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.

One reason I am not around

Fed up of the professionally offended. The likes of Fae should take note of comments such as those highlighted by Joe Lycett here. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sitush: it has been a while since we chatted. Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about your situation here, and that it is (appearantly?) drawing you away from Wikipedia. I won't try to offer advice unless you want it. For now, just condolences to you. Hopefully you will be able to come back to Wikipedia, because we'll miss you! Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Come back when you feel able and then contribute to the articles/areas you find pleasurable (and feel free to ignore inevitable requests by people like me to "Please take a look..."

).

PS: The breadth of your contributions on wikipedia continue to amaze and amuse. Just now I realized that you are the top-editor to Maratha Empire, with a net contribution of -724 bytes. Knowing the article history those stats deserve a medal! Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to my opening remark, an apt description is here - "much ado being made by the people who make being offended a way of life". I find it tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baisla

Yes in the article some part is copy pasted but I give you different references so what is the problem with you I give different sources for this article so how can you deleted it. If you have any problem with peragraph you can fix it but pls do not delete the whole article.

@Pandey

how are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.68.236 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's

a whole lot of reviews (and some more, which are not mentioned), as to the People of India (ANSI) volumes and I guess that's more than enough to grant a stand-alone article to the series. What do you say? Needless to say, the reviews are almost always negative and highlights on a vast range of issues :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got accused of creating a hit job so backed off a bit. If we opt for standalone then we'll need a dab page and I think it would be odd because the other two uses of the title aren't likely to be much expanded. But I'm basically past caring, so probably not the best person to ask. - Sitush (talk)

That's so sad to hear; you were one of the best editors in these topic areas:-( Accused of creating a hit job -- that's entirely new news for me! I agree about the DAB and the related conundrum. ∯WBG^converse 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy AfD close?

Non-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saranya Bhagyaraj might be dodgy - 2 x delete, 1 x keep, 1 x draft doesn't look like the sort of AfD a non-admin should be closing, whatever the merits of the various comments. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: posted on my talk page letting me know that he had posted here. This seemed to be a pretty clear cut no consensus after being relisted twice and, well, not having a clear cut consensus. I'm open to other opinions. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello Sitush. I hope all is well. As I am sure you are aware, the best place to raise such concerns (about a closer's judgement) is either in discussions with the closer or by filing a deletion review for wider engagement. I have not fully reviewed the close and will comment back here if/when I get the chance (or DRV, should one be filed), but my preliminary judgement is that I don't have an issue with the close.

Sitush, were you referring to WP:NACPIT #3 about NC closes? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor and Dusti: yes, #3 but also #1 in that same section. I'm well aware of DRV, thanks, but am pretty sure that I have raised this issue with Dusti in the past. Basically, unless it is a SNOW situation, I would be extremely circumspect about NACing an AfD. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: My question, I guess, is - if TheSandDoctor had closed this as No Consensus would we be here? I'm not the same editor that I was back in 2013 when we had a discussion about AFD. I would appreciate any feedback that you have, as I'm not attempting to be contentious or hard headed. I do disagree that this would be a dodgy close and I've asked @TheSandDoctor: to review the close and they've agreed that it was no consensus. I agree that not all discussions are appropriate to be closed by me and I've purposefully and pointedly avoided them. In clear cut no consensus cases like this, and in clear cut keep cases, I've gone ahead and processed those. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caste from Personal/Official Websites

Sir, can castes be quoted from personal websites of the subject. This article seems to be using this website for this purpose. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, assuming the site is indeed controlled by the article subject. It would be self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A potential issue with the specific website that you link is that I can find no useful confirmatory data using whois searches, which hide the registrant info etc, and that it has seemingly not been updated for years. The latter seems odd for an active state politician. - Sitush (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

So nice to see you editing, Sitush, and removing so much crap! Bishonen | talk 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I second, third, and fourth that. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idar State - baby with the bathwater

Hello @Sitush: I great admire you as an editor but noticed you recently made wholesale edits on Idar State rolling back - appropriately so - a bunch of poorly sourced changes. However, your changes also have rolled back a bunch of minor edits I and others have made along the way, which you probably would not have an objection to. For example, your rollbacks now again refer to Idar as a princely state, which it was only during the British Raj. In its long history before the Raj, it existed as a sovereign state or in vassalage to other states like Gujarat Sultanate.

When I started working on the article, it was in very poor shape (and it still is) but I decided to make positive, incremental changes. Unfortunately, your wholesale rollback has undid some of my work.

I wouldn't mind if actively-engaged editors made challenges to my edits in somewhat proximity to when I made the edits, so I can discuss and challenge them. However, you seem to have stepped in long after the edits were made, and unrolled a whole bunch of edits including mine and succeeding edits, so that it is hard for me to actually have an pinpointed debate about one or another change.

I am frustrated because I consider myself a reasonable editor and often ask for and accept your advice and that of other editors. However, the nature of indiscriminate edits makes it difficult for me to trace back my edits and separate the good edits from bad edits. It is discouraging me from positively engaging with Idar State.Deccantrap (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deccantrap: please read Census of India prior to independence and note that articles on specific Raj era census operations (1901, 1911 etc) have long since been deleted at AfD for reasons which include those given in that article, ie: not reliable. I haven't been editing for a while and my first major session since then included the Idar article and was inspired by the need to clean up a whole series of Koli-related crap which has been the subject of sock activity etc over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks as always for the informative response @Sitush:. Given that (virtually) all pre-1947 census records are Raj sources, is it WP policy to not use pre-1947 census figures for India? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be "policy" in the Wikipedia sense of the word because WP:RS is a guideline and we're basically using RS as a justification for removing/not using the information. Also, I think if a more recent academic source comments on population statistics from the period then it would be ok to use that as the presumption would be that the writer had used their expertise to ascertain the acceptability of those statistics in that specific case. The caveat with that approach is we really, really must not rely on snippet views in Google Books etc because very often the modern academics qualify their use and that qualification could be several pages distant from where the figure is actually given. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.Deccantrap (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jats

Sir, can this and this be used to support that Virendra Sehwag and Vijender Singh are Jats? They didn't self identify explicitly but said it indirectly. I've removed a lot of entries from List of Jats article added recently by a sockpuppet of User:Dahiya1208. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are jats

First one is fine; I'm not sure about the second because the mention of Jat is not in English. Presumably you can translate the relevant bit? - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijender Singh said "She is also a Jat" referring to Mallika Sherawat. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, that's fine, too. You might want to add the translated quote to the citation. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my reading skills

Do you see anything over this source that supports :- Washuta says she is praised for her numerous essays such as " How Much Indian Was I? My Fellow Student Asked". ? ∯WBG^converse 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the above stuff was incorporated by a sysop who transformed a violation of WP:INTEGRITY to a clear violation of WP:BLP.

And, non-surprisingly it's (again) the Twitter-route to article. ∯WBG^converse 19:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another former committee member of WMUK. Another about whom there was a huge uproar. Co-founder of WiR, I think. But we all make mistakes. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]