User talk:Sitush
![]() | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
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. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Keep-calm-and-click-edit.svg/220px-Keep-calm-and-click-edit.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Muscovy_Duck_bathing.jpg/220px-Muscovy_Duck_bathing.jpg)
Yo Ho Ho
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Ananuri_in_Jan_2013_02.jpg/150px-Ananuri_in_Jan_2013_02.jpg)
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
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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- OK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- (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)
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))
- The article has not been deleted yet and is unlikely to be for at least a week. It may not ever be deleted - that depends on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banmata Ji. You are welcome to take part in that discussion and, really, there is no rush. I realise that English may not be your first language but the main thing is to keep calm and try your best to explain why the article does or could comply with Wikipedia's policies. In particular, I think the information at WP:GNG might be of use to you. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sitush Illegal activities on wikidpedia
Dear sitush I am pasting the below talk page from "list of Indian Christians" your activities in the past have been highly questionable and Against the very spirit of Wikipedia. You have in the past impersonated as a wikipedia administrator/user and your name figures in the "wikepedians" who are nor wikepedians" therfore
![Stop icon](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at List of Indian Christians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war with biased motives which is against the Wikipedia spirit. Apart from that you have misusd and misquoted wikipedia rules to intimidate other users from contributing which is a offence. You have repeatedly engaged in edit war besides you have violated the the three-revert rule hence final notice failing which i shall take appropriate remedies available to me in law.
"below is the prelude to the this notice" copied from talk page of "list of indian christians" Arbitrary heading[edit source] After long research included 22 names of Indian origin Christians who participated in freedom struggle and 41 names of Army personals with references but on more than 5 occasions between 2015 to 2017 it has been deleted, it is very shocking and surprising . I wonder is it a deliberate ploy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it is because you are not following our policies - in particular, the information at WP:V. Since yours is a new account but you claim to have been adding the info since 2015, I am curious regarding what other accounts you may have used. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC) i dont think you need an account to edit the page. I did create the account only to register my protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Nitish.massey You are correct that you do not need an account. However, you can't keep reinstating stuff that fails policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP, nor things such as WP:NLIST. It doesn't matter how many accounts and IP addresses you use, it is wrong and it will be reverted. If you persist then other actions can be taken to prevent your abuse of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC) If you can reliably source these recent additions and, preferably, put them into alphabetical order, then that would be good. Please note that if any of them are living then the source must show that they self-identify as Christian. The citations need to be complete - author name (where available), title, year, page number etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Dear sitush most of the wiki pages of persons included in the freedom fighter added by me , contain references that they were Christians. Are you implying that still i have to give the external reference to edit the article. Names like titusji amrit kaur madhusudan das . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, and if you take cites from those articles then they need to be checked. There is sometimes an allowance made for this, called "summary style", but experience has taught us that on articles related to India, and in particular to matters such as lists of people of X caste or Y religion, things rapidly get out of hand. It is far better to cite here, then there should be no arguments. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC) it is not so on other articles which include articles related to India and include matters such as lists of people of X caste or Y religion , why this exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey Nitish.massey • contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC) It isn't the exception - it is quite common. The WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the material. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC) let me add this is the message i received on my account from Sitush "
Stop icon Your recent editing history at List of Indian Christians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection."
"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. Sitush (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)"
"my response" Nitish.masseyI would say it is the other way round were my material contributions with genuine citations have been edited time and again. i agree that citations are required but most of the names added by me have their independent wikipages/articles with specific reference that they are Christians, I fail to understand then how is this non compliance with the policies.Nitish.massey
People I have seen Sitush activities on wikipedia, you have been sedulously editing a lot of articles/pages on a daily basis most of which are related to caste and religion in India. innuendo being that you are politically motivated. I won't be surprised if you continue in your campaign with a different pseudonym, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
one question are you an authorized wikipedia representative ?? as you have been using the term "our policies" in our aforementioned interactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
people another example of this fake user Stush below is the message I recived on my wikipage
Sanctions alert[edit source] Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"My response"thanks Sitush you fake, i thought you were gone, btw your name figures on the 'wikipedia users who are not wikipedians' better explain that to the arbitration committee and dont ever brandish me these threats in future . Am a qualified lawyer with years of practice, you are functioning of Wikipedia with ill and oblique motives which are biased and past activities qualify for your dismissal besides other legal action after tracing your true identity and IP address. Probably this is the reason you did not dare to post this of the talk page of "list of Indian Christians" Your activities are highly doubtfull and against the very spirit of wikipedia. I have seen your activities in the past however have restrained from taking any action. I call upon you to cease and desist with immediate effect from continuing in such activities in future, failing which i shall be constrained to intimate appropriate remedies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Btw in your past conduct you have been impersonating as an wikipedia administrator/representaive which is enough to take legal actions against you. Therefore treat this as a Serious Matter( a piece of advice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.massey (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not that I am massively scared etc but please see WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hang in there!
It's good to see you back again. I thought you might enjoy this clip, thought to be the first animated film, of the "Humorous Phases of Funny Faces" (1906).—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Carole. I will watch it tomorrow - my alerts doo-dah at the top is flashing like Blackpool Illuminations on speed. It's time for bed! - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Crook
This (p15) is probably of use to you. Glad to see you editing again, it's very quiet around GM these days. J3Mrs (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Saw it a few days ago, then lost it! I did Betty Tebbs last week but, yes, the GM project seems pretty moribund. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm glad I found that article, it was useful to me too. I think Crook Street in Bolton may be named after them but that may just be me. He also lived at Whitebank, now Haslam Park. J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, saw that, too! The problem is that I am spreading myself across too much stuff at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's pretty good for someone who is thinly spread :-) J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Naroo
I was messaged about the deletion of the page Naroo on my User Talk page, but I have never edited that page. Was this an error? noktulo (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. Looks like you created the page as a redirect in 2007. Twinkle notifies the first contributor - see the oldest entry here. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Betty Tebbs
On 8 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Betty Tebbs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English peace campaigner Betty Tebbs was arrested at the age of 89 for participating in anti-Trident protests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Tebbs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Betty Tebbs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the Info
I forgot i am topic banned.
- Ok, no worries. If you can spend some time on other stuff and show that you are abiding by our policies etc then the ban may be lifted. It won't happen soon but it can happen. I think you were misguided when it came to caste stuff etc, rather than malicious. Ask first if in doubt about whether an article might be affected by the ban. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 8 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Tristão de Bragança Cunha page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Illathu nair
hey stop reverting my edits. I was born and bought up in an aristocratic illathu nair family i know much abt their history what i write are facts illathu nairs are kshatriyas of nagavanshi clan and i have sited sorce for it also (akshaypillai 15:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC))