User talk:Sitush

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Balija Merging

Hi,Sitush please merge Balija and Balija dynasties since they have provided same matter in Dynasties section of Balija and Balija dynasties

Onam : Page Protection

Hi, please look into my request for page protection. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brahmin dynasties and states

Hi Sitush,Why are you deleting all the content of List of Brahmin dynasties and states if you need citations and references i'll provide them.Please revert them back Abhiran (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have provided them in the first place - not my problem. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard notification

Hello,

Just as I wrote to your colleague User:Bishonen, edits using wikisources are not disruptive, nor are they invalid.

Aside from User:Bishonen's baseless claim that you (User:Sitush) knows a lot about these things, it does not matter when using a wikisource. I notice he added page protection and has also been banned a few times before, and I think adding page protection to remove reliable sources to protect your edits is a serious infraction.

As such, I have followed up at The administrators' noticeboard.

Just some advice: just because you think the source is unreliable using your self-reference (here, User:Sitush/CasteSources), it does not give User:Bishonen the right to protect the page and remove insertions that use a valid wikisource (s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India) when point (3) of the Wikisource page says that they are valid WP:RS. It does not matter if you have your own talk page discussing your view of the sources, as wikisources are not called WP:RS without due diligence prior to their addition.

Your conduct is inexcusable, and it is hard to dispute that your previous behaviour a few months ago is harder to defend now that the edits follow protocol by using a wikisource (and both of you are still acting like this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.86.58 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. I seem to have missed the fun. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solanki and Kachwaha

Checkout my reference and source link for Solanki and Kachwaha Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All your edits appear to have been to the Nathawat article, which has no references and has been repeatedly recreated by you despite the deletion discussion. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communities of Mithila category

Hi, I added those communities based on the information in this source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A0i94Z5C8HMC&pg=PA33&dq=bhumihars+mithila&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBm721p9nRAhVOF8AKHaj3Du8Q6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=bhumihars%20mithila&f=false

Also the Bhumihar page has Maithili listed under languages, surely it would be okay for me to add those communities back again into the category? ThanksDamien2016 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 and Utcursch: any idea whether this ^^^ book by Makhan Jha is reliable? @Damien2016: assuming Jha is reliable, you really need to incorporate it in the articles before adding the category. Categories are as subject to WP:V as anything else, and it makes sense to actually follow that through by providing the source in order to avoid situations such as the one you have experienced where I removed the cats. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, never heard of him. As you know, I generally frown on publishers that don't copyright the books they publish. But M.D. Publications crops up often, and they get cited a lot on Wikipedia. The books generally seem to be by serious academics from regional Universities or Colleges, but they are often not discriminating between authenticated history and traditions. So one has to be careful in using them and cross-check with other sources. I have at least found one book review for you. But the reviewer might also be in the same category of regional academics. There is a Routledge book on Mithila [1]. So that can be used to cross-check information. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kautilya3 . Scanned through a few pages of caste-related content. Seems like a decent book to me. utcursch | talk 00:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I think the commmon phrasing for such cats would mean Category:Social groups of Mithila. It might also mean removing Category:Social groups of Bihar if that is already present in any of the articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help in getting more indic authors for the article

Hi,

I did start with a new article Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case here on en wp. I am looking for more involvement from Indic wikipedians in building the article since I suppose it will help improve over all awareness regarding Copyright law of India among indic wikipedians. Can you help me recruit more Indic hands for this article.

Secondly I can concentrate more on local language wikipedia article than here.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask at WT:INB - that's the talk page for the India Wikiproject, a gathering-place for people who are interested in subjects relating to the country. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit question

Any explanation to this edit? The book in question is clearly not a Wikipedia mirror. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. Pretty much everything published by Gyan/Kalpaz/ISHA is a mirror, a copyright violation or an assemblage of violations. We don't use their stuff. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jhajjar

I know the cite was missing but still sources could be found. Shawrix (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you said in your edit summary when you accused me of vandalism. The section reads like a copy/paste from somewhere. You're welcome to rebuild it using proper sources and bearing in mind the information at WP:COPYRIGHT. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry If I offended you, I should have checked it much more, I will try my best to rebuild it, I just misjudged the whole thing. Best Regards. Shawrix (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modi

