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 TheScriptOfficial (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 16 February 2012 (→‎I work for the Script!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Tod

Well played. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was just editorial machination. The edit summary for this one is pure genius! Appreciate your input on this FAC. We are not going to agree about every point that you have raised but the positives far outweigh the negatives ... and I have had ca. 3 hours of sleep in the last 72 & really need to get my head straightened. Tinnitus is driving me crazy. - Sitush (talk)
Hey, so far so good. Fix that pillar! Oh, I need to leave a note on general stylistic remarks, but I'll do it there. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Left you a response to the Macaulay thing. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open wiki

You said "jatland.com is GFDL but an open wiki". What do you mean by "open wiki"? In what way is Wikipedia less open than jatland.com? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at jatland.com is generally non-existent unless they have mirrored our content. As with us, they have a lot of people wanting to push a pov but their articles also contain a vast amount of original research. Or, at least, the couple of hundred or so to which I have referred did so. Obviously, just being an open wiki fails WP:RS and I regularly have to remove citations to it. User:Qwyrxian is aware of the situation and we did at one point consider whether a filter might be worthwhile. I vaguely recall considering asking User:ReaperEternal about this but cannot remember if I actually did so. As things stand, I just do a search every few weeks, check the sourced article and inevitably find that there is nothing worth keeping. BTW, that article title contained Hindi script, probably because the contributor is a new to us and does not understand disambiguation. The real oddity is that I spent 20 minutes or so checking the usual sources for Indian castes/communities and was unable even to confirm that this group exists - it could be a complete hoax, although it could also be the case that the community is incredibly small. There are some such communities that had < 50 members, for example, when the last caste census was carried out in 1931 (& at least one "community" had just a single member!). - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are working on the article in the creator's sandbox. I do not understand this at all as we already have Mohanbari for the place. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I need to stop for a bit. I see that is a redirect. I'll go have a lie down. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was lucky for me - I did not check for a Mohanbari article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was screwing up big time. Grabbed two hours' sleep, which is something of a record for the last few days. Sorry for all the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my honour:


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For delicate thoughtfulness and not abandoning a fellow-in-distress. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi! Just stopped by to say Hi :) Nice to meet you.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Namassej Samaj Andolon.....et.

Dear Sitush, Does wikipedia not accept the on-line articles as source. The article is sourced in that sense . This is a poor uneducated community , the numbers are not always important.Most of them are not aware of their identity. Only the name they know.Not even are they aware of the meaning.If the policy is depended on the number then you need a plebiscite , is it?Definitely that is not possible. Arniban Ssej 06:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

Replied on article talk page and sent it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kunbi and Maratha confusion ?

while cleaning up lists of notable kunbi and maratha people.i find some people who were listed as kunbi also listed as maratha.do you have any idea what separates a kunbi from a maratha ?.Pernoctator (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of similar examples, especially among the more widespread communities (eg: Yadavs). Just go with the sources. If the source is ok then use it, and if the end result is that they appear in two lists then there really is not much that we can do about it. However, if it is a BLP entry, the source has to demonstrate that they have self-identified, and so would need to be of a pretty exceptional nautre (eg: an interview). You will probably end up with lists containing about a dozen or so names, having pruned the other 90%. That is my experience, at any rate. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Rajput

Hi Sitush

U have reverted my edits in the article Rajput. I want to ask what is there to discuss?

To improve the article, I added italic fonts ... What is to be discussed here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.159.235 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not just add italics. You removed valid requests for citations and you added the word "later". You have no means of knowing who converted when, nor indeed whether it is or is not an ongoing process. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush

Can we discuss it here ?

U posted a link of WP:RSN. I checked the page. Nowhere I found that Gyan is not a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.143.72 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a wiki account. U may discuss on my account's talk page also. I am the same user who posted a message in this section from IP 1.23.143.72 just a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. It is also scattered over numerous article talk pages and other venues. Never, ever use anything from Gyan, ISHA or Kalpaz (the last two are the same outfit as Gyan). - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this [1]. But its just a discussion about Gyan publications with no conclusion. I mean Gyan Publications was never blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all of the others also? There is a preponderance of evidence and a fair degree of consensus. Look, I can get some people to join in this conversation here if you want but they will all say the same as me and many will have vastly more experience than me. There is no way we use stuff from that publisher. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all others as well. Nowhere I found that its has been blacklisted. Secondly, a user was earlier complaining that some Gyan books take content from Wikipedia. Its not mandatory that the book I am refering ([2]) is taking material from wikipedia. Moreover I was referring to the clan system of Marathas in reference to their lineage (Suryavanshi, Nagavanshi etc.), which is not even mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. So its highly unlikely that the content is taken from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already. Lynch7 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking content from Wikipedia is only a part of the problem. Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mikelynch

"I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already."

Please provide some source that it has been blacklisted.

@ Sitush

Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it.

I don't think that there is some rule that only one reference is not allowed. The source I am giving is a book from Gyan. But the point is "Has Gyan been completely blacklisted?" If yes, then please provide the source. Otherwise, allow me to restore the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan has been placed on the list of Wikipedia mirrors and forks here. The front page of WP:MF states clearly and without qualifiers: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Padukone

