User talk:Sitush
I can understand that people want to feel special and important and so on, but that self-obsession seems a bit pathetic somehow. Not being able to accept that you're just this collection of cells, intelligent to whatever degree, capable of feeling emotion to whatever degree, for a limited amount of time and so on, on this tiny little rock orbiting this not particularly important sun in one of just 400m galaxies, and whatever other levels of reality there might be via something like brane theory ... really, it's not about you ... Do try to get a grip of something other than your self-obsession. How Californian. The idea that at all costs, no matter what, it always has to be all about you. Well, I think not.
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
AFC Backlog
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Regarding Edits to Christianity In India Article
Hi Sitush,
I have made the changes in the article by collecting informations from various sources and I hope the changes made were almost correct.I have added six more groups in christianity such as Knanaya christians(Catholic and Jacobite),Bhramavar and Honavar churches and Antichian Syrian church and its split form in Kerala recently.
Regarding Edits to Jayalalithaa Article
Hi Sitush,
I think you have misunderstood my edit to Jayalalithaa Article. I did not add or remove any content to that article. I replaced the old defunct template {{succession box}} with the newer one {{s-bef}}. I don't know why you reverted it. You have mentioned: but she is incumbent & may, for eg, die before 2016, which is irrelevant. If you look at the rendered page, it still says incumbent. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also if she dies before 2013, that too can be represented in the new template. Hope I am clear, if not please let me know the issues you have with the new template. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem with using the new template but it really should say "incumbent", not 2016. 2016 hasn't happened and she may not see it, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does say incumbent now too, using {{s-inc}} template which is designed exactly for this purpose. Also if you checked out the version of the page as it existed before I changed, it says 2011–2016 too. But if 2016 was your problem, I removed it now. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, 2016 was the problem. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does say incumbent now too, using {{s-inc}} template which is designed exactly for this purpose. Also if you checked out the version of the page as it existed before I changed, it says 2011–2016 too. But if 2016 was your problem, I removed it now. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem with using the new template but it really should say "incumbent", not 2016. 2016 hasn't happened and she may not see it, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also if she dies before 2013, that too can be represented in the new template. Hope I am clear, if not please let me know the issues you have with the new template. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed the tone of the para
Why didnt you reply? I changed the tone of the para you edited yesterday and fixed the dead link. See if its ok.Mayan302 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Because Real Life intervened, sorry. I will get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Same here.. However, I am goin through Templeman and some other books.Will expand the article a little whenever I find time.Cya. TC.. Mayan302 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you check out List of Parsis? I'm pretty sure some aren't.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever even looked at it. Request citations and remove if none are forthcoming, although you should as a minimum also check the linked articles and move across any citation that you might find there. If the person is living then you probably do not even need to request a cite: if one does not exist now then you could likely remove the entry per WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Kulin Kayastha - Awaiting your comments
Dear Sitush...I 'll obviously wait for you till you confirm that your hunting (for some specific source, I guess) is over. But, then, my point is, in any case, we cannot ignore these varied versions, even if you find something specific. As per our convention, we need to show all possible versions, especially when it comes to such contentious issues. Therefore, I would like to request you to go through my composition as well (apart from your own research), and suggest me on any point I may have missed. Needless to mention, I am seriously looking forward to improve the content as well as reliability of this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's been more than a week now, though I understand, you must be looking for something specific. Would request you to comment on my version, especially if you have any reservations regarding any statement (although the entire stuff is sourced). And finally, I would obviously request you to go with this version (along with your suggestions, if any), which covers all varied and reliably sourced opinions regarding the origin of Kulin Kayasthas. Articles are meant to be improved, if you can dig into some source even later on, that can always be taken care of. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've been a bit out of sorts, sorry. I m trying to track down the sources because they clearly appear to indicate that your version gave undue weight to the non-Shudra point of view. Undue because it seems clearly to be at best a minority view and at worst a completely misguided, ambiguous interpretation of what those sources say, as explained on the talk page. I'm trying to use proxies into alternate views of GBooks so that we can resolve the snippet view issues. There is, of course, also the issue of focus because the article concerns Kulin Kayasthas and not any other variant. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have always asked for opinions from all active contributors on the article, and especially you, regarding my version. I must take care of the valid concerns expressed by others. We can easily change the language a bit and mention that these are the majority opinions, and at the same time, express the other view, in this case, the Kshatriya origin, as a minority opinion. That way, we can eliminate the undue weight factor. But I don't agree with your 'ambiguous interpretation' phrase. You know better than me, even if we were experts on a particular subject/topic, we have no scope of original research, and have to rely only on reliable sources. Similarly, in this case. we hardly have much scope to interpret, and more so, since this involves a sensitive and contentious issue like the origin of a sub-caste. I must tell you that, and you may be aware that even historians all through had conflicting opinions regarding this legend or myth or quasi-historical story. Therefore like all other artcles on caste (for example, Kayastha), it would be logical and probably acceptable to all, if statements or the relevant part from reliable sources are simply quoted, without further interpretation (which is probably beyond our scope). As mentioned, your valid concerns regarding relative weightage must be taken into consideration, but at the same time, all such conflicting versions must be incorporated. Only one version is obviously misguiding, and makes the article not only incomplete, but also unreliable. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Omitting something does not make an article unreliable; it may possibly make it unbalanced, but that would be worst-case. There is a massive ambiguity in the few sources that you have found but I am still struggling to find an analogy by which to show it to you. Using a present-day name when referencing a historical event is not uncommon and you cannot assume from such usage that the name was current way back when the event happened. In fact, in the case of Kayasthas, it makes no sense. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I totally agree with your last point. But in this cae, it could be the other way round as well. Since we have done sort of background research on this topic, we all know, that all castes in Bengal other than Brahmins off course, were degraded and clubbed together under Shudras,though upper castes like Kayasthas & Baidyas, were considered as purer and superior among the so-called classes of Shudras. So, there is every probabilty that historians may call the original Kayasthas as Shudras, since as mentioned, all castes were classified as Brahmins & Shudra in contemporary Bengal. So this part will always remain ambiguous, and probably that has always been confusing for the historians as well. Therefore, since it is beyond our scope to sort out that issue,the only option to come up with a balanced view, would be to quote the varied opinions, and as pointed out by you, probably mentioning the majority & minority opinions categorically. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not if sources explicitly say, for example, "the Kayasthas were originally Shudra servants who came from Ceylon with their Brahmin masters". Such a construct is not ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though such a statement may not be ambiguous, and may be highlighted in the article, we still cannot ignore other sources holding a different opinion. The former cannot be considered as sacrosanct. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can if the other source is ambiguous. That is my entire point: we'd need something that verifies the Kayasthas existed as Kayasthas rather than as Shudras in Ceylon (as it was). - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good enough, if we can find such a specific source. But the probability is low, since the story is more of a myth. My simple point is, in the absence of such a specific source, especially considering the quasi-historical status of the story, major conflicting versions (considering relative weightage) must be stated. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- But we cannot give any weight to an ambiguous source because, by definition, we do not know for sure what it means to say. We can emphasise (as I think is already done) that the shudra thing is tradition/myth/legend/whatever but we cannot set ambiguous sources against it. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are saying that the Shudra origin can be emphasised, but here this is the only opinion mentioned, which is misguiding, to say the least. And your last statement that "the shudra thing is tradition/myth/legend", is also incorrect, since the fact that this legend has varied versions is known to all conversant with Bengali castes & origins, especially historians. And that is reflected in one of the various sources I have cited, (one by Swarupa Gupta), which mentions that this quasi-historical scciological narrative was deployed to explain the realities of caste & sub-caste origins. And it also talks about the "five legendary Kayasthas brought from Kanauj by Adisur", who came as "Kayastha attendants".
- And, by your standards, the existing source is also ambiguous. Since it does not spell out categorically that the Kulin Kayasthas were originally Shudras in Kannauj. And that is the reason you are hunting for specific sources mentioning this. Under the circumstances, my point is, if you fail to find something such specific, the current source, with its limitations, cannot be considered sacrosanct. And simcilar other ambiguous sources (according to you, since none of them categorically mentions your point), must be considered. Especially so, because this is a legend/myth. This is not something technical or scientific to the extent that it could be either x or y. In that case, in the absence of something as specific as you are trying to find out, all these varied opinions must be stated, and yes the majority ones may be highlighted. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Sitush...I believe, you are still struggling to find any specific source, mentioning categorically whether they originally existed as Shudras or Kayasthas in Kanauj. Honestly speaking, my personal opinion is, we are being over-strict or over-judgmental and trying to arrive at a conclusion, which even historians failed to, especially because this is not purely a documented historical event, rather as mentioned so many times, this is a quasi-historical legend/myth. You know, even there are various versions regarding who Adisur actually was and even the exact period when Adisur may have invited them. Therefore, it is probably useless fighting over such a mythical story, and probably impossible as well to ascertain the origins. Neither the existing versions categorically spell out what you want (probably too much for a myth), nor the sources I have cited. So, I would request you once again, let us incorporate the other version(s), highlighting the majority view, as already discussed. There is no reason to deny the minority view as minority view. Needless to mention, I sincerely hope, together we can make the article much more balanced and unbiased! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am not struggling at all. I've given you loads of them but have put out feelers for more. You are struggling to understand my point about ambiguity and I cannot think of any better way to describe it. However, you should also be aware that these things sometimes take months to resolve, and certainly a lot longer than a week or fortnight. Until then, the status quo applies because you cannot address the ambiguity issue. I can recall one sourcing debate about a caste situation that went on for six months or so, with pretty much no-one involved editing the article during that time. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just used the term casually. I never meant you are literally struggling. Please understand that this is not just about caste. It is about a legend, which is beyond chronological historical events. I know, any issue here can be stretched. But why? Suppose you find a specific source, does it prove without doubt that there are no other versions of this legend. See, honestly speaking, I have great respect for you for your logical & rational approach, that's why I took the trouble of explaining this through such lengthy dicussions. I don't think one can have any objection, if minority versions of a myth are presented like that, mentioning categorically that these are minority opinions. Therefore, primarily, this is not just another caste issue. Requst you not to take this personally. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am not struggling at all. I've given you loads of them but have put out feelers for more. You are struggling to understand my point about ambiguity and I cannot think of any better way to describe it. However, you should also be aware that these things sometimes take months to resolve, and certainly a lot longer than a week or fortnight. Until then, the status quo applies because you cannot address the ambiguity issue. I can recall one sourcing debate about a caste situation that went on for six months or so, with pretty much no-one involved editing the article during that time. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Sitush...I believe, you are still struggling to find any specific source, mentioning categorically whether they originally existed as Shudras or Kayasthas in Kanauj. Honestly speaking, my personal opinion is, we are being over-strict or over-judgmental and trying to arrive at a conclusion, which even historians failed to, especially because this is not purely a documented historical event, rather as mentioned so many times, this is a quasi-historical legend/myth. You know, even there are various versions regarding who Adisur actually was and even the exact period when Adisur may have invited them. Therefore, it is probably useless fighting over such a mythical story, and probably impossible as well to ascertain the origins. Neither the existing versions categorically spell out what you want (probably too much for a myth), nor the sources I have cited. So, I would request you once again, let us incorporate the other version(s), highlighting the majority view, as already discussed. There is no reason to deny the minority view as minority view. Needless to mention, I sincerely hope, together we can make the article much more balanced and unbiased! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- But we cannot give any weight to an ambiguous source because, by definition, we do not know for sure what it means to say. We can emphasise (as I think is already done) that the shudra thing is tradition/myth/legend/whatever but we cannot set ambiguous sources against it. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good enough, if we can find such a specific source. But the probability is low, since the story is more of a myth. My simple point is, in the absence of such a specific source, especially considering the quasi-historical status of the story, major conflicting versions (considering relative weightage) must be stated. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can if the other source is ambiguous. That is my entire point: we'd need something that verifies the Kayasthas existed as Kayasthas rather than as Shudras in Ceylon (as it was). - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though such a statement may not be ambiguous, and may be highlighted in the article, we still cannot ignore other sources holding a different opinion. The former cannot be considered as sacrosanct. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not if sources explicitly say, for example, "the Kayasthas were originally Shudra servants who came from Ceylon with their Brahmin masters". Such a construct is not ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I totally agree with your last point. But in this cae, it could be the other way round as well. Since we have done sort of background research on this topic, we all know, that all castes in Bengal other than Brahmins off course, were degraded and clubbed together under Shudras,though upper castes like Kayasthas & Baidyas, were considered as purer and superior among the so-called classes of Shudras. So, there is every probabilty that historians may call the original Kayasthas as Shudras, since as mentioned, all castes were classified as Brahmins & Shudra in contemporary Bengal. So this part will always remain ambiguous, and probably that has always been confusing for the historians as well. Therefore, since it is beyond our scope to sort out that issue,the only option to come up with a balanced view, would be to quote the varied opinions, and as pointed out by you, probably mentioning the majority & minority opinions categorically. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Omitting something does not make an article unreliable; it may possibly make it unbalanced, but that would be worst-case. There is a massive ambiguity in the few sources that you have found but I am still struggling to find an analogy by which to show it to you. Using a present-day name when referencing a historical event is not uncommon and you cannot assume from such usage that the name was current way back when the event happened. In fact, in the case of Kayasthas, it makes no sense. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have always asked for opinions from all active contributors on the article, and especially you, regarding my version. I must take care of the valid concerns expressed by others. We can easily change the language a bit and mention that these are the majority opinions, and at the same time, express the other view, in this case, the Kshatriya origin, as a minority opinion. That way, we can eliminate the undue weight factor. But I don't agree with your 'ambiguous interpretation' phrase. You know better than me, even if we were experts on a particular subject/topic, we have no scope of original research, and have to rely only on reliable sources. Similarly, in this case. we hardly have much scope to interpret, and more so, since this involves a sensitive and contentious issue like the origin of a sub-caste. I must tell you that, and you may be aware that even historians all through had conflicting opinions regarding this legend or myth or quasi-historical story. Therefore like all other artcles on caste (for example, Kayastha), it would be logical and probably acceptable to all, if statements or the relevant part from reliable sources are simply quoted, without further interpretation (which is probably beyond our scope). As mentioned, your valid concerns regarding relative weightage must be taken into consideration, but at the same time, all such conflicting versions must be incorporated. Only one version is obviously misguiding, and makes the article not only incomplete, but also unreliable. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've been a bit out of sorts, sorry. I m trying to track down the sources because they clearly appear to indicate that your version gave undue weight to the non-Shudra point of view. Undue because it seems clearly to be at best a minority view and at worst a completely misguided, ambiguous interpretation of what those sources say, as explained on the talk page. I'm trying to use proxies into alternate views of GBooks so that we can resolve the snippet view issues. There is, of course, also the issue of focus because the article concerns Kulin Kayasthas and not any other variant. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the ambiguity issue you have raised is totally irrelevant here. Honestly speaking, I have understood your point very clearly, and repeatedly mentioned in our discussions. The ambiguity issue could have been relevant, had the current source, or similar other source(s) mentioned clearly your point i.e. the Kulin Kayasthas existed as Shudras in Kanauj, when they accompanied the Brahmins invited by Adisur and came to Bengal. Since no one has come across any such source, all the sources must be treated at par, since they either state that the Brahmins were accompanied by "five Shudra servants" (existing version), or else "five Kayastha attendants" and very few as "five Kshatriya consorts". Your only valid point is majority opinion, which needless to mention, must be highlighted. Now, if you still don't understand this point, or accept the fact, then I have hardly anything to say. Defending existing version of an article just for the sake of defending will lead us nowhere. Moreover, this is, as already mentioned, not even a chronological historical event, rather simply a legend/myth/whatever! Therefore, it is too much to ask for exact historical background of this quasi-historical myth. And even, had there been a reliable source, or if I find one, mentioning that they existed as Kayasthas, will it be considered as sacrosanct? The answer is No. Probably that could also be stated in that scenario. But, all the versions, as available still need to be stated. That's all I have to say. Hope you have understood my point. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Sitush...I hope I could explain myself clearly. Awaiting your response!! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have always put in that extra effort to avoid an edit war, and arrive at consensus with co-editors. You know, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." You may express your response to my explanation, which I believe, conforms to all Wikipedia's norms, or any concern, if at all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Sitush...I hope I could explain myself clearly. Awaiting your response!! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the ambiguity issue you have raised is totally irrelevant here. Honestly speaking, I have understood your point very clearly, and repeatedly mentioned in our discussions. The ambiguity issue could have been relevant, had the current source, or similar other source(s) mentioned clearly your point i.e. the Kulin Kayasthas existed as Shudras in Kanauj, when they accompanied the Brahmins invited by Adisur and came to Bengal. Since no one has come across any such source, all the sources must be treated at par, since they either state that the Brahmins were accompanied by "five Shudra servants" (existing version), or else "five Kayastha attendants" and very few as "five Kshatriya consorts". Your only valid point is majority opinion, which needless to mention, must be highlighted. Now, if you still don't understand this point, or accept the fact, then I have hardly anything to say. Defending existing version of an article just for the sake of defending will lead us nowhere. Moreover, this is, as already mentioned, not even a chronological historical event, rather simply a legend/myth/whatever! Therefore, it is too much to ask for exact historical background of this quasi-historical myth. And even, had there been a reliable source, or if I find one, mentioning that they existed as Kayasthas, will it be considered as sacrosanct? The answer is No. Probably that could also be stated in that scenario. But, all the versions, as available still need to be stated. That's all I have to say. Hope you have understood my point. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Very good work in Thoothukudi Page Thankyou Perumalism Chat 01:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
