required. I read a few of them, purely for my own interest. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few at archive.org, btw. Use List of works of William Crooke to get a starting point if need be (archive.org has a dreadful search engine & the cataloguing is all over the place). - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill

Sitush you are in edit war.sorry sir,but honestly you should be blocked from editing at yadav article because you are not dicussings controversial things at talk page and apply your wrong concept in article.In Origion section you were starting with occuption of community in present and making conclusive statement based only on one auther.who's origion you are writing Ahir or ABHIR or Yadav or YADAVA.DO NOT threat new contributer.i have give so much respect it does not mean that i cant answer your baseless allegation.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I have reverted you once and most of the content of the other guy who inserted all the rubbish yesterday. You, on the other hand are at about 5 or 6 reverts - against me and MV. We have tried explaining how things work but you seem not to be understanding. I have even asked you if there is any way in which we might try an alternate explanation to assist your understanding. You did not even reply to that one. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But you did not explain the so called deleted rubbish on talk page even once.why you are applying double standards.you are not understanding my points intentionaly.you are ignoring them and falsely blaming me.why you afraid fo discussion.are your motives match the interest of our reader and wikipedia standard?Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have explained the deletion. At length. It just seems to be that you do not like it. Honestly, Bill, you do not have a leg to stand on here because it was not just me who had issues with what I removed. Eg: Fowler&fowler and MatthewVanitas did also. Plus, most simply, much of that content was quite clearly contrary to the various policies, some of which have only just been clarified by an uninvolved third party at WP:DRN. I think that you may perhaps be listening a little too closely to MangoWong, whose interpretations of policy have been shown on several occasions to be quite wide of the mark.

If you have any issues with my recent additions then by all means raise them on the article talk page. But, please, do not just say "I don't like it" or something similar. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You should develop the habbit to discuss the topic on talk page first.i have it and i have done it every time.but you have now no moral authority to teach the lessons of debate to others.because you are not only voilating the policy of wikipedia but also involve in defaming some coomunity by inserting wrong,unauthentic,irrelevant,and baseless material in articles particularly in yadavs.you are involve in threatening the new userBill clinton history (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My first Wiki Article and Category here on Wikipedia!

Hi Sitush,

I have created My first Wiki Article and Category here on Wikipedia! They are as follows:

• Korindo (the Raelian temple)
• Category:Raëlian terms

I am quite excited about this; in-fact, too much excited! Though, I have made a sincere and honest effort there, but I do understand that it still may need some fixes. I invite You to have a look over there. And, please let Me be aware of the points that I may have missed, so that I may create even better articles in future. Thanks You for Your Moral Support, always! GOD Bless You

Thanks! Sincerely --Abstruce ^(Talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done. It is not a bad first go at all and, yes, can be exciting. Go have a lie down! <g>

I have simplified some of your sentences (we really do not need to say "the first place on planet Earth", for example, since we know that Japan is indeed on Earth). I also removed your link to the Japan article because, per WP:OVERLINK, we do not link to countries.

The above are minor things but the big issue is that you rely entirely on the Raelians as a source for the information. This is not usually a good idea but I do realise that the cult-ish nature of them might make it difficult to find alternate sources. Could you perhaps search more generally around newspapers/news websites etc to see if anyone reported on it? I notice that you do have a link to a BBC story in the External Links section. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Your invaluable time and suggestions! I will definitely do as suggested. I will make sure that the article does have third party sources. Thank You again for letting Me aware of My mistakes in such a supportive manner. You will see that when I create an article next time, I will definitely take care of Your suggestion.

Thanks! Sincerely --Abstruce ^(Talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Yadavs have OBC status.. I think

Hi!

I was randomly viewing articles and came across Yadav. From what I have heard they are OBC (Other Backward Castes). No where does the page mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

http://scholarship.up.nic.in/list_obc.htm (Mentions Kurmi, Yadav etc as OBCs.)

It's amusing how they demand special treatment from government when it comes to jobs/college admissions and also want to known as upper caste! Forward backward! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article did mention it but it was removed during a period of edit warring. It will get fixed but the issue at present is where to put it: someone has agreed to sort that particular issue out. These sort of things, by the way, are better said on the talk page for the article because then everyone who has an interested can see and respond. Nonetheless, thanks for bringing it to my attention - I may well have forgotten otherwise. I agree about the peciliarity. It is quite common on caste articles here, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Still no mention of their OBC status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Socks

In general, its best not to refer to other editors as "possible socks" like you did in this edit summary. If you have sock evidence, you should take it to SPI; or, if you don't have enough evidence yet, wait until you do to make the claim. I think the revert was perfectly acceptable, because the content was unsourced, but adding the unsupported socking claim isn't appropriate. I know that you do mean well with such a claim, but without evidence, that could be taken as a form of a personal attack (again, I know that's not how you mean it, but it's how it might be perceived). Instead, if you think someone is a sock but aren't ready yet to push a formal claim, gather evidence on a subpage and/or ask for other editors with familiarity with the subject to take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A moment of frustration. There have been some mysterious edits of late. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill

Not flush my talk page with warning unnecessarily.this not suits the behaviour of a senior editor.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if you knew what you were doing then you would not need the warnings. You have inserted big chunks of copyvio and templating a new user (as you continually claim to be) is exactly the right thing to do. I have expanded on the issue at Talk:Yadav, where you will likely get some third opinions. Please do not start taking yet another bad example out of MangoWong's book re: what can/cannot be done on your talk page. It is to your advantage to know about these issues. Copyrgiht violations are taken extremely seriously. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)To clarify, Bill, you have the right to ask that Sitush not come to your talk page for general issues(he doesn't have to follow the request, but will to be polite), however, you can't forbid him from placing neutrally worded warnings about your conduct. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to Sitush or you if later Sitush thinks you've crossed the line and need to be sanctioned (like you were for edit warring). Our rules require that we warn editors before blocking them, so warning you is still okay for Sitush, that way you know when you're doing something wrong. Obviously, Sitush can't just harass you with warnings, but if there is a legitimate concern, you should be notified. And you are always allowed to immediately remove anything Sitush puts on your talk page--doing so is an acknowledgment that you have read the concern and no longer need it on your page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rao Balbir Singh

You added a speedy deletion template to the article, then, in your next edit with reflinks, removed it. Was the removal intentional? Just wanted to check to be sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is more weird than that. I removed citation #2 as it seemed to be irrelevant & I ran Reflinks once, then CSD'd. There is no way I ran Reflinks twice and no way that I re-added cite #2. Well, not deliberately at any rate.

The CSD was for copyvio but a couple of hours later I worked out that this may indeed be the same Singh as is now mentioned at Yadav, in which case an alternative would be to replace with a single inane statement that the guy was elected to some Raj equivalent of a parliament in 1937, citing Jaffrelot. I am just not 100% sure because the naming there are a few variants of the subject's name. It is complicated. My gut feeling is to remove and then recreate if some definite useful content/connection turns up. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive (again)

Hi Sitush, sorry to bother you again, only neither I nor Acabashi can see my archive? neither of us has a clue why and I wondered if youd pop over and have a look for me. Many thanks. Panderoona (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is there, but under a different archive number due to the initial problem that you had. I have temporarily redirect archive #1 to archive #3 so that the link on your talk page works. I have asked an admin to delete #1 and at that point will move #3 to be #1, request deletion of #3 and reset the counter. THat way, all should be good for the future.

You can always request deletion of pages in your own userspace by using WP:CSD rationale G7, which is done by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the relevant page. It sometimes takes a few hours for someone to get round to it. Obviously, you cannot request deletion of your active talk page or main userpage, and there may be other obscure cases where it is inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush its all looking good now :) Panderoona (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian did it all, not me. There was (rightly) a concern that unless the counter was reset pretty much simultaneously then the bot might run and recreate the same problem. Very useful people, these admins ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi PP

I'm off to bed, but since the last IP editor is obviously a sock of someone (don't know if it's a blocked editor or just someone trying to dodge 3RR), I requested semi-protection. Depending on which admin adjudicates it, they may decide for full protection or even just to decline if they call it a content dispute, but I figure it's worth trying. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be time for an RfC to set things straight with reference to this issue, but only if you think that particular part can hold up now; if it needs more work, we can wait. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been waiting for Fowler&fowler to indicate that their additions are completed, then intended to go through the entire article. I have the feeling that F&F is now enmeshed in an unrelated difference of opinion with MangoWong at Mehrgarh, so we may be in for a bit of a wait.

I am unsure how an RfC would assist in any event. Won't people just keep ignoring whatever the outcome of the process may be? How does it advance things? Having never been involved in one - and only having glanced at a couple - I am unsure of the usefulness in a situation such as this. Basically, the article needs to be permanently semi-protected and of course that is not the way the project is intended to operate. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If an RfC shows community consensus on a particular point (especially if uninvolved editors weigh in), then anyone trying to subvert that after that point without new data/evidence/citations is edit warring against consensus. Right now, it's a little hard to say conclusively what consensus is, given the fact that many of the discussions have been derailed, or have been repeating the same info over and over, or whatever. Plus, an RfC is part of the larger dispute resolution process, and shows a deliberate step to achieve consensus. One way of looking at that is that it is an attempt to stop the edit warring and stabilize at least part of the article. Another way of looking at it is that it is a necessary step in the longer DR process which eventually leads to ArbCom. I've already publicly stated that I believe that, eventually, caste articles will be a major ArbCom case, with a very wide range of articles placed under general sanctions--I simply cannot imagine any other future result, given that we are talking about [what I perceive to be] a clash of cultures here: WP culture, which says that "truth" is defined by what reliable sources say (where RS tend to be modern, academic, well researched analysis), vs. traditional Indian/tribal culture, which says that "truth" is based on what a local community collectively agrees to, generally based on whichever particular religious text, ancient carving, or British interloper supports their position. The road to stability on these articles is extremely long; but the only road I know is the one that uses our complex and (somewhat) painful DR process. Note that if we ran an RfC, I'd say it should be very narrow to start (probably just on the varna issue). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kardashians/Jenners

I don't quite appreciate your tone, I feel as if you are talking down to me, perhaps you should stick to the facts and not add the whole "If you had bothered..." part. Also, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree that a brother-in-law is a trivial relation. I don't feel that way about my brother-in-law or sister-in-law. And, if we are limiting the relations in the family info box, then none of the Jenner kids (except Kendall and Kylie) nor Bruce (not blood related) should appear in articles for Kourtney, Kim, Khloe and Robert we wouldn't want to have any trivial step siblings or parents in the info. boxes. It is obvious that these not blood relations mean something to these people, if not why would Kim and Khloe have Bruce walk them down the aisle??? Also, who are you to deem the BIL relations as "trivial" I have seen the show and Lamar is just as much part of that family as anyone. Also, I would not deem these basketball player BILs as being a "minor" celebrity.Blueeyes8724 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate

	5 Start after every second
	Best of luck. A man from Matrix (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)