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 Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 8 August 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Eyes please

Many of these contributions seem to me to be questionable with regard to Caste. Warned in this diff Fiddle Faddle 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Urvashi Rautela, I have cited a You Tube address which describe her caste and in an interview over [[Padmavat[Film]]] when Swara Bhaskar wrote a letter on it she said that she is a Rajput.
Not every time I am wrong and you should watch that You Tube video first before deleting my information.
Thanks Hope you would understand and reply me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrapahal Pahanswan (talkcontribs) 17:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have, say, 100 edits and you got one right, it isn't much to applaud, sorry. You were doing circular references and your YouTube links are often dubious - minor Indian news channels not in English etc. Nothing against non-English sources but given that you are in any case a Rajput caste warrior, I'm not wading through full videos from poor outlets looking for the 10 seconds that verify what you claim. One of your other sources there was a circular reference to Rautela and I think you know that is not acceptable but, as with the self-identification example I have raised on your talk page, you pick the rules to suit your occasion. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so please help me how can I put someone caste, family and personal detail as many a time I have given citation from big sites such as The Economics Times and BBC News till it was deleted by users such as NitinMlk. I am also an Indian and you are such an honoured guy, so please help me how to give citation while describing someone's caste, race, personal life etc. Yours Truly Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, First the person must; self-identify as a member of that Caste. Second, the reference must show that they are self identifying. Third, the reference must be in WP:RS. Fourth, it must have direct relevance to the article, not just naming the caste for the sake of naming it.
It is far easier to give this caste warrior role of yours up. A great many editors watch out for caste warriors Fiddle Faddle 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One question that if a caste of a politician is described by a link Up vidhansbha members information. Will it be considered valid as it is the official site of Uttar Pradesh government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrapahal Pahanswan (talkcontribs) 08:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Races and Mahar regiment

Mahar classified as martial during world war I same as Maratha. They continued to serve as soldiers and they even demanded separate regiment for themselves and got the one in 1914. Recruitment only use to happen whey the cast is classified as martial and many bristish officers before world war I supported Mahars Martial claim British had to recognize it in 1914. Do some research before editing

In Mahar Regiment you are writing derogatory sentences against mahar regiment try to read the sources and regarding global security as source most of the mahar regiments content come from that source we had discussions with other administrators so stop your disruptive editing. Raje Ranveer (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being classed as an "agricultural tribe" and a "martial race", although the two became de facto synonymous by the 1920s. Similarly, there is a difference between being recruited to the army and being a martial race. The sources you have shown show recruitment but not classification, and they make clear that the recruitment was for a very short period and in extremis because the Brits needed more soldiers to fight in the later stages of World War I. The Mahars were among those temporarily accepted into the army, then dropped after the war ended. It was not until around 1941 that they were successful in gaining official recognition as a part of the army when the Mahar Regiment was created - I am not sure that the "martial race" classification even existed by that point as I think the entire scientific racism corpus had largely fallen into disrepute. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: Here and here ... and loads of others. - Sitush (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
He is a good and Friendly user with good record on Wkipedia. Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i was wondering if you could help me edit a sentence that i'm struggling with. Is the sentence meant to imply that the later deccan sultanates revolted? It reads like the governor lived for 200+ years and created several sultanates.

"A governor of the Tughlaq for the Deccan revolted and created the independent Bahamani sultanate and later the various Deccan sultanates rulers between 1400 and early 1600s."

I'm asking you because i know you're good at these edits. Thanks Zindor (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, sorry. It is a very confusing statement and I cannot see the source. Would it be possible to locate an alternate source? The one used dates from 1945 and I imagine there is something much more recent, eg: John F. Richards wrote a volume on the Mughal Empire. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just remembered that I have a copy of the Richards book here. I will look now. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no need to bother. Backtrack through the history and look at, say, this version. I think that makes sense. My suspicion is it became mangled subsequently, probably during edit wars. If you want me to dig around for better sources, I can try. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, that makes sense now. I'll try and find a more accessible source, although i'm not much of an academic. Thank you again, Zindor (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Zindor I can also email you a pdf of a few pages from doi:10.1017/9781108680530 which sets the scene quite nicely. I think Richard Eaton's Social History of the Deccan probably covers things in more detail and may specifically mention Pune but I don't think I ever bought that one; if I did, it is buried in a box somewhere rather than on my shelves (far too many books here - hence, they're stacked up the treads of my staircase etc). - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I empathise about the collecting of books, but i can't say i've ever had them going down the stairs! I used to have a good amount, but after several international moves i've been left wondering where all my books have gone. The Richard Eaton book looked interesting so i've ordered a copy. I'll let you know what i find out. If you could email that pdf that would be very kind of you. Thank you, Zindor (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use the "Email this user" in menu at left to drop me an email, then I can send the pdf. If you don't have an email address for Wikipedia use, you may want to set one up in your Preferences (top right of page) - that way you can abandon it if someone starts playing silly beggars. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Gadgil's source presently cited at the article is available at the site of its publisher, i.e. GIPS: click at the link under "View/Open" of this page. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)#[reply]
Thanks User:NitinMlk; unfortunately the cited page doesn't support the prose concerning us. Previously the text had a gazetteer citation but i'm not inclined to read or use that. Zindor (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zindor, the content in question was added in the following edits by the same editor: [1] & [2]. So you can ask them about the source used by them. If they fail to provide any reliable source, feel free to remove the content. I am not pinging them here as it would be better to discuss it at the article's talk page. Note that they have already changed the content yesterday with this edit. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One moment please.

Hi...I wrote an article called Triveni Sangh. ..as i saw it in red....in a number of articles.Also it is Bihar related and i had certain ideas about it so ....i explored and did it.But now it is resting in Afc for a long time and date for review is increasing day by day.....last time it was within 7 weeks and now it is within 8 weeks.When i talked to an administrator. ....he asked me to request any person who knows better in the area to which my article belongs.As you are involved in editing these sort of articles.....can you help ??? Also.....at that time my account was not autoconfirmed.......so can i move that article to Wikipedia mainspace now ....by myself.?....Must reply thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:. I've moved the article to Triveni Sangh for you.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.....I was hopeless after nearly half a month.....but because of u its finally in the mainspace.🙏🙏🙏 Heba Aisha (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Nai caste

[1]

This is the caste of kings who upgraded their profession to the sacred art of haircutting. Ritually ranked the highest. VOT 2H1 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Moore, EP (1990). He who owns the stick owns the buffalo. University of California.
Thanks. I thought you had sorted it out but I see that Cluebot reverted you. I will look at it later today. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't tell from snippet view but, from experience, this sounds unlikely. You would have to provide me with copies of, say, pp 77-80 via email or Dropbox or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word Nai means nyaayi one who does justice that is the King himself. Nai also use the brahmin title sharma and thakur, so they are the highest now as per wikipedia. Haircutting is their sacred profession, like the barberians of Europe. Use your brain. VOT 2H1 (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But due to propaganda and jealousy of lower castes who are not allowed the sacred profession of haircutting, society wrongly considers the Nai as shudra. If Nai are shudra in India then baberians are slaves in Europe. VOT 2H1 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Someone said the same recently. Do you know them? - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was Sam.Johnanderson (talk · contribs) who was pushing this ridiculous puffery back then. They were blocked for a month by Bishonen on 2 July. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember which ancient book said that but the Nai are given the status of crow, one of the most reverend animals. It says, "chidiyo me nau-a, admiyo me kau-a", which means like the crow is the king of animals, the Nai is the king of humans. Do you need more proof. You can quote me. VOT 2H1 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sacred art of haircutting"? My dead was a hairdresser-- does that count?

Alas I am not a socket of Sam. If that is what you were suggestioning. VOT 2H1 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the person whos dead was a hairdresser,yes it counts. You should continue the tradition. VOT 2H1 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not me! This is someone else Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with what they are saying! Fully supporting them. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush - please now read this; https://m.facebook.com/DalitDefenceForce/posts/451962898312320 I hope this evidence enables me to re add what I added before, but to prevent me getting blocked again I’m just asking your permission to check whether or not this source now matches what I’ve been trying to explain to you and you’re just not understanding. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The king caste is the Kshatriyas clan. I’m sure you should know that. Please let me know about whether or not this evidence can be added to what I said. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence: https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=866034620141616&id=678969278848152 Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this does still not support what I’m trying to say then I’m sorry and I won’t be editing on this page from today. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I will apologise for all the spam. I won’t be editing this page with this information again and commit these types of mistakes, but from what I’ve found online I still think it is relevant, but anyways bye! Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me modern sources for Baji Rao I

Please provide me modern sources for Baji Rao I, so that I can improve the article. Mahusha (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it really isn't my subject area. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soomra

Do you regard the following as a reliable source: "Encyclopaedia of Ismailism" by Mumtaz Ali Tajddin https://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclopaedia_of_Ismailism.html?id=-VswAAAAYAAJ

The full text is available at Ismaili.net 2600:1012:B047:2CE3:88AE:E10F:1526:8CF3 (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, sorry. There are a lot of niche encyclopaedia out there, often published by obscure outfits. I've never heard of this book, publisher or author/editor but then again I've never really delved into the detail of Ismailism (literally, I know it exists and that's about it!). As a rule, we should prefer secondary sources but perhaps ask at the article talk page and if you either get no response there or you cannot get consensus then there is always WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the bigger problem with the Soomra dynasty article is I think people have been using snippet views from Google Books - if they cannot see the full page and surrounding pages, they should not be citing it. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there unfortunately are not many great sources for the Soomra since it is quite an obscure topic (lets be real), but I added some page numbers that were tagged. What is your opinion of the order of "History of India" and "History of Pakistan" infoboxes on the right hand side of the page? It previously just showed the Pakistan box, which I had added. A few months ago, the India box was added, but placed above the Pakistan one.

I personally don't think the order of boxes should be alphabetical, but instead should be determined by which areas were most influenced by the page topic. The Soomra were a dynasty in Sindh, and whose rules appear to have been largely limited to land in what is today's Pakistan. Further, the Soomra are not even listed in the History of India infobox - probably because they were of marginal importance. They are listed on the Pakistan box though.2600:1012:B047:2CE3:88AE:E10F:1526:8CF3 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an example of the (often subtle) nationalism that infests ancient history articles etc for the subcontinent, and by extension many of the templates also. The arguments are varied:
  • Pakistan did not exist as an entity, so the dynasty can't be part of Pakistan's history and should not even be in the template, let alone the template be in the article
  • It clearly relates to a region that is now in Pakistan and likely to be of more interest to people with an interest in Pakistan
  • India did not exist as an entity because the subcontinent back then was a mass of competing dynastic territories, there was no working concept of nationhood as such
  • Alphabetical order in theory takes the heat out of things but, equally, there are situations when it can appear absurd. (Another example of this would be religion ordered as "Christianity, Islam" when 95% of whatever population it is are Muslim.)
Since WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be based on policy, not "votes", there seems to be a distinct black hole in our policies relating to these matters and especially so when it comes to articles where nationalism is likely to be rife - assuming an equal proportion of active Wikipedians from two countries, and assuming that nationalism is rife (which it is), the country with a population of 1.2 billion is always going to "win" a straight vote against one with 210 million in the absence of some sort of policy.
Simply removing both templates solves the problem but arguably also does the reader a dis-service because they may want to trawl through related articles. Creating a new template for {{History of the Indian subcontinent}} just moves the problem because (a) that entity is ill-defined (Afghanistan? etc) and (b) people in Pakistan object to the weight implied by the word Indian.
There are days when I find all this fighting very tiresome but somehow we have to make a judgement. I will ping Utcursch and Doug Weller here because they may have thoughts. (The article is Soomra dynasty but, as I've just suggested, the issue is much broader.) - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. The nationalist issues are clearly evidenced at Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan. Quelle surprise! - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you really expressed what I was thinking (but in a much more concise and crystallized manner).

It's pretty obvious that the Mound Builders were not part of the history of the United States of America. Or that Roman Britain wasn't part of the history of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Having said that, I see we have Ancient India which is actually about " pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent." That really needs a rename, although I don't think that 1946 would qualify as ancient. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Although I seem to be wrong, it looks as though that's the name many reliable sources use, I missed the rename discussion last month. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, on that basis {{History of Pakistan}} should not be referring to much that happened before partition other than perhaps events that crossed over the period such as the independence movement itself. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it all depends on whether you're talking about the the country itself, the people, the geographical entity. Is it political history, regional history, anthropological history, etc... I certainly think of British history as covering all of those aspects and more, and I guess I'd say the same about Pakistan. If I wanted to know about the history of Pakistan from an academic viewpoint, I'd certainly want to know about the history of its peoples and their origins before the state itself came into existence - about the history of the place that is now called Pakistan. Same regarding India - I'd certainly want to know what was there before the British arrived. I generally think "history" should be broadly construed, but it's especially hard when nationalism rears its ugly head. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's the nationalism bit that causes all of the aggravation. Without that, no-one would really care and, yes, "broadly construed" would work nicely. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article for eyes please

Please see Varya Rajput and Chaudharies of Ambota. I thnk