can you have look over the article. i am dealing with a language warrior.who insists on using hindi script when thats not even her mother tongue.also likes to issue bogus warnings.Pernoctator (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sitush, just noticed you removed the caste information on Deepika Padukone. Instead of removing it altogether, I suggest we put it across neutrally. For instance, the fact that she is Konkani is neutral enough, but mentioning that she is Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin might be more problematic. I suggest we just mention the Konkani aspect. What do you say? Lynch7 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Konkani an ethnic issue? In particular since she was born in Denmark? In any event, I am happy to follow your lead on this one. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning Konkani is more informative rather than disruptive. "Konkani" is a fairly broad term, yes, its ethnic, but without the caste overtones. Lynch7 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do you want to do the honours? Or even honors? - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) Lynch7 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before coming to conclusions without knowing the subject at hand, I would urge you both to try to understand the subtle nuances of the subject's identity. Swaroop Rao's edit makes it appear as 'Konkani ancestry' with a reference to an article that has 'Chitrapur Saraswat' painted all over it. Be aware that Chitrapur Saraswats DO NOT identify themselves as 'Konkanis', but as Chitrapur Saraswats. This community happens to be a very small community and this is what they call themselves. I'm looping in AshLin to educate you both. RicardoKlement (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely missed the point. DP is alive, therefore this is a biography of a living person, therefore she has to self-identify as a Chitrapur Saraswat and we have to have a reliable source for that self-identification. So far, we do not. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prakash Padukone's sister was my wife's neighbour for more than ten years. The personal knowledge I have helps me to put things in perspective. Deepika Padukone is a Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin, a community which counts itself in few lakhs and by the epithet "bhanaps" or "amchis" not "konkani' which identifies the broader group to which the community belongs. Her parents are both Bhanaps and she was born in Denmark because her father spent a significant part of his life training there to become a world class badminton player. Her mother tongue is Konkani. However, that does not resolve Sitush's point about self-identification, so I guess it is no go unless we find an interview or autobiography where she says so. Identifiction as "konkani" is not suitable. Either it is self-identified or bust, I guess. AshLin (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I thought "Konkani" is a much broader term and could be used with a decent enough source, but this works as well. Lynch7 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why have we then identified Deepika Padukone as 'Indian'? Has she ever self identified herself as 'Indian' ? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality was never a disputed topic on Wikipedia, not on the level of caste and ethnicity at least. Lynch7 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute or no dispute! I believe self-identification is key to establishing identity (based on what Sitush has been saying). Consider the case of DP, who possible holds Danish nationality. How do we know she is Indian? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute is No dispute; Having no reliable sources (self identified) for castes comes under WP:BLP. Nationality does not. Lynch7 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RK, the issue is now becoming pedantic. I already concur with Sitush & so does MikeLynch that without self-identification, we do not include the caste/community to which she belongs/is reputed to belong. Where does the nationality question arise? AshLin (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1, this is becoming too pedantic. Lynch7 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RK has a point.if anyone's interested then there is tricky issue about Salman Khan 's religion.see talk page.15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know then that DP is Indian? What reliable sources claim so? The only thing that comes out of a reliable source is that she was born in Denmark, by virtue of which, she would be a Danish citizen! How is she an Indian? WP:BLP doesn't mention anything about castes in particular (I've read the link, and couldn't find anything related to castes per say - unless I'm missing something). On what grounds are we branding DP an Indian? Just because she lives in India? Pandit Ravi Shankar has been living in the USA for too long... are we going to brand him an American? RicardoKlement (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hello. Thanks for your response. I myself had reported the User in question at ANI for edit warring who has resorted to name-calling several times despite being warned about being civil. I would urge you to look into it. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you were behaving particularly well. Even if you think that you have policy on your side, WP:3RR almost always means that you need to stop the warring. There is an exception relating to biographies of living people but you are advised instead to take the matter to the BLP noticeboard as it is tricky. Furthermore, the conservative solution (always a good thing with BLPs) was to leave out the information that you were repeatedly attempting to add. I doubt that the ANI report will come to much because neither party had followed due process, but I will take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need for a block on my account. I was trying to protect the page by urging the user in question to discuss the RFC on the talk page. I myself reported the incident at ANI as I thought it was going to lead to edit warring. I have consistently warned the user in question about it on their talk page... specifically about name-calling. If there indeed was an RFC, it should have been discussed on the article's talk page... (like you provided the link on my talk page). RicardoKlement (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all the effort you took to ask the other user to start a discussion, you could have started the discussion yourself. Yes, there indeed was an RFC .Lynch7 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lynch, I was not the one asking for a change :) RicardoKlement (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't anyone get irritated if bogus warnings of vandalism are issued.Pernoctator (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 3. I cannot see any relevant report at WP:ANI but you have presented a malformed report at WP:3RRNB. As I said earlier, it does not matter whether you are correct or not: you should not breach the three revert rule in a situation such as this one. If Pernoctator was unwilling to open a discussion on the article talk page then you should take that initiative. As it is, the pair of you have gone beyond what is acceptable. As your WP:3RRNB report stands, a reviewing administrator will not see much at all: it does not mention the article, it does not show the necessary 4 reverts, it does not show that you had warned Pernoctator and it does not show that you tried to resolve the issue on the talk page. All of those things are mentioned in the template that you have to fill in on WP:3RRNB. My guess it that it will be thrown out unless you fix those things ... and if you do fix them then the chances are that the report could boomerang on you. Sorry, but that is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There is no rule saying that the one asking for a change should start the discussion. Sure, the onus is on the other person to discuss, but you could have done it yourself, and saved us the trouble, and probably yourself a block. Lynch7 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being irritated is no excuse for name calling. Sitush, if you believe that both of us had gone beyond what is acceptable, why am I the one to be blocked alone? I agree my report may be malformed - I don't care what comes out of that report - my only intent was to stop the edit warring and have an oversight look into it. It just so happened that you looked it and provided clarification, which I am completely okay with. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were both name-calling. School playground stuff, really: one starts, the other hits back in the same vein. I suggest that you both just get over it & remember to be civil in future. Furthermore, if you do not want to pursue that WP:3RRNB report then I suggest that you make it clear there and save some poor admin a bit of time trying to figure out what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, Sitush! I realize I was never blocked, but that you left a 3RR warning on my talk page. As for Lynch (aka Swaroop), don't put yourself in high light with the use of words such as 'saved US the trouble'. LOL. No one asked you to butt in to the conversation. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! You are being uncivil again. There is no need to take a pop at MikeLynch - he is welcome here. I suggest that you apologise. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts Sitush. However, when I have tried to preach civility to others, only to have it backfire on me, I don't see why I should apologize. I'm done with this thread! Happy editing! RicardoKlement (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you should count yourself lucky that MikeLynch - who is an admin - will not block you himself for this continued incivility. As it is, I'll drop yet another warning on your talk page. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Ricardo, please note that if you keep on being uncivil you might end up blocked. I agree with Sitush, here: your behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Sitush (and talk page stalkers), I intend to start an AN thread to ask the community to place all articles dealing with indian castes under discretionary sanctions. You know better than I do what's wrong with the topic area, so I'll keep it simple, would you (or your talk page stalkers) be willing to help to gather a couple of diffs of general disruption (low-level incivility, POV-pushing, edit warring and the like) to convince the community we need those sanctions? Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide diffs galore, although I was really hoping that we could avoid this (you've seen my comment about it at User_talk:Pernoctator). Just the evidence from today and a link to past occasions when I have been dragged to ANI make the problems clear.
The real issue is how you define the subject area: the linkage with caste is extremely deep-rooted in Indian society and that is reflected in our articles. People will war over caste in biographies, in articles about farming, articles about political parties and, well, you name it. It pretty much underpins Indian life, despite numerous official (and often self-contradicting) pronouncements by post-independence governments etc. Just how insidious the thing is can be seen from the subtext of recent comments by an IP at Talk:James Tod, where the part-revealed intent is to undermine an article that is currently at FAC in order to re-establish Tod as a reliable source for articles relating to Rajputs. It is a subtext, rather than "in your face", but it is there nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (ec)That would be a beautiful thing. I'm just about to go to bed...but two things to help point this in the right direction: first, you'll need to narrow down the scope (besides just the castes, there's also the "clans", the "tribes", etc.)...but you can't go for a general "broadly construed" because that would then include most locations in India, and many many biographical articles, which would be two much; second: would serious disruption be better, or recent? i see sitush started to address some of this...but i must to bed go now. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We did have quite a lengthy discussion at WT:IN regarding this. Lynch7 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What does "keeping article under discretionary sanctions" mean? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Discretionary sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, it would entail a "one-revert rule", rather than the standard WP:3RR. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the much appreciated opinions! I (stupidly, to tell the truth) hadn't thought about how pervasive castes are in every aspect of everyday's life. I still think we need sanctions, however... Is there a way to circumscribe them so that they will be effective, in your opinion? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot recall seeing the discussion at WT:INB to which MikeLynch refers - probably before my time. I think that initially it ought to be limited to articles that are specifically about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc. It won't stop all of the battling/disruption but it would go some way towards it. You might want to include caste associations and political parties in that mix (the latter are often caste-based). You could include articles such as Forward class and Backward class but I don't think that the disruption there is too great at the moment; similarly, articles concerning varna concepts can be a nuisance but the disruption tends to be intermittent. Templates for the communities etc would definitely need to be included.
NB: some of these issues transcend post-partition India: the net needs to catch Pakistan etc also. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just saying why just pakistan.it should include the entire subcontinent nepal bangladesh sri lanka et all.there are castes like Govigama in sri lanka and newar in nepal.please note the nepalese royal family's caste is also under dispute.whether they are kshatriyas or not ?.Pernoctator (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "etc". Basically, the entire Indian subcontinent. I am not merely assuming that Salvio is an intelligent guy - he is! Do you need my Paypal details, S? <g>- Sitush (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sitush, I was referring to the discussion around a month back. Somewhat related to this. Yes, caste is a touchy topic, and it takes while for non-Indians to grasp the "touchiness" of the topic. It shouldn't be a big deal, but for reasons beyond our control, it is. Probably the Indian subcontinent could be included in this? We don't have as much editors editing Pakistani/Sri Lankan articles as much as Indian ones, so problems there could be going undetected. Lynch7 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now, ML. I saw that as more of a general BLP policy issue (ie: a long-winded, repetitive exercise in explaining something that is already explained!). - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol i have never disputed anyone's intelligence.though mine has been and i am apparantely a worthless attention wh**** .Pernoctator (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough now. Lynch7 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we Lock the Chauhan "Article"

Hi User:Sitush, I guess Chauhan article if made locked can be protected from intentional vandalism. Lets have discussion 1st for every point added there and based on the consensus those can be allowed to added. it seems some user are intentionally editing rather then adding more points there. Thanks.. 123.238.25.161 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last sentence but I do not think that the situation is quite as bad as it looks on the history page. There are a lot of IPs making a lot of poor edits but it isn't particularly disruptive - often, they appear simply not to be reading the article through before adding the point that they want to make, so it ends up being repetitive. Am I missing something? Is there an off-wiki thing going on at Orkut or something similar? - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kushwaha

I found an old citation for bee-keeping and added it, the IP moved it so it cites something else in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

see page 139-140. thurston makes a clear difference between devil dancer parava and the fishermen paravan.this is what he says about devil dancer parava 139-140.The Tulu-speaking Paravas of South Canara are, like the Nalkes and Pombadas, devil-dancers, and are further employed in the manufacture of baskets and umbrellas. Socially, they occupy a higher position than the Nalkes, but rank below the Pombadas. The bhuthas (devils) whose disguise they assume are Koda- manitaya and the Baiderukalu, who may not be represented by Nalkes ; and they have no objection to putting on the disguise of other bhuthas. Paravas are engaged for all kinds of devil-dances when Nalkes are not available.image is for the devil dancer parava which has been printed in the succedding page.there is also a photo before 139 if you see.Pernoctator (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also see 143 there are three caste which answer to the name parava.Pernoctator (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, well spotted. I've reverted myself. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Crosby & citations

Hi Sitush,
I saw your edits on the Fanny Crosby page, and was wondering if you would take a look at Wesleyan University? I've been going back and forth with an IP editor for months regarding citation bloat... While I've cut at least 100 bad/irrelevant citations out, I could use some help (even with all those cuts, the article has *gained* 60 citations since September anyway!). Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have a vague memory that article may have been subject to a lot of controversy at one point, and possibly even socking. The citation bloat seems pretty clear at first glance but I'll take a more detailed look at it & at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate any and all time you spend on it. Yeah, I recall that as well and the IP in question seems to be the same guy (at least in terms of verbage!). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Tod

Hey... few things on this. Why are the images outcasted & left on one side? Why is this Muhnot Nainsi given special attention at the end? Cant he be just mentioned somewhere in the article. One excitedly clicks on him hoping he is someone similar to Tod to actually read only two lines. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhnot Nainsi is listed in See also because they were also specifically a historian of Rajasthan. It is not necessary for me to expand that article also, although hopefully somebody will do so eventually. I am not sure what you mean by "outcasted"; well, not in this context anyway. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse not! But why not just hyperlink him somewhere in the article itself; where his book is mentioned. I meant why are they all right-aligned? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call: I've moved it inline. Regarding the images, well, that's just the way I prefer them. There is no rule saying that they must be alternated left/right, or whatever. WP:MOSIMAGES just says that they can be dotted around except in the lead section. Only one person other than yourself has ever commented on their positioning ... and it was not even me who put them there, although I do approve! - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Well.... that images thing was just an opinion. When mixed, they look part of the article rather than they-are-related-hence-added (also my opinion). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It might be also be connected to screen sizes etc, or maybe it is just that I really do not usually care much about images. I'm more of a words person, so tucking them to one side perhaps suits me better. I should find a psychologist and ask! - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington quarter

