Jump to content

User talk:Sitush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fleets (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 18 August 2017 (→‎Talkback: request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Jag är Ikea.
This user stands with Sweden.
Je suis Ikea.

... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Neutral parties on Bengal famine of 1943?

Hello Sitush.

I have no recollection at all how I started working on Bengal famine of 1943. I grew up in suburban US in a rural state, and all of my relatives are very rural 'Muricans. I don't give a flying hoot about the Raj. If anything at all... I can come clean and confess to being obsessively perfectionist (in many but not all cases; sometimes I DGAF, esp. for pop culture crap) about Wikipedia. I probably have lost friends because of it, in fact.

I spent a year rewriting Bengal famine of 1943 because it was massively POV horse manure. I made a half-completed list of all the POV aspects, and even half done, it was distressing. Huge aspects never even mentioned, etc. That list is given on the MilHist try I think.

I acknowledge that I perceive Fowler&Fowler to be an admitted pro-British POV editor because of this comment: "This is in part because BFo1943 is only obliquely military history. In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility."

F&F has already asserted that he thinks I worked in userspace to protect a POV.

Are there any very experienced and very neutral editors who can help satisfy F&F's demands that the article must be checked?

Having said all that, I have to confess: I very clearly believe (and invite you to consider the possibility) that there are exactly three forums in the whole of Wikipedia that even come close to being equipped to handle this article. Those three forums are WP:FAC, WP:FAC, and WP:FAC. GA? Please. PR? Well, yeah, in theory, but in practice it is undermanned. It is designed to be of lesser quality than FAC. MILHIST? Same as PR, plus A- level reviewers are all at FAC already anyhow... In FAC people have to stow away their POV, and the best reviewers in Wikipedia congregate at FAC. I would be quite content for the article to sit three or four months in FAC, if that's what it takes...

Sigh. I give up; I forgot that you already said at Bish's page that you don't have a good view of the article. Cheers; I'll go bang my head against a wall at WT:FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(t

On walled gardens

Responding to your comment at ANI. The walled gardens are created by threatening, blocking, and insulting the users who call out their policy violations. See my talk page for an example of what they do to an ordinary person who follows the rules and asks that the rules be followed: defamatory insults, blocks without any policy justification, non-policy excuses to ignore unblock requests, revocation of talk page access as punishment for appealing, and citing their own abuses of policy as grounds to further abuse a user.

It turns out that there is a paid PR organization linked directly to Democratic Party campaign operatives, the mattress hoax, Feminist Frequency, the transgender movement, and executives of several media companies whose reliability is not questioned on Wikipedia. They make up such a large chunk of the WMF that no one wants to deal with the problem. Not coincidentally, someone with a history of paid editing was involved in the creation of a vanity page for one of the Gamergate principals before Gamergate happened. This group has probably been responsible for all of the political fights on Wikipedia over the past several years. Remember the fight over the Frankfurt School? Some of this group's media executives graduated from the Frankfurt School. Can't have the encyclopedia say anything bad about it. And so on. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF, or at least a sizeable chunk of its current and recent past employees, do appear to have a socio-political agenda on Wikipedia and they engage in some dubious practises to that end, often under the guise of "education". However, I have looked at your talk page and cannot really fault the blocks, nor do wild claims of paid editing and shared educational background assist you. You may be right but without evidence ...
Further, while I am not massively familiar with all of the people who posted on your talk, I am familiar with some of them, can assure you that those people are not WMF acolytes, and indeed that some have expressed at times a rather jaundiced opinion regarding the on-wiki activities of WMF-associated people. For the avoidance of doubt, I will provide an example as evidence of my own claim about the activities of WMF associates here later today. People may disagree with it but it will contain links, diffs etc.. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say you don't see fault in my being blocked for calling for a topic ban of someone who said Wikipedia should actively keep out conservatives who read Breitbart, a Jewish news site which was wrongly slandered, and for saying that the site meets Wikipedia's RS standards. How long would someone last who says Wikipedia should keep out liberals who read the New York Times? How many Wikipedians have had their comments deleted, been called a troll, and been blocked for saying that the New York Times meets Wikipedia's RS standards? The partisan difference in standards is the problem. The taking of sides is the problem.
Most of the evidence of the PR ring is on sites that you're not allowed to link to from here and naming names would a BLP violation, but they have designed a pipeline to insert disinformation into Wikipedia by producing fake news and fake academic research and feeding it to Wikipedians who hype the "reliability" of their fringe academic and recently-sold establishment media sources. The team is full of top Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and Dean online campaign staff spread across several universities, includes several members of the WMF board or close relatives, includes a past employer of one of the core staff of Feminist Frequency, includes a member of the organization behind the university mattress hoax, includes members of the PR agency Open Society Institute which works for the Democratic Party and multiple governments, includes an executive of the Democratic Party activist group Color of Change, and so on. Take note of the contributions of one person who the offsite evidence accuses of being a member of this team. If you follow the drama boards, they have been caught repeatedly and the same group of longtime editors and admins come in to defend them and get rid of whoever was in their way. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WMF involvement