- It is a while since I've looked at the article but thanks. I might scoot over and see what has gone awry in the interval - I'm sure that something will have done so! - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Your AFD's
Both reverted, and both deleted :) Cheers, Dusti*poke* 16:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed. That you archive your talk page so quickly is a little concerning, especially given what Delicious carbuncle had to say. But it is your talk page. I'll just maybe keep a closer eye on your NACs, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Carbuncle generally always has something to say regarding anyone's edits. I pay little heed to him/her. The overall conversation had come to a close, and in the interest of not keeping the drama going I archived it. I did speak with Prodego regarding the AfD that had also been brought up and he cleared it. You're more than welcome to watch my closes and provide input if you wish, I'm always open to constructive criticism. Dusti*poke* 16:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. In that case, I must be one of those few about whom they have not commented, although I've seen their name around. I still don't think rapid archiving is usually a good thing - it can make it look as if the archiver has something to hide - but it is your choice. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I set the archive up for 1 day archiving because with my vandal patrol and such (in the past) there's been a long history where my talk page could get quite long, and I don't like that :) The archive box is there and people are more than welcome to search through it to check, which is why I put it there. If it continues at this pace, a week long or so should be good enough. Dusti*poke* 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. In that case, I must be one of those few about whom they have not commented, although I've seen their name around. I still don't think rapid archiving is usually a good thing - it can make it look as if the archiver has something to hide - but it is your choice. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Carbuncle generally always has something to say regarding anyone's edits. I pay little heed to him/her. The overall conversation had come to a close, and in the interest of not keeping the drama going I archived it. I did speak with Prodego regarding the AfD that had also been brought up and he cleared it. You're more than welcome to watch my closes and provide input if you wish, I'm always open to constructive criticism. Dusti*poke* 16:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kamboj
Kamboj are considered :Category:Social groups of Pakistan and not :Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan. They are considered part of Punjabi people ethnic group. Delljvc (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Source? - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- These are clans and tribe of an ethnic groups are not ethnic groups themselves. The Sindhi tribes and clans are not themselves "ethnic groups". Don't revert my changes.Delljvc (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You were thought of: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Kachwaha Edit
Opting out of this one would be completely understandable. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Digvijaya Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Vanniyar page - good faith
Hi Sitush, I saw you have reverted my source info in vanniyar page by describe as "Reverted good faith edits by Prabhubreaker (talk): Not a reliable source (Gyan imprint) but in any case why are you removing alternate names?" Let me know what is "gyan imprint". Do you think it is not a source info? Book have ISBN and reliable source. Try to add more info. i saw your page you have more star but why you can't improve the page in better way. Regards, prabhubreaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sitush/Common#Gyan should explain it. However, you were also removing known alternate names for the community (Palli, in particular). - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Sitush (talk), Just know about Jacob Pandian http://anthro.fullerton.edu/faculty/pandianPage.htm. He is not a stablemate. Please do verify before you use and dont blindy say he is a stablemate. I have added the Vanniya kula Kshatriyar and palli in vanniyar page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that we can never even be sure that the named author wrote the book. That's how bad Gyan are. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sitush (talk), Book have ISBN no: 978-0861321360 and then what is the problem with the book. Please know what is ISBN. It is not Gyan if it have ISBN. Hope you are sensible. And don't revert again by commenting "Good Faith" or "Gyan" when there is a sourced info with book ISBN no and dont waste both of us time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Plenty of Gyan Books have ISBNs,including arguably one of the most notorious ever found on Wikipedia - see ISBN 9788178357751.- Sitush (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Plus ça change
Going by the articles created by this person about members of the same clan, with the same peacock expressions, and the timing of the keep !Votes today in quick succession at this AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vasant_Krishna_Sharma) from new IPOs, with no previous contributions, one wonders...!--Zananiri (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've watchlisted that Afd, and added some tags. I'm starting to look into the other articles now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Divakar Sharma looks definitely notable to me, though could probably use some neutrality tuning; I've tagged Shanta Rani Sharma as possibly non-notable, though her book was reviewed in a relevant journal, and thus she may meet WP:ACADEMIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary heading
Ramonadhar (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Dear Sitush, I can see that you too seem to have great interest in this particular article. I just want to understand if your hunting (for some specific source, I guess) is over. But, then, my point is, in any case, we cannot ignore these varied versions, even if you find something specific. As per our convention, we need to show all possible versions, especially when it comes to factual data. Therefore, I would like to request you to go through my composition as well (apart from your own research), and suggest on any point I may have missed rather than just editing your version and closing at that. Needless to mention, I am seriously looking forward to improve the content as well as reliability of this article. Thanks.