Hi Sitush, as you can see on my talk page and Alarbus's, I asked him to work on Washington quarter. I got it through GA somehow and am thinking of improving it. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Is that also the case with United States Bicentennial coinage? They've rather messed up at Death of Adolf Hitler and I was concerned to see no article talk page discussion on that or on Washington quarter. I don't care less what style is used, but there was a clear misunderstanding of how things work & so I was checking a few others. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've retarded the death of Hitler article. Good job abetting that. Alarbus (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm pretty much it on the coin articles these days since RHM22 retired. Thanks..--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a silver dollar here, from the 1890s. It was given to my grandfather on the day of his father's funeral (poor sod broke his neck playing football - soccer, that is). I've no idea who gave it to my grandfather - we have no US connections as far as I can ascertain - but that death made him an orphan. Aside from that, my only experience of numismatics beyond day-to-day reality is a paragraph or so at James Tod. When you have sorted out the US stuff then perhaps you should start on the Bactrian ;) Best. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I looked at James Tod and thought it might be a good candidate for my kind of improvements (and I just about always flush out lurking problems), but I'm just not feeling like bothering. Alarbus (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — been peeking, and see an issue needing fixing, already. Alarbus (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with "improving" things provided that there is consensus for it. Indeed, there is nothing wrong - in the WP sense - in making matters worse provided that ... etc! You can always be bold but you need to know when to back down gracefully if it turns out that your boldness was, well, too bold, If you think that something is not right at James Tod then you are free to take a stab at it. It is not my article or indeed any other person's. OTOH, it is at FAC and you have been complaining about people trolling you or something because of some issue(s) there, so if your intent is to make some sort of point to them then it may not a great idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you hear what Sue Gardner said? We have to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. Alarbus (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. (a) I am deaf and (b) Sue Gardner does not run the show. The latter is an awkward chicken/egg issue for her but given the problems that she has been connected with in the sphere of India-related articles, well, perhaps it is for the best. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re (a), I didn't know and meant no offense. Sorry for that. Alarbus (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry yourself about it. I was born that way, a long time ago (!) It is almost impossible to offend me regarding the subject because you name it, I've already been called it etc. Mine was a tough, bullied upbringing but getting it out the way early on may not have been entirely a bad thing. The only people who offend me now re: deafness are webdesigners who insist that a valid phone number is entered in a field of online forms, and similar bureaucratic crassness. ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kushwaha

Hello Sitush! I admire your contribution over wikipedia articles but request that articles, particularly about ethnic groups etc. be writted only by people knowledgeable about them or those belonging to them as there is not enough information about most of them on internet. I have rewritten the article and will continue to add to it as and when I find time. thanks. truthalwaystriumphs —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Please self-revert now. You are removing valid, sourced content, you are edit warring and you are at the very least working in tandem with HistoryofKushwaha in a manner that is disruptive. Feel free to discuss your points at Talk:Kushwaha, where there has been a thread running for a few days now. Sources do not have to be on the internet but they do have to exist and they must be reliable.
The article has already been semi-protected because of IPs who were doing exactly the same disruptive edits. I should warn you that I had already filed a report for a sockpuppet investigation. Hopefully it will not reveal something that is untoward. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope that was not a joke. As you see, I have made just a few edits in less tha a month. There is no war. Request people with little knowledge about particular ethnic group to keep off. Little knowledge (particularly gained from Internet) is a dangerous thing. If you continue to write recklessly, I would have to report you. truthalwaystriumphs —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am reverting you since you will not do so yourself. Now go ahead and report me. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well man, take this as a last warning. If you dont revert back to correct information and continue to present a malafide information, sit pretty and risk being jailed for cybercrime. I have spoken enough. There is no rule in the world which allows you to present malacious information,(including wikipedia codes)O . enjoy the liberty till it lasts.. good luck.--Truth always triumphs 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talk • contribs)
Please read our policy on legal threats. I know that your reading list is now quite long but there is not a lot that I can do about this, sorry. You claim to have read the rest, although it is not evident from your edits today. I suggest that you self-revert at the article sharp-ish, and retract your comment above. You are now facing investigations not only as a sockpuppet but also for breaching the three revert rule (see WP:3RRNB). Frankly, unless you do something quickly I suspect that you could be indefinitely blocked from contributing to English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwakarma

Go on u can edit it... all the sources I have cited furnish correct information.. morover I am not boased coz i dun belong to any of those communities :D Nijgoykar (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem biased not tryin to get personal.... caste is a concept of bygone era... u cud use past tense to refer it... but dun simply edit articles as per ur knowledge.. its a request.Nijgoykar (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to resolve issues of original research, which I know has been a problem for you in the past. Unfortunately, without some sort of support for the statement that Vishwakarma and Panchals are the same community, just about everything that you have added in the last hour or so will have to go. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Panchal Brahmins: The Panchal or Vishva or Vishwakarma Brahmins form a distinct caste the members of which follow the occupations ... That is why sometimes they are known as Sonars, ie, goldsmiths and in Maharashtra as Deshastha Sonars. Source:Sociological bulletin, Volumes 11-12,Indian Sociological Society Nijgoykar (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Now, why do we have separate articles for the Sonars, Vishwakarmas and Panchals? Should they not all be in the same article? - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written those articles obviously.Why are there many articles about Brahmin sub-castes which are like uncountable in India..when all are basically Brahmins and when there already is one article Brahmin for all.. same logic apples here. Nijgoykar (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the terms are synonymous. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases when the artisan castes are not Vishvakarmas.Nijgoykar (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that, but it does not answer my question. You have provided evidence above that, for example, Panchals and Sonars are Vishwakarmas, so either Vishwakarma is a sort of "umbrella" name or the terms are synonymous. And if it is an umbrella name then we need a source that says so because the one above says that they are a "distinct caste", which is contradictory in my eyes. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Si - Brothertoft

Have not been around much on Wiki recently as was still plodding along with my Brothertoft history. I have now made several visits to the Surrey History Centre with regard to Sir Charles Fredericks papers (wonderful to handle his old deeds indentures receipts and papers!) I have also spoken to a local historian who wrote a book about the village and have it here although it isnt online. 1) from my own research, the Sampson Gideon ownership is erronous. He did buy up vast tracts of lands but mostly in the Bedford Level. The Final Concord agreement at Surrey History Centre dated 1760 is between Duke of Newcastle Heirs, Lady Catherine Pelham (Widow of Henry) and Sir Charles Frederick, so it is clear he bought the manor directly from them. He died in 1785 and his son Thomas Lenox Frederick sells it to Cartwright who took ownership Lady Day 1789. He then sells it on to Henry Gee, father of Thomas Gee, and it is then briefly occupied by his widow Ann (Leman) and cousin William Gee until 1877. 2) The Hall - Quote "No one knows who built the Hall" - even those that live there today dont know, In 1774 Sir Charles Frederick leases it to John Chappell and it is a) the largest lease by far and b) described as "Manor Farm House previously known as Capital House Farm". It would appear that the Hall is partly ancient with later additions and at the very least sits on the same site as the previous manor houses. It was refurbished by Cartwright before he sold it (it was let 1805-13), and extended and modernised by Gee and by Frederick Curtois. 3)Thomas Saul/John Saul. Parish registers in Brothertoft and Boston relate their story, as well as an indenture of 1729 leasing part of the land in Low Fen Brothertoft/Boston West all from John Fossitt dikereeve of Boston West, to Thomas Saull, Robert Smith and John Fisher. A baptist book I found online recounts "Thomas Saull became rich out of hunting and fishing in Brothertoft, and laid the foundation stone of the Baptist chapel in Boston in 1763 just before he died" (paraphrased but thats the gist). His funeral took place in Boston St Botolphs and the burial register claims he died of smallpox and was buried at Brothertoft. The Brothertoft burial register verifies the burial and curiously claims "This was a good man it is a pity it should be forgotten". John Saul his son built the baptist chapel in Boston in memory of his father. He appears to die in 1779 as a burial for a John Saul is in Brothertoft register at that date. Both Brothertoft and Boston PRs are available on the Lincs to the Past site, and I could find the ref in that baptist book again easily enough. Id like to correct the Wiki Article in this way but request your help and advice as I am now very out of practice. A.