Here is a start - I will be adding to it.

In 2015, there was an ANI thread regarding the dreadful unintended consequences of activity relating to "Dalit History Month", an event publicised by "Dalit History Matters Collective" at Round Table India (nothing to do with Round Table (club) or similarly-named stuff - it is an activists' website). Inter alia, that announcement mentions

we will also be hosting the first Dalit-led Wikipedia hackathon at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). We felt such an intervention was necessary as the status of Dalit History on Wikipedia is dismal. What little articles exist are often badly written and reflect Savarna or White supremacist cis-heteropatriarchal points of view that are presented as neutral perspectives. Our goal then is help address this gap through our historic push to raise the visibility of Dalit authored and Dalit written articles in Wikipedia as well begin to collect all of the various Dalit History articles into one easily accessible page.

It ended up as a mess, a real big mess.

Some time around the last quarter of 2016, Anasuyas and Seeko (aka Siko) began publicising their "Whose Knowledge" initiative - "a global campaign working with individuals, communities, organisations and movements worldwide to create, collect and curate knowledge from and with marginalised communities, particularly women, people of colour, LGBTQI communities, indigenous peoples and others from the global South." Anasuyas is a former Chief Grantmaking Officer of the WMF and she created and headed the Grantmaking department (now Community Engagement); Siko has been WMF Director of Community Resources and led the team of grantmakers and community organizers there (see here). The project is in part funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation, of which Anasuyas became a Fellow this year. It also seems to have funding from the WMF itself.

So to the 2017 incarnation of Dalit History Month as seen on Wikipedia. Just bear in mind that anything connected to Dalits is subject to not one but two sanctions regimes - WP:ARBIPA and WP:GS/Caste. It is not an ideal environment for new contributors.

On 20 March 2017, Siko created Wikipedia:Meetup/Dalit History Month 2017. Anasuyas began updating the page a week or so later, and then the next two contributions were sign-ups from Kaldari and Ocaasi. Zhengan began editing it in mid-April. All three of these additional contributors work for the WMF - there must've been lots of chatting going on around the water-cooler! The page says the projects were being organised by Equality Labs with support from Whose Knowledge. Despite the issues raised in 2015, there was no identified co-ordinator, nor was the India WikiProject informed. Apparently, the WMF are not involved in the "campaign" (Ocaasi) - could have fooled me.

Problems soon emerged - the same old problems, in fact. I didn't spot them for a while because I was pretty much absent from Wikipedia at the time. I think my first realisation of it came in this thread.

Categorising

One thing that seems not to have been understood is that we do not categorise people by caste anyway - see User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. A particularly stunning contribution in this regard is that of Ocaasi, who seems to want to run a steamroller through long-established consensus just to ensure that a great wrong is righted.

Of course, WP:BLPCAT was ignored also: the categories mentioned above have been applied to articles even where the Dalit status was unsourced, let alone not self-identified. And overcategorisation was rife, eg: here.

BLPs

  • Before dealing with BLP issues other than the aforementioned BLPCAT, I'll just mention Kaldari's affront to an entire community - it wasn't sourced and was plain wrong, and their comments in the Bahujan cat discussion mentioned above suggest that they still do not understand the terminology. That sort of thing has been known to cause riots in India.