Ramonadhar (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Dear Sitush, thanks for your message. I can see that you are resorting to "blocking" as such. Anyway, I have checked the links as mentioned in your talk page and these are credible political leaders of national importance and I do not see the need to compare their write-ups with anyone for that matter. The content in their wikipage talks more about matters of national relevance rather than about them and the write-ups are generic as well. The topic I am trying to edit is with reference to "the 2011 Hisar by-election" and hence whatever factual and relevant information is available with respect to the "2011 Hisar by-election" is what I intent to update at least. However, I would again request that you point out what I missed rather than just editing your version and closing at that and I am open to any assistance as well. And just to clarify, my only intention is to improve the article with relevant factual data. Thanks.
- Raminadhar, I appreciate your enthusiasm but we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. The key point is that he won the election, not that he got X number of votes while someone else got Y number and another person got Z number, etc. This is not about showing "all possible versions", since there is only one version here - the policy you are trying to quote is WP:NPOV, which concerns neutrality and not inclusiveness for the sake of inclusiveness. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Manubhai Shah Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I have just noticed your curtailing of the article on Manubhai Shah and then as I was searching to determine how to write to you I saw that there was also a note for me saying that the whole article might be removed from Wikipedia. If you want to remove the article, that is up to you but it will be a great loss to society as Mr Shah was a very important contributor to the social and economic development of India among other things. I want to write on this further but am on a tight schedule and will be able to get back only after the middle of August. But I will briefly say that I think you have misunderstood a source of information here. You say that, "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." This is what was done in this case. The information you seem to have a problem with was quoted from a highly reputed Gujarati newspaper from the region of Saurashtra in India. Regional newspapers in different languages are often of very good quality and are highly respected for their professionalism and standards and that is not surprising in a large country like India with people speaking and writing in many different languages and there being thousands of eminent writers and journalists also writing in different languages. You might be aware of the existence of high quality regional literature in India. Since university days (which was a long time ago), I have tried to learn about leaders and movers who have changed the face of the world we live in, some of them are much written about and some go unsung but were no less important. When possible we need to inspire especially the youth of our world with facts about how people even from simple backgrounds can make a difference. And regional newspapers too can provide us with important facts and can become instruments of change. In fact Wikipedia itself is a wonderful example of a highly effective instrument of change. In my various journeys I came across this very important issue of the newspaper Phulchhab on the legendary figure Manubhai Shah and felt the need to bring some of the information to the notice of the wider world. Newspaper archives are a great source of knowledge and often this knowledge stays unrevealed. I felt it a privilege to bring some of the information to light. Manubhai Shah is a legendary figure who we used to listen to with rapt attention decades ago as he unfolded the plans and policies for the reconstruction and development of India. His life was the stuff of legends and it will be a shame if you were to misunderstand the source of information in this case as being inauthentic. Hope to return again in August. Take care. Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Blueyarn (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Retaliatory: you are the one at 3RR and I've explained the problem to you. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- stop your disruptive editing. stop deleting reliable source. Blueyarn (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
BBC today
Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
The circumcision one in the top ten is the one that surprised me!--Zananiri (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing here surprises me! The Monty Hall problem and an article about a dressing-gown or something similar are notorious examples. Some estimates say > 1 million words have been spent trying to sort out the first of those. And then, of course, there was the 2009 banning of Scientologists due to disruption. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Need Clarification