Hi Panderoona, I wondered where you had got to. The situation that you describe is one of those really, really frustrating ones. I've had a similar issue recently with John Horsefield. I think that you know the drill, ie: the issues that we have here regarding original research etc. Even the GRO records for births, marriages and deaths are suspect because we cannot be 100% sure that the "John Smith" recorded is the same "John Smith" that we are talkking about in whatever article it may be. Sure, it may be 99.9% definite and our heart tells us that it is 100% ... but that is not the way in which this project works. My suggestion for now would be that you record the info on the article talk page - someone, somewhere, sometime may be able to connect it to reliable sources and in the interval there will at least be a record of your investigations. Article talk pages are intended for discussion related to improvement of the article but I suspect that your info counts as such because you have clearly found primary sources that could well be documented by secondary sources that you have been unable to locate so far.
I realise that this is not ideal, and I realise that Brothertoft is a particular labour of love for you but if you want to take things further than WP policies etc allow then the only obvious solution would be to set up your own web page/site somewhere. On the other hand, I am concerned about some of the contradictions that you appear to have discovered and I will certainly take another look at the sources that you, myself and Carole dug up some time ago - if they have been misrepresented etc then obviously we need to remove the related statements. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as ever Sitush, I do realise some things are going to be difficult to corrobrate, although there is always the Holland Fen and Brothertoft parish history booklet to fall back on (though thats not online) I will try and come up with something verifiable for claims and leave anything else on the Talk page. I do feel very "rusty" Wiki-wise as been away for a while now, so going to go off and have a good think about it for a couple of days. Will be in touch. Panderoona (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A source does not have to be online, although whether a parish booklet is reliable might be a moot point. Is it big? Can it be scanned? I don't mind taking a look at it if you can email the thing to me. Glad to see you back! - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a slim volume, the kind of thing you might expect for a small parish history - 82 pages with quite a few being local photos.I will be out most of today at my parents so will email you tonight/tomorrow with relevent points and page nos. The woman who wrote it has a degree in History.

One more thing, I would like to include a poem I found in the parish register, which can be linked to via the Lincs to the Past site. It was written by one Benjamin Leigh, lamenting his father (also Benjamin Leigh)s death.

"Old Frestling time that all things doth consume, And Mother Earth doth all mankind entomb, As waves on waves, so man doth man succeed, One rolling off, another comes with speed, Our Father gone, we haston soon, and thus, In a few years, our Heirs must follow us. Benj Leigh 1754." under his fathers burial is written: "One generation to the next gives place; Tis so with all mankind, oh Mortal Race!" I think its a lovely and touching poem, and since I have not been able to find it online anywhere, I presume Benjamin Leigh wrote it himself. It would be a shame if it were to be forgotten? What to do you think? Thanks again, Panderoona (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (NB forgot Wiki likes losing your formatting :S Panderoona (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No further communication please!

I find your views very personal,and you need to broaden your perception.I am not an anthropologist to write those books and clear your doubts.Good luck! Nijgoykar (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anointment

Order of the Pigeon
I anoint you a Member of the Wikipedian Order of the Pigeon an impromptu organization to celebrate excellent pigeon-work in it's many forms on Wikipedia. Thanks for adding to Pigeon pie and all your work in the community! Sadads (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am positively squawking with delight! - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Sadads (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

the additions have been done on siginificant data, I agree few do not have school name mentioned on page but, most of them have, I will still have a look, thanksWhileships savedhead (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC) kindly see See List of Old SanawariansWhileships savedhead (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You either provide a citation or the category should be removed. The burden is upon you to ascertain the verifiability of the statements that you make, particularly in cases where the subject of the article is still living. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for removing the work! do you have significant knowledge about the subject and school we are talking about? Please read articles you have removed the category from and added ciatation needed link! they are all written by users with good knowledge and if you will make some effort to search you will find significant reference about each. Whileships savedhead (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that we do not work on the basis of personal knowledge here. Statements that are added to articles must be verifiable, and this is particularly important when the person involved is still living. It is as simple as that, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken about policy, will only add very reliable source like economic time or news papers.Whileships savedhead (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Please look into the edit war in the Shramana article. I left a message on the user page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ForestTeacher He contacted me back on my talk page. However, its obvious ForestTeacher is into an edit conflict. Am not working on the Shramana article anymore. Its kinda strange i have too report this to you. Hope you do the needful. Am hoping other admins take note (i still dunno how do i contact any admin).--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

I have added it to my watchlist. I can see some to-ing and fro-ing but at present it looks like you got the last word. I am not massively familiar with the topic area but would suggest that you open a thread on the article talk page that details any concerns which you may have. If nothing else, it would assist in the event that edit warring breaks out once more, and it might also help others to understand what the issues are. Relying on edit summaries often does not work, and taking the matter to the contributor's talk page tends to lose you input from other people. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Webcite

Hi Sitush, i see that you are online. Would you please check if you can access the following website through your web browser. I have been unable to access it for two days. Thanks.

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 09:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd! None of my web browsers can access the website. I've tried Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Mozilla. The only other link archiving website is banned by Bahrain, so if this one doesn't work then i am screwed. I've got a lot of archiving to do in many articles. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see? A 404 error or something else? I am surprised that anyone blocks a site of this nature but I guess that there is no end to how governments censor. Also, what is it that you are wanting to do? Can you give me an example or two?- Sitush (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A sign appears stating that my particular web browser cannot access webcitation.org. I know. The government has even blocked certain Wikipedia articles. For example, sex, cunnilingus, etc. I actually want to archive web links, as link rotting is a major concern. See this. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Macaulay quote on James Todd article concerning the whole native literature of India

In your edit of 27 July 2011 Sitush you introduced the following into the article on James Tod .


While the meaning of Macaulay's quote is perfectly clear would appreciate to know why you would specifically include such a completely bigoted view on all Indian and Arabian literature , into a Wikipedia article ?

Thankyou
Intothefire (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea why you are asking this here. Perhaps further evidence that your competence is questionable? The correct forum would be Talk:James Tod, but since you ask here, well ...
It is sourced and the context is clear: a long tradition acknowledging that Tod's chosen sources were not worth the parchment/whatever that they were written on. It is an opinion still held by modern scholars, with even the likes of Romila Thakur acknowledging the real problems that appertain to those ancient texts. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you have not responded to my specific question , which pertains to your inserting , Macaulay's ,following quote: a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia
  • Name the modern scholar who specifically endorses Macaulay's statement that you have inserted into the James Tod article
Intothefire (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are missing the point and I think that you are deliberately doing so, as you have done in so many past instances. This discussion is done. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem ... don't discuss ....relax.... and have a nice day :)
Intothefire (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shramana

Is there any reason to include what I removed? Did you actually read the paragraph that had nothing to do with the article in any way, shape or form? I'm not concerned about the rest of the article, and I've only made two edits to it ever. Please fully understand what an editor has done before trying to act like the Wikipolice. Have you considered that after my edit I was working on a post on the talk page declaring my apathy to the rest of the content? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD. You should have known better. Now please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, revert, discuss, not "bold, revert, restore without any explanation, discuss." I will not self-revert, and I stand by my actions. A reason has been given for removal of the material, no reason has been given for its restoration. YOU read WP:BRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SaibAbaVenkatesh removed that content, I reinstated and started the discussion that should have been initiated some days ago. Those actions comprise all of "bold", "revert" and "discuss". We are still at "discuss", I have requested full protection of the page at WP:RFPP and you are encouraged to engage in a civil manner at the appropriate venue. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mayasutra added it first, you're mixing up the order things have gone in. The stable version is without that off-topic addition, and again: it's bold (add, which Mayasutra did), revert (which others have done), and discuss. I've discussed it. You've provided no reason. Quit being wikilawyering and give a reason to include that section or admit that it doesn't belong. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked Mayasutra to discuss the matter, several hours ago (see thread above on this page). - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I just saw this warning message you left at User talk:Ian.thomson. Based on your conduct at the Shramana article, you are just as susceptible, if not more susceptible, as Ian to being blocked for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How? Not that I have any intent on reverting him again, but how? Look at the history for that article. It is a complete mess and ian.thomson should surely have known better than to let it run on without a discussion, and then to continue removing after a discussion was opened. Sorry, but on this one I really do not see what it is that I am doing wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the history. You have reverted—twice by my quick count—the good faith removal of text from the article. It wasn't vandalism cleanup, so it's edit-warring by definition. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can an unexplained removal be good faith? My second revert was because the discussion was open and Ian.thomson knew of it. Flabbergasted here, really. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Ian.thomson appears among a group of contributors who have been doing this back-and-forth for days now - that is warring. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on the talk page, I don't care about the rest of the article. I saw that off-topic bit and removed it. Quit wikilawyering and either give a reason to include the section or admit that it doesn't belong. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And you are one of the contributors who has been doing this back-and-forth for days now. Had you not re-added it, the discussion would still be ongoing—just without the passage in question in the article. You are no less in the wrong than Ian or any other editor who is involved. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment, but I really do have to go out. Since you now have your eyes on it, I'll leave the issues to you. Close the discussion, keep it open until Mayasutra turns up, throw a few blocks around, protect the article or whatever. This is the first time I've really felt hard done by: can't do right for doing wrong, it would seem. Amazaed, I really am. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shramana

The content was recently added, and although sourced, has nothing to do with Shramana. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Ian.thomson. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saibaba Venkatesh

Saibaba Venkatesh deleted an entire section again, without a reason. Please see log - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&action=history

Saibaba Venkatesh did this despite the ongoing discussions. Please see his messages and personal insult (idiot) on this page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shramana

Saibaba Venkates not only broke the three-revert rule within 24 hours, but also indulged in insulting. Please do the needful as an admin. I suspect he will continue to vandalise the article.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

(talk page stalker) C.Fred has issued the editor a 3RR warning now (we don't block for 3RR until the person is warned, because the rule is fairly arbitrary and its not fair if people aren't aware of it); if the editor reverts again, you can request the person be blocked at WP:3RRNB (or just let a helpful admin like myself or C.Fred know and we can handle it faster since we're already apprised of the situation. I'll be off wiki soon, so if it comes today, try C.Fred or 3rrnb. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, one problem, Mayasutra: in an edit summary, you said, "e. Let admin decide on deletion / moving content." Admins never decide such things. In a content dispute, admins are exactly the same as other editors. Administrative abilities are related to editor behavior--so we can block people for edit warring and vandalism, protect pages from attacks, etc. Sometimes we are called on to judge consensus when there is a dispute (such as deletion discussions), but in that case, our job is merely to evaluate the consensus in light of our policies and guidelines. If you have a content disagreement with other editors, you need to use dispute resolution to resolve it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much Qwyrxian. Thanks for guiding me about wiki policies/usage/content dispute. I do not know how to give a barnstar, but please accept my appreciation for you and Sitush. Sorry i did not visit this page and read this earlier. Thanks again. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Contradiction in your addition and deletions of cited content

Since you are repeatedly deleting my contributions over various articles without discussion (see my contributions page) and talk page strewn with your messages . I find your selective actions contradictory .

We need to discuss the serious contradictions in your appropriating the privilege to add or remove content with citations by other editors .There are instances galore but I am going to discuss here only two such instances .

Lets take instance no 1 first regarding a dodgy book Kshatriyas_and_would-be_Kshatriyas - which is currently citation no 18 on article Khatri .
An article which you ostensibly started editing on 23rd September (and subsequently deleted various valid content and citations) and on which you have done considerable work deleting and adding citations as well as conflicting with other editors trying to contribute content .

Is this book a valid citation for a Wikipedia article or not ? Because you have been instrumental in both creating this citation as well as condemning it . Since you have have stated yourself that you are not happy with this citation .

Whereas you state you are not happy with the citation , and yet it stays on the article inspite of your minute involvement with the article regarding edit contributions by others .

Is this book a valid citation for a Wikipedia article or not ?

Next lets discuss the article Baid and the citations you have provided there that contradict your own statements to others regarding quality of sources and content.

Intothefire (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a reliable source for itself, ie: for use in the article concerning that book. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you have not responded to my specific question , which pertained to asking you if this book fits wikipedia 's standards for a valid citation on Khatri article or any other article . Your answer is obfuscating ....you say its a reliable source for itself . Earlier you yourself state nor am I brilliantly happy with it as such .

Intothefire (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have had this discussion before, and it involved people other than myself. Unless you have anything to add to that discussion then this is a pointless repetition. And if you do have something to add then I rather think that the best place for it is at Talk:Kshatriyas_and_would-be_Kshatriyas or Talk:Khatri. However, please do note that repeating yourself is unlikely to achieve much as both Janette Doe and utcursch adequately explained the situation. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For keeping caste articles on WikiProject India as clean as humanly possible. AshLin (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AshLin! That brightens a rather frustrating last few days. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank u for that & regarding VK Singh, The "refused to intervene" is not a right usage in the legal sense. If so, What was Supreme Court doing in 2 days and that too 3 long hours of proceedings. I am afraid a good newspaper like Hindu really understood the legal terminology. ref: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-chief-V-K-Singh-loses-legal-battle-govt-hails-Supreme-Court-order/articleshow/11838737.cms and it is not a times of india vs The Hindu . for any one can understand VK Singh withdrew petition in the backdrop of Supreme Court earlier rejecting a PIL favouring VK Singh and later a not so favourable legal posturing. [[Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]][reply]

Raju Kshatriya History:

Why are you undoing my changes, can we speak together and agree on the histories.