Copyvio

  • Examples: [1], [2], [3]. These problems, like many of the others, have continued after DHM ended but the lesson should have been imparted at the time.

General

  • Two or three months on, early recruitees were still doing things like this and this.
  • Eshwari Bai developed a huge number of problems from April, caused by one of the recruitees. Eg: they had added some info that I had to remove as not in the source that they provided.
  • Articles such as Death of Merit have been created but their notability is dubious.

Responsibility

It is no-one's responsibility, apparently. It's operated by a collective, has no co-ordinator (unlike most large-ish collaborations and school projects etc) and is all about "education". Apparently, if we adhere to policies etc, one WMF staffer thinks we are reinforcing the caste structure. All of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Dalit History Month 2017, along with a comment from a full-on WMF account, ie: acting in an official capacity. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rampa Rebellion of 1922

Nice work on this article.

I was wondering if you know whether the British Army was stationed there well before the 1922 uprising. I discovered British actress Mary Hignett was born in Madras in 1916. Her father, Horace Arthur Du Cane Hignett, was a Captain in the British Army. - NewTestLeper79 talk 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still reading up on it but I haven't seen anything to suggest the army was there in any significant numbers. I'll keep an eye out for you, though. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the source for the Hignett claim is (a) useless and (b) no actually verifying the content. I presume you have seen the info elsewhere? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in contact with her nephew. Will have more sources forthcoming. - NewTestLeper79 talk 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudesleeper: if something better doesn't turn up soon, that article is likely to be stubbed. We can't use WikiTree as a source, nor is it likely that anything her nephew supplies could be used unless he is pointing us towards a reliable secondary source. Family documents etc are unlikely to make the grade. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Basically heaven in a cookie. Enjoy. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FreeBMD

Hi,

Thanks for your message. I agree it should be used with caution, and if theres any ambiguity or I don't have an independent source to support the index entry, I leave the DOB out.

In Burdell's case, we know his place of birth and what age he was when he died, and there is only one "Robert Burdell" in the entire index, which appears to be complete up until the 1960s/70s, so I don't think I am making any assumptions here. I don't doubt there may be errors, but I've been on here long enough to notice that most so-called reliable sources are far from perfect.

I did a search after you reverted to see if there had been any previous discussions on using this a source, but all I could find were concerns about using them in BLPs. Should we really be holdings articles like this to the same standard? J Mo 101 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why we shouldn't hold them to the same standard. Here's an extreme hypothetical: Burdell was born to someone else, some time else, and adopted. That sort of thing, particularly at the time in question, would often be hushed up. More prosaically, I don't think precise d.o.b. information adds anything of much use to most readers - it is "nice" but not vital.
I haven't looked at FreeBMD for a few months now but the last time I did there were still huge gaps and, indeed, they had a progress page that showed the extent of completion by decade or something similar. And, FWIW, at least two of my relatives were mistranscribed (verified by reference to the certificate in both cases, and in one case to the GRO index itself). - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I'm not really here right now, but I noticed this...). As someone who has done a lot of genealogy research, I have to say finding an entry in the births index is not sufficient to identify a person, not even if there is only one entry for the name. Some possible reasons include 1) As Sitush suggests, born to one person and raised as another person's child, 2) Formal adoption, 3) Current 'known' age is wrong (you need a birth record to be sure, which makes it circular), 4) Current 'known' place of birth is wrong (again, you need the birth record to be sure), 5) Born with a different name - he might have been known as Robert/Bob all his life, but actually born/baptised Arthur. Or he might have been born as "Arthur Robert..." and be on the index as Arthur R Burdell, 6) His birth might not have been registered at all ... All of these possibilities come up regularly in genealogy research, and there are plenty more sources of errors - in genealogy, you should never assumed an index entry is who you are looking for without at least getting a copy of the actual birth record (addition: Even that would not be sufficient for Wikipedia if it was tracked down by an editor's own primary research). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really here right now, but I noticed this Spooky! Thanks, Boing. I've experienced a lot of the situations you mention and one or two others also (eg: the child of one relative died in infancy and the next male child born to the couple was given a name identical to the one who had died). - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your example, ahem, trumps mine. It is gems like that which enliven the slog through genealogical cross-referencing etc. BTW, while at Cambridge I was acquaintances with a member of the Pine-Coffin family. His father had translated various books for the Penguin Classics series. For the best example of nominative determinism, I have somewhere a clipping from the Manchester Evening News about the transfer of a speedway biker from a club in Sheffield to Belle Vue Aces - his name was Hugh Skidmore. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's bad. Perhaps nowadays they've gone too far the other way but back then, they weren't exactly imaginative in naming people. Weirdly, the Ford/Kelly (maternal) side of my tree was much easier to sort out than the paternal side which, as Boing knows, is a rather more unusual surname. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own surname, as you know, is also unusual - but the earliest one in Liverpool was called John, and there are dozens of possible matches back where the surname originated. My quickest brick wall. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Derryberry. That's my all-time favorite last name in my family research. The favorite first name is "Greenberry" - you'd think it'd be EASY to trace a guy with the given name "Greenberry" but... no, we can't find his parents .... he hatched from an egg is my current theory. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Askin