As you must have noticed, I've nominated that page at GAN, partly because I see that as a way of providing insulation against the constant puffery that makes its way into the article. Now I know you're far too involved to review it yourself, but I'd appreciate it if you looked over the prose at some point, particularly with respect to issues of neutrality, as we've had problems with promotional content before, and I've spent so much time with the sources that I sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul. I keep going back to it but the thing depresses me so much. I'll take another look but, like you, I have been rather involved and my eye keeps drifting to sources such as this. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...that sort of thing is rather depressing, isn't it. My inner Wikipedian reads in and screams "but mythology is not a WP:RS." Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghwal page

I was told to write a message here to get help on an edit? Needed help with an edit I made on 'meghwal' page. I used a link from the bottom of the page (already a reference' but it said this is not reliable? so why is it already being used? Anonymous Review (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Anonymous Review (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am about to log off and won't be back for at least 24 hours, possibly even Saturday. I'll take a look then. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous Review: I have now taken a look but I am afraid that I am mystified. There have been a lot of reverts on that article but I do not know which one applies here. I suspect you edited as an IP and then created your account. If so, that makes things a bit awkward because if you tell me which edit you refer to then you will effectively be connecting your account to the IP address - you probably do not want to do that. I'm not sure what the way forward may be in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Tebbs DYK

Created Betty Tebbs today. In a rush but could be a DYK nom - arrested at 89 y.o. etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an invitation? I'd be happy to do some formatting and see the nomination through, if that's cool with you. Vanamonde (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, went ahead and nominated it, after doing some reorganization. Here's the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Tebbs, please feel free to mess with the hooks. I'll see the nomination through. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you should take the credit for that, not me. I rather rushed it through, knowing that I would have to go away for a bit and that I may not be around much for the next few days. You have improved it no end. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. DYK's liberal rules mean that we will both receive credit, but that's a by-the-way: I enjoy writing about lifelong activists, and have written several other such pieces...Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan

Just a note that if you want to give a reason for deletion, please don't cite your own page. If you want to assert that Gyan books are NEVER allowed, then please give appropriate sources, your own page is not an acceptable link for Wikipedia guidelines. Hzh (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with it. Sitush has taken the trouble to give detailed explanations and pointers to discussions. The policy being applied is clearly WP:RS. If you have an issue with it, please state it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated quite clearly what my problem is. Per WP:UP#NOT, a user page is not to be used to look like a project page that deals with policy and guidelines. If you think the page is good enough to be part of the project, then make it so, but don't use what is something personal to indicate that it is something official. Use proper links that address particular issues. Personal pages should not be offered to suggest that it is official Wikipedia guidelines or policy. There is also no link given that substantiates the assertion that Gyan book is NEVER allowed as source as a matter of policy, just links to discussion where people offered opinions. There is a big difference with some books being problematic and all books being problematic. You would actually need to show that any particular source given is a mirror or plagiarised material, rather than claiming because some are, then all are. If you think that a publisher should not be allowed, then by all means proposed that it be blacklisted. Hzh (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, Sitush is not presenting his user page as a policy: he linking to it so that he does not have to keep retyping the same argument. That's all. There are serious issues with the reliability of Gyan publication sources, issues that have been brought up at WP:INB, and IIRC, at WP:RSN as well. Please read up on those discussions, and if you are still not convinced, start a discussion yourself at RSN. Right now you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Vanamonde (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to Sitush to explain properly when removing edits. I was confused for a while I clicked on the link, assuming that it is some kind of policy that has official status, especially given that the editor is making what appears to be a false claim that it is NEVER allowed. All I have read is that some people had expressed concerns about the publishers. If you want to make it a guideline that has community backing, then start a RfC proposal to have Gyan banned, then add the result to the project page, and use that as the link. Hzh (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, deletion discussions are discussions. If an editor wishes to link to a user page that explains their reasons for deletion rather than having to repeat them for every similar deletion discussion, then they may do so. If that confuses you, then that's on you and not on Sitush. Now I suggest you just drop this stick and move on. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, given that Sitush doesn't see fit to reply to question about his own edit and work, why do you feel the need to speak for Sitush and tell me to "drop the stick"? No editor should refuse to reply to any legitimate point raised, relying instead on others to answer for his or her work. And no one has address issue raised that personal pages are not to be used to suggest any official stance, using an apparently false claim. I'm an experienced user, trying to shift the blame onto me is simply wrong. I should imagine many inexperienced editors mistaking what's written as an official stance. Hzh (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are indeed many people who supported Sitush, then there should not be any issue turning into this a guideline for your particular project. What is being done using user page is both unnecessary and wrong. Hzh (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, we both started editing here in 2007. Although I have about three times as many edits as you, we're both experienced, not just you. So, too, are all of the people who have commented above, at least two of whom are admins. For some reason, however, you seem unable to grasp that (a) I am not obliged to reply immediately to any message left here; (b) I specifically said above that I would be away for 24 hours or so; (c) I work mostly in a rather controversial area of Wikipedia and have accumulated a lot of talk page stalkers who are willing to offer their opinion about matters because of that. They do not always agree with me.