I can provide the proof of raju kshatriyas.

Actual hindu vedic kshatriya orign from saptha rishi gotra and who are twice born with upanayana.

Raju / Varma kshatriya are classified into Suryavamshi and Chandra Vamshi with Sapta Rishis gotras with upanayana.

Lord Rama is from Vashista Gotra,

please find the family tree of actual hindu vedic kshatriya with saptharishi gotra.

Lord rama, Lord krishna, budha also included.

Kshatriya with saptharishi gotra and twice born with upanayana are actual kshatriya.

Lord rama is from vashista gotra File:The_Genealogy_of_Bharata.png

The place to discuss a specific article is that article's talk page. I will address the issues with your source there. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Hi Sitush, the proposal to impose discretionary sanctions was enacted; if you need a template to inform editors about them, I have created this one, basically coping Template:Uw-sanctions. Feel free to use it, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. My worry now is that I will inadvertently overstep the mark! Nonetheless, it is a positive move and I thank you for proposing something that has been suggested but not followed through on far too many occasions (I am one of those who can be tagged with that failure). - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the template, and at the link to the sanctions page, and even after searching around on various policy pages was not sure that I clearly understood what specific behavioral guideline was imposed, nor what specific penalties were established. Scientology and Free Republic editing sanctions, for example, are pretty clear. Caste is very vague. What is your understanding, and can you point me to a link that explicitly defines expectations? Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we all have to feel our way forward on this one. "Discretionary" appears to mean "discretionary". It is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs but the reasoning behind it seems to be that any admin can take any form of appropriate action to combat, for example, obvious disruptive editing without the need to jump through quite so many hoops as are sometimes required. I expect that this will eventually turn into a 1RR rule but right now it does not. The key point to note is that contributor must be warned beforehand and the warning needs to address the specific actions that are deemed to be problematic. If those actions persist thereafter then the admin's discretion will come to the for. I rather suspect that the example of the 2.x contributor at Rajus does or would fall into that category in future. So perhaps would repeated insulting etc comments even though they might not usually meet the bar of WP:NPA. But, really, it is all very muddy waters at the moment. One thing seems sure to me: there will be a few complaints about alleged arbitrary/excessive admin actions at ANI before it all settles down. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Basically, it's these sanctions. The only difference is that admins have been permitted to impose them by the community and not by ArbCom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I read that a few days ago and it still seems as clear as mud <g> I rather suspect that JD has read that page also because that's what conscientious people do. I bet that if I watched sufficient articles re: Ireland etc (currently watched: 0) then I'd soon get the hang of it. It does, however, explain why some people see this move as favouring the regulars: if the likes of myself do not understand the proscriptions particularly well then what hope is there for a newbie. Nonetheless, I do think it is a good thing to do: there will just be some teething problems, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages!

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Lack_of_notice_to_community.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

&

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have reverted your recent edit at Ror and made a statement at Talk:Ror regarding that. There has recently been a change of policy regarding how Indian caste/community articles are handled here on en-Wikipedia and so I am inserting the standard template below so that you are aware of this. I am suggesting that you have engaged in "inappropriate conduct", because you are deleting material without providing another reference which refutes what is quoted from Tod. - Ror Is King (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

- Ror Is King (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Chagai-I tests

plz visit that page a Paki nationalists is simply refusing to accept what is true facts and constantly removing the sources as well as the facts, he has history of such nationalists acts such as indo-pak 1965 war and indo-pak 1971 war on all those pages he is indulge in edits to glorify pakistan. Plz look into the case his user name is Topgun122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My action to this was in regard to IP hopping and unexplained removals, please don't respond to this canvassing, I'm reporting the IP. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your edits can be looked in the history section , the vandalizing edits you have made showed your deep bias against India , and further you are removing well sourced materials . Your edits in 1971 war is also a case where you were warned for your conduct.122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sitush plz visit 1971 and 1965 war pages and go through the history , his request for you not to intervene is to save his image, ask any neutral user this guy is always invloved in pro-pakistani edits with the same mentality of pakistan is best. Plz visit all the Pages yourself and decide yourself dont rely on this troll , his lies and propaganda can be seen from his edits. I request you to visit this page as he is trying to persuade you not to visit these pages as this will expose this real intentions. Thnx122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been blocked numerous times for his edits specially those when he make edits or undone edits by others which he found is against pakistan or specially muslims. Visit his talk page, reasons why he was blocked will make it clear that he is habitual offender , he never accept any source which shows pakistan in poor light gives no reason for removing well sourced contents all the scholars named in chagai-I page has also contested Indian Pokhran claims and their views have been put up in the Indian test pages but the same sources were deleted by this guy which contest the pakistani claims. Plz look into the issue as this guy is completely biased and will try to block me by the help of other pakistani users.122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TopGun/Punitive_Block he has history of such edit wars, where he delete the sourced contents as those contents are not in favor of pakistan, now this same guy is accusing me of an edit war, i have never entered an edit war my all edits are well sourced as can be seen from my contribution page. Thnx122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Visit my talk page, this guy is trying to implicate me in a hoax personal abuse, i have not abuse anyone. Sitush i urge you to have a look at this guy topgun activity as he along with other pakistani users will try to block me so that they can continue to vandalize other articles. He is coming up with fake warnings such as edit-war, personal abuse most probably to strengthen his case, you should ban him , he is again indulging in edit wars . He has been banned over a dozen times for the same attitude. 122.161.31.230 (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idukki moves

I have replied to your message at User talk:JamesBWatson#Idukki. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like that

Hey Sitush, I'm on a mini-wikibreak for a few days now; working on an outreach related matter. Will come back shortly and help you out with the articles! Cheers, Lynch7 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Questionable citations about Baids and Hindus

I am seeking to make sense of contradictory stances and standards you adopt in different articles concerning validity of sources . Since the matter concerns several articles the best place to discuss is your talk page where a convergence is possible for a discussion spanning several different articles .

Sitush you have incessantly deleted my contributions without discussion , nay even deleted my discussion on various talk pages . Then posted messages on my page calling me incompetent because of sources I have used .

But the contradiction of your own usage of questionable sources and vilifying citations is self evident . Lets take one more example :of article Baid .