FreeBMD is not a primary source, it is a transcription of an index. Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second person in a few days from the rugby league project who has claimed this and who has decided to come here with their comment rather than continuing the thread I opened on their own talk page. That's odd.
Anyway, you're wrong, sorry. See the thread immediately above. There is going to have to be a big clean up and we will in future have to be vigilant that we do not cite other online sources that have mirrored our original research. - Sitush (talk)
  • A copy of a primary source in a different medium (which is all the FreeBMD transcripton is) is still a primary source. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (see WP:SECONDARY) - FreeBMD provides none of that. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I realised that, thanks, but plenty watch this page. I could take it to RSN but they don't like dealing with generalised points nowadays, and DRN will only do it on a per-article basis. There are hundreds of rugby league articles with the same problem. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it needs an RFC to address the hundreds of articles - at the very least, I'd take this one to WP:ANEW given the insistence on edit warring and apparent 3RR gaming, below. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, I don't think it does need an RFC - it's blatant OR and can be removed on sight, though it might need admin eyes as it appears that our friend below is going to battle over this. Anyway, I'll be back to my admin account next week, so we can talk further then. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you're wrong, I'm not sorry. The primary source is the certificate of birth/marriage/death, or the registrars entry into the register… NOT a typed transcription of a scan of hard copy index. I'm not warring, I'm reverting your nonsensical edit, an I suggest you desist from reverting my correction. Scant regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"no need to template me, by the way. I am aware that I am at the 3RR limit" see you next Tuesday DynamoDegsy (talk)
If I had my admin access, you would now be blocked for edit warring to re-insert WP:OR from primary sources. The BMD registers (which comprise the indexes and the individual entries) are the primary sources, and FreeBMD is just a copy of the indexes - and that makes it still the same primary source. I've already given you the description of what constitutes a secondary source as required by Wikipedia (and in this case, it might be, for example, a reliable publication by someone who had done the BMD research properly and had published it). As I see it, you have a choice - stop edit warring and seek consensus, or be blocked (as will surely be the result if you are reported to WP:ANEW). Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sent it to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Aww bless… U OK hun[reply]
Seems wise - get a consensus asap. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a week. I can't see any message I could send to him that would not be responded with the suggestion that I self-fornicate, so that's the only option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Things escalated very quickly there, I'm afraid. I don't usually report PA stuff to ANI. I'm not going to close the report there myself because I suspect it might irk them further. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; as you probably know I don't normally block, and certainly not for what superficially appears to be a cool down block, but I take your claim that he's trampled over a load of BLPs seriously, and that needs time to look at without him getting in the way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I said they were BLPs. The couple I looked at were dead people but I suppose with 1600 articles using FreeBMD there is a reasonable chance some will be BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A more likely scenario is a relative complains along the lines of "You said my father / grandfather / uncle etc. was born in 'x', he was not he was born in 'y' why can't you get your facts right?" Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Good point. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party but looking up someone in some genealogical index and assuming that just because of a similar name that they are the person you're looking for is pretty much the definition of WP:Original research. Just because some entity has compiled their own index from other indexes does not make it a secondary source by our definitions. (It wouldn't be a secondary source by historians definitions either...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't even compiled their own index from other indexes - it's just a computer typed-up copy of the original indexes. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1600 articles? Ever get that feeling that you're sorry you got involved in something? Actually, I can understand someone's frustration if they've been doing a large amount of FreeBMD research in good faith and they suddenly face the prospect of having it all removed - but the response is not acceptable. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, can appreciate the frustration. What I don't understand is how someone started here in 2008 and was adding this sort of thing many years later. They appear to be very subject-centric so I can only assume that the WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY pages have never been raised in discussions that they have seen. There's another potential issue, too, alas - I've just raised that one at RSN. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt all 1600+ relate to rugby league but a spot check suggests that a lot do. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I shifted a small number yesterday and then thought better of it, so stopped. I am concerned about piling on the agony but at some point it will have to be cleaned up. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think it's wise to let things cool down a bit first, but it does indeed need to be cleaned up. The trouble is, I feel sure it's going to be disputed and I wonder if it might help to get a clear community consensus first - but that would generate more drama, and I'm really not in the mood for it right now. The other issue, which you touched on, is that we really could do with getting all this fixed before too many other sites mirror it. Anyway, I'm on a flight back to the UK this weekend, so I'm not going to think too much about it before next week now. Boing! on Tour (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your constant monitoring of activity on Kamma (caste) and many other pages AltruismT a l k - Contris. 16:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Altruism. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama the name