You appear to be the first person not to have understood the purpose of that page in my userspace, despite it being heavily used in edit summaries and talk page discussions for some years. Further, you appear to have actually misread it. We routinely disregard the efforts of certain publishers, including Global Vision, General Books LLC etc - they have a certain notoriety. If you want another opinion regarding Gyan's widespread plagiarism etc, despite the obvious consensus, then perhaps Moonriddengirl would opine. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that when the person to whom the question was directed has not answered and addressed the issue raised, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others "drop the stick". If it is commonly used, then per WP:UP#NOT, merged it into a project's space (all the points in the page can then be discussed by the community and made into guidelines for the particular project you are interested in). It is irrelevant how many times it is used by other, it is not official, the occasional person who reads it won't keep count, and an inexperienced user would not know if it is an official guideline or not. Personal pages should not be used in such a way. Hzh (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it has already been discussed. That's why there are some links there. I am sure I could find others. So drop the stick, please. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reluctance to submit what you said on the page to the scrutiny of the community is certainly interesting, so is the repeated demand to "drop the stick" (including by an admin, which is even more interesting) when the guideline on the use of user page is being ignored. Stick dropped, so did the penny. Hzh (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure to talk with a conspiracy theorist. You've been told that this is the wrong venue, so continuing to whine here is obviously not going to achieve anything, however snippy you get. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya!

Personally I would be surprised if that thread resulted in anything positive, but I don't mind getting reverted if you feel otherwise. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have cross-posted. Explanation on your talk page. You're probably right but, one way or another, I am going to see this through because it is plain bad manners, BITE-y, unnecessary and even, potentially, subversive. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the previous pings...

...was about Chishtian, which is frequently just being knocked about by IPs and might benefit from some form of protection, if only someone could determine a good version to then protect. Someone suggested asking you about this (don't remember who, was a few months ago). It's also been pointed out there might be many similar articles - I'm happy to look into more. Samsara 18:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed it due to WP:V. Have added the thing to my watchlist but that is very long now, so don't count on me always spotting things in a timely manner. - Sitush (talk)

Thanks. I've given it some semi and PC, let me know if you have a different preference. Samsara 19:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost with the nuances of when PC is applicable but I did think that and semi were either/or situations, not both simultaneously. Obviously, I'm wrong! - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's common now to enact semi for a limited period, followed by PC to give an opportunity to monitor what happens after unprotection, rather than unprotecting outright. I would like to limit semi here as I would prefer to be hopeful that general editorial standards for that region can improve over the coming years. Samsara 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chattar

Dear Sitush

I have noticed that you have completely vandalised the page with credible resources and historic context. I kindly request you restore the page so that we can build the page satisfying your concerns.

regards

Ruthven Blackburn

Hmmm. I don't agree, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush owns Joseph Crook?

My initial edits to the page were, I grant you, inelegant and I have (and had) no objection to their reversion. I then went on to look at matters of substance that might be embarked upon in an effort to improve the page. You stomped on them. You have now twice reverted plain positive contributions without any explanation. Perhaps you would care to expound upon why we should not attempt to make the connection between the subject's legislative endeavours and his constituency? sirlanz 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You looked for things to nit-pick about after my initial revert of your "inelegant" effort. You actually went away from and came back to the article after I reverted you then. And your next edit was seriously crap, too, because it introduced tautology. I posted on your talk page and you ignored me.

You've been around long enough that you should know about WP:BRD. What you should have done was take it to the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Sir How You Delete and Change Page ,who edits by me.please told me about this and sorry for any mistake. (Jai Rajput (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]