I do know you are an Unbiased person, But why such a biasness when it comes to AAP. When you know BJP wikipage is also violating the same rule. - If you are an Unbiased please bring the faith back. - Tall.kanna (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I've no idea what you are referring to regarding the BJP. I can't recall the last time I looked at that article. I'm certainly not biassed for or against the AAP, the BJP, the INC or any other political party in India - I'm not even in that country, I'm not even Indian and I cannot vote there. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Then. Just Look at this page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP> and with an unbiased motive, please correct what you had done in AAP page as per your wise judgement.- Tall.kanna (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have other things on the go and am not playing hunt the thimble, trying to work out what you expect me to do about an unspecified something or another. If something is wrong there then feel free to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for rebuilding back the confidence.- Tall.kanna (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I only realised what you were referring to when I saw Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for rebuilding back the confidence.- Tall.kanna (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have other things on the go and am not playing hunt the thimble, trying to work out what you expect me to do about an unspecified something or another. If something is wrong there then feel free to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Then. Just Look at this page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP> and with an unbiased motive, please correct what you had done in AAP page as per your wise judgement.- Tall.kanna (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Delhi Elections
I agreed on almost all points you have made.But I again have a doubt, If Spoiler Effect is a speculation. Then another party being Main contender is also speculation? - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a well known fact, supported by reliable sources that AAP will act like a Spoiler Effect Party in Delhi Elections. Weather it will win or not is a Speculation. -Tall.kanna (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are referring to this. The BJP is one of the two main parties in India; the AAP is an upstart new party. The sources - even the ones I deleted - were concentrating on the BJP, relegating the AAP to little more than passing mentions. Those sources were purely speculative and in one case were quoting an "unnamed source", and your contribution did not even get that right because if you wanted it to be balanced then you would have to note that although the AAP is seen as a possible irritant to the BJP it is also thought that the AAP won't actually achieve anything. For example, the source's unnamed source says “Unlike other leaders who think Kejriwal is a fleeting phenomenon, Modi believes he has the potential to damage us even if he doesn’t help himself too much in the process,” a source said An unsourced or poorly sourced "well known fact" has no place on Wikipedia.
Seriously, you seem to have a big investment in the presentation of the AAP on Wikipedia and it is quite worrying - you are not coming across as neutral and you are coming across as someone who is attempting to publicise the party. It probably wouldn't be a bad thing to leave the subject matter alone for a while. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- But If we speak of neutrality, then there is a common consensus among all noted media houses that AAP is a Spoiler effect Party. [Reference] and [This] along with privious clearly states that AAP, although not a main contender, but will still play a key role in these elections. Please suggest me how to include all Parties and prominent persons into this article in a neutral manner??? - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the Indian election systems work but I would imagine that there is a cut-off date for candidate nominations so that ballot papers can be prepared. I vaguely recall that all candidates have to file affidavits and that those can be challenged. At the cut-off date, or soon after, the official in charge will probably publish a full list of candidates. Once that list is published we can list all the various parties that are fielding candidates, without commentary. I doubt very much that it would be worth listing all the candidates themselves because most of them will likely be non-notable people (see WP:POLITICIAN). Analysis of who had what effect on the election etc can happen after the event, with the benefit of hindsight and a lower degree of fervency. Almost a WP:NOTNEWS approach. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. The list of candidates should not be shown until they file their nomination officially. So does that mean that this article should not exist or only contain brief of which parties might contest depending on privious election results and noted reliable source??- Please guide me in this matter. - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have created it quite so early but it is valid. At this stage, the article could include basic info such as the date(s) of the election, the number of constituencies, a comment on the current governing party, a comment if the elections are happening out of sequence (I don't think they are - this is the normal cyclical election, not one called to make a point) etc. Links to an article that covers the Indian electoral process and to an article that either covers the last election or lists the multiple previous elections would also be good. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the direction provided by you. It would require a detailed research which I would do very soon. And Shall always try to be within Wikipedia Policies. - Tall.kanna (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have created it quite so early but it is valid. At this stage, the article could include basic info such as the date(s) of the election, the number of constituencies, a comment on the current governing party, a comment if the elections are happening out of sequence (I don't think they are - this is the normal cyclical election, not one called to make a point) etc. Links to an article that covers the Indian electoral process and to an article that either covers the last election or lists the multiple previous elections would also be good. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. The list of candidates should not be shown until they file their nomination officially. So does that mean that this article should not exist or only contain brief of which parties might contest depending on privious election results and noted reliable source??