Hi, do you have any opinion on the content at Gautam (given name). Much of it looks like the usual caste shlock but still... – Uanfala 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty awful to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice...

Do you have any idea about whether References 10 to 18 are suitable as things currently stand at Dhananjoy Chatterjee.You may also wish to comment about this revision of mine executed in a set of edits.Cheers:)Winged Blades Godric 09:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY. We're not qualified to interpret legal stuff, nor even assess its correctness. The diff for your edit shows a commendable de-cluttering and attempt to produce something that is encyclopaedic in tone - that's got to be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And, so, I am removing the entire data along with the refs.Will try to source some of it to media reports et al!Winged Blades Godric 07:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balija dynasties

Balija dynasty sources are baseless and not even accepted by Indian government records. Kaifiats are not bases to make a theory. Millikat (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balija dynasties

Irshick cited Kaifiat as a source which is not accepted anywer. There r many Kaifiats written by fake people. Government of India dismissed kaifiats as sources. How can it be encyclopedic Millikat (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irschick is a recognised authority. As such, he is deemed to be capable of deciding which sources are suitable for use and which are not. We should generally avoid primary sources but there is no reason why an expert academic should do the same - it is their expertise that we rely on when we use their publications as secondary sources.
If Irschick mentions a primary source and qualifies it in some way then, obviously, we have to reflect Irschick's intrepretation and use of it. For example, if he cited the Mahabharata for something then almost certainly he would note somewhere that the Mahabharata can be a problematic source for fact (indeed, it is mostly fiction) ... and thus so would we. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on finding sources