7 December 2011 -On this article which was about a community Sitush adds the following content  :

  • Since you quote William Crooke you do believe him to be a valid source for a Wikipedia citation , better than Tod who you often delete ? ........ (You have off course completely rewritten a non neutral article on Tod) .
  • By which yardstick is Tod not a valid source if according to you William Crooke is ?
  • By what measure is this quote by a William Crooke a sound contribution about the Baid people ?
  • How is the furtherance of encyclopaedic information about the Baid community of ayurvedic doctors achieved by quoting William Crooke statement which you added viz :such people, who were Hindu, to be "incompetent" in their medical practices ?


Now whats wrong with Tod if you keep deleting him as a source even as you give yourself the prerogative to yourself use William Crooke ?
Intothefire (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All dealt with previously. I have no desire to go through all of this with you again. Your hounding of me is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Sitush thats not true see Talk baid Page its not discussed here ? perhaps you would like to tell me where it was discussed . Intothefire (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you Intothefire that how can one use William Crooke and slam Tod at the same time. Ror Is King (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pannu

I just took a hatchet to it. Considering the way it looked before the chop, I gather it's not on your watchlist. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not seen that one before. Some of those sources for the "notables" were, erm, bizarre. Nice job. Since it is also allegedly a common name in Finland, it adds to the general idea that associating people with a caste merely by dint of their last name simply does not work. I am sure that there are Indian people in Finland but scarcely sufficient in number to make it a common name! - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Finland thing is sort of off topic too. Anyway, there was a ref or two for a couple of the people, but I zapped the lot until verified. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. You have reverted edits on James Tod twice already 1 [3]  ; 2 [4]. Please don't indulge in edit warring. Ror Is King (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nowhere near 3RR, nor will I be the first to reach it if you continue in this vein. You really need to spend a little time trying to understand how the policies work. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well your first revert [5] called my edits "utter nonsense" and the second one became a good faith [6]! I must have done something awesome to deserve this :) Ror Is King (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can count & I opened a discussion. At the time of my original revert you had omitted sources and added a completely unnecessary cite request.. Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page. You are just pursuing some sort of vendetta here, methinks, and I would rather that it happened in full view. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Skip the persecution complex. I still do not know what unsourced matter I added to Tod that you are chiming about. You are too trigger happy. We have seen that your assertion that I deleted Frietag was obviously a lie. Ror Is King (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U

I have decided an RFC/U is on order for TG's shoddy sourcing and edit warring of uncited content into articles. As you expressed alarm over one aspect of his behaviour I am informing you in case you would like to endorse it.[7] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had sufficient involvement with the contributor, sorry. What I have seen is a mixed experience for me. & mostly weighed on the downside, but the scope is incredibly narrow. I think that you need to find people who have had a greater interaction. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non free image

The image the IP user placed on Talk:Rajus and that actually has been placed on Saptarishi appears to be from this page: [8]. This means that not only is it not a WP:RS, it is probably a copyright violation. I tried looking at both the relevant policy pages and Moonriddengirl's policy pages and was very confused as to where to start. If you would get out your wikimachete and cut through the confusion and tell me what needs to be done about this image and what steps I should take first, I'd really appreciate it. Alternately, I am fine if you just decided to do it yourself. JanetteDoe (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look dubious but it also looks messy. When I first saw it a few days ago I could also not make my mind up whether the stains etc were real or added for historical effect, with the colouring-in intended to emphasise the suggestoin that this is a derivative of an out-of-copyright work! I was as lost as you. I think that Magog the Ogre might be the best person to ask, with the expectation that it will likely end up at WP:PUF or its Commons equivalent. Do you want to ask them? I'll keep an eye on events. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to list it at WP:PUF, but am having difficulty with labeling the image and notifying the uploader. Either I've done things incorrectly (possible) or the templates are misbehaving. In any case, I left a "Help me!" message both on the WP:PUF noticeboard, and also on Moonriddengirl's talk page, as I've heard she is a guru of copyright. Hopefully I can get it straightened out shortly. In any case, it seems pretty clear that it is not RS, and will have to be removed from the several pages it is used on. Weather forecast this week: very windy due to caste related wrangles, and intermittent sunny skies. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left a reply to you on MRG's page. I forecast a lot of hot air and dense overnight cloud cover that results in a dark night (of the soul). I am a bit dis-spirited by the current shenanigans, probably because I am feeling a bit too old at the mo! It happens occasionally, and I have come very close to jacking it all in before now. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templeman

did u get the templeman booki sent u...Mayan302 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Maybe it is in my spam folder - will check later. I am getting a bit swamped with contentious stuff again at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:ok.no im not talkin abt the entire book.the pages frm templeman relevant to the crrent discussion on the talk page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan302 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of changes in community sanctions policy

The community has recently added some pretty liberal sanction powers regarding Indian politics and caste articles. This may be of interest to you as they cover disruption, including evidenceable "I don't hear that" conduct. I thought you may like to know about this given that I believe you may have been experiencing IDHT behaviour from other editors that amounts to disruption in areas that you edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. If you look above on this talk page then you should see the discussion that lead to the emergence of the sanctions that were proposed and enacted at WP:AN. IDHT is certainly an issue that affects me in the India-related sphere etc but it has been so for roughly a year now. I sometimes feel drowned by the tendentiousness of it all and wander off to do other things, such as John Horsefield! Thankfully, there appear to be a few more admins who have taken an interest in the issues during that time, and I am grateful to them. It remains a very frustrating area but hopefully the sanctions will smooth things out a little. And, obviously, I am not always correct in what I say. BTW, I keep seeing a red reference problem when you post a message but I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with your sig. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The red ref issue has gone away now that I have replied. I've seen this happen at RSN also - very odd. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding references, there are a couple of quotes above where people have <nowiki><ref><nowiki> wrapped citations... In relation to IDHT behaviour, including denial of obvious consensus, well, I've been trying to improve RS/N to stop fringe warriors continuing such conduct (fringe warriors who of course listen to community consensus are welcome, it means, in fact, that they're not fringe warriors at all). Sometimes, sometimes, editors need something a little stronger than a cup of tea when they don't hear what the community says. I find it upsetting, because everybody should be allowed to be wrong, even repeatedly wrong on a point, as long as they retire from their claims when many people observe they are wrong. ~~~~

I work for the Script!

Hi Sitush,

Thanks for your message. I do in fact work for The Script and I'm having real trouble getting info we need added to the page. Other users seem to revert my work even after I have referenced information correctly following guides on wiki.

My other issue is 'My Town' a band the boys previously were connected to but do not want to mentioned on their individual pages or the band wiki page.

Could you provide any advise or an official line on how we deal with this?

Many Thanks.

George James The Script HQ Digital PR / Social Media Essence Digital UK

  1. ^ Macaulay
  2. ^ Crooke, William (1906). Things Indian. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 324.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&oldid=477163795"