- Please guide me in this matter. - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the Indian election systems work but I would imagine that there is a cut-off date for candidate nominations so that ballot papers can be prepared. I vaguely recall that all candidates have to file affidavits and that those can be challenged. At the cut-off date, or soon after, the official in charge will probably publish a full list of candidates. Once that list is published we can list all the various parties that are fielding candidates, without commentary. I doubt very much that it would be worth listing all the candidates themselves because most of them will likely be non-notable people (see WP:POLITICIAN). Analysis of who had what effect on the election etc can happen after the event, with the benefit of hindsight and a lower degree of fervency. Almost a WP:NOTNEWS approach. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- But If we speak of neutrality, then there is a common consensus among all noted media houses that AAP is a Spoiler effect Party. [Reference] and [This] along with privious clearly states that AAP, although not a main contender, but will still play a key role in these elections. Please suggest me how to include all Parties and prominent persons into this article in a neutral manner??? - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are referring to this. The BJP is one of the two main parties in India; the AAP is an upstart new party. The sources - even the ones I deleted - were concentrating on the BJP, relegating the AAP to little more than passing mentions. Those sources were purely speculative and in one case were quoting an "unnamed source", and your contribution did not even get that right because if you wanted it to be balanced then you would have to note that although the AAP is seen as a possible irritant to the BJP it is also thought that the AAP won't actually achieve anything. For example, the source's unnamed source says “Unlike other leaders who think Kejriwal is a fleeting phenomenon, Modi believes he has the potential to damage us even if he doesn’t help himself too much in the process,” a source said An unsourced or poorly sourced "well known fact" has no place on Wikipedia.
Aam Aadmi Party
If you can improve the page. Improve it but dont be egoistic and Agenda section which you have reverted to is way below standard of wikipedia. If you can improve it as per your wisdom please do it but dont degrade wikipedia just for your personal predujices.-Tall.kanna (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not interested. Article talk page or nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is to inform you that a request for dispute resolution in regard to this matter has been filed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Aam_Aadmi_Party. Please respond there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have been cooperating with the other user in many instances such as santosh koli section in [[1]] and [talk:Sitush] but without understanding my point or explaining properly, the other user takes everything personal. - Tall.kanna (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are supposed to comment at the DRN item you opened, not here. Transporterman was just letting me know that you had opened that request for dispute resolution - this is standard notification procedure. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have been cooperating with the other user in many instances such as santosh koli section in [[1]] and [talk:Sitush] but without understanding my point or explaining properly, the other user takes everything personal. - Tall.kanna (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is to inform you that a request for dispute resolution in regard to this matter has been filed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Aam_Aadmi_Party. Please respond there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Your recent editing history at Aam Aadmi Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Book of Manchester & Salford
Hello, I do have a printed copy of this book and have used it to add information to several local hospital articles. If you let me know which hospitals you are interested in I will see what information it provides for them.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Brilliant, thanks. Ancoats Hospital is the one - I've done a fair amount of reading and will be expanding it quite significantly. Booth Hall Hospital could really do with its own article at some point. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good work on Ancoats Hospital. The "Booth Hall Infirmary for Children", Charlestown Road, Blackley, is described on pp. 139-40: 750 beds; 3rd largest children's hospital in UK; convalescent home of 102 beds; 160 tuberculosis beds at a home in north Wales; 3 pictures.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Drat, 1929 is just outside our copyright permissions, I think, otherwise some historic photos would have been nice. There is an acceptable (copyright grounds - 1914) one of an Ancoats operating theatre on the Manchester Libraries picture archive but they've stuck a (c) Manchester Libraries mark at top left of it even though they have no legal right to it. I might revisit the thing and see if the mark can be cropped - see here. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good work on Ancoats Hospital. The "Booth Hall Infirmary for Children", Charlestown Road, Blackley, is described on pp. 139-40: 750 beds; 3rd largest children's hospital in UK; convalescent home of 102 beds; 160 tuberculosis beds at a home in north Wales; 3 pictures.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome at this discussion: Talk:Royal College, Colombo#College name. Thanks.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh dear, not again. I thought that one had been resolved! I'll try to look in later - am a bit busy with something else right now. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)