Hi, i'm drafting an article here on Singikulam village in Tamil Nadu. I'm finding it difficult to disambiguate 'Singikulam', 'Singikulam (New)' and 'Singikulam (old) however. The village appears to have originally been 'Singikulam' then the population sprawled/migrated and bifurcated. Got any idea how i can find a source for the bifurcation? I have thought about getting a broad idea of when it happened from censuses pre-2001 but i don't know how to access those. Any ideas or help would be appreciated. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going off the notes at the top of your draft, I think that old/new thing might just be an administrative convenience for the census enumerators etc. No-one else seems to be using it and what's the betting there is a road or something dividing the two parts.
The only post-independence census info that I know of that is online and before 2001 is a set of reports from 1961. I can't usually see them but people in India seem to be able to view them on Google Books. I'm not even sure if it is data as such because they seem to be used to support background information about which castes do what and where they live, usually copied from British Raj ethnographies.
There is someone who does quite a lot of work on places in India, taking articles to GA status etc. However, I'm blowed if I can remember who it is. Their name might come back to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that administrative convenience idea sounds very plausible. I guess i'll do some more work then create the 'Singikulam' article. I'm weary of adding the 2011 census data info as i can't yet prove the provenance of the new/old areas; whether it does indeed derive from the former 'Singikulam' designation or not despite etymological similarity. I'll have a look for that 1961 report. I had luck in the past with 'The Imperial Gazetteer of India' for finding population data on Bellary but i wasn't getting anywhere this time. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazetteer isn't good. See Census of India prior to independence. (Caveat: that's basically my work.) - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight, i just read the article. I can see how provinces (perhaps rural or in famine) would suffer from coverage issues and that data on personal attributes would be fraught with flaws but would it be fair to say that the population totals for accessible major towns and cities are still usable? Cesdeva (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the boundaries have probably changed and the methodology was inconsistent, so comparatives might be misleading. It's up to you, really. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Urban sprawl as a variable isn't factored in enough in my opinion. There often seems to be bias towards population totals without regard to boundary change, i know i'm guilty. Infoboxes however allow automatic population density calculation so why it's not a default option for wiki tables i don't know. Thanks for the help, i'll give you some peace now! Cesdeva (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayaks sources

Nayaks were kings belonging to 14th century. Eugene defined caste of Nayaks in 20th century. There are no caste system during Nayaks rule. Eugene defined caste of Nayaks out of imagination. Eugene quoted kelsals ballary district manual as source. Kelsals manual doesn't give clarity about nayaks caste. That is y Indian government records doesn't accept these theories. This must not be encyclopedic. Nayaks doesn't anywer mentioned their caste on their own nor any contemporary sources. Useless baseless source eugene Millikat (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you in a section above. If you are still going to persist regarding this, I think you need to raise the issue at the article talk pages and see if you can gain consensus for your removals of what, prima facie, appears to be reliably sourced information. A read of the info at WP:OR might also be useful for you. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any image experts watching?

File:A._Atkinson_-_Castleford.jpg is used at Arthur Atkinson (rugby league) under the terms of our NFCC. It's a nice, clear, colourful image but it is cartoon-ish. There are black-and-white head-and-shoulder photos of him in contemporary newspapers which are nothing like as good in quality but do have the benefit of actually being the man rather than an artist's impression that borders on caricature. The newspapers are from the 1930s, so ultimately NFCC would apply to them also.

The problem I face in trying to get a discussion going about this is two-fold. Firstly, I'd need to upload one of the photos to demonstrate the point and that would presumably fall foul of some policy because we already have one available for him. Secondly, if I upload the photo then I might be in breach of UK copyright law, even though if someone in the US did so there would not be a problem.

Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a hard-copy/scanned copy of an image that is not available on the Internet?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the web but behind a subscription site - British Newspaper Archive. I have screencaptured the photo (I just grabbed one from one news story but there are several knocking around). The quality really isn't anything like as good but it is him and not some 1930s equivalent of Photoshopping. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is uploading to imgur (or some other image bucket) and then deleting the image after a couple of days not something that you want (to have) to do? How about the photo here? It is large enough for an infobox.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done that, thanks, although it potentially lands me in trouble re: copyright. I'm not sure if the link works for public viewing but have asked someone to check. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mushika Kingdom

Hi, I see that you've had recent dealings with Animech.79. Please cast an eye towards Mushika Kingdom when you get a moment. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mattlore (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on flags at the rls template

Hello there. I seem to recall you being quie au fait with a few procedures here. Specifically with RFC could I ask the best route to go, I know you have given me advice on the binary side, but would it be best as a

  • Resolution noticeboard (Request)
  • Get a third opinion (Request)
  • Request comments (Request)
  • Formal mediation (Request)

Having never done it before I would want to bring a swift, and rounded result, as I've committed to setting something up, but that doesn't good enough for everyone. Just looking for a little assistance to bring a proper resolution to the flags question. Warm regards.Fleets (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&oldid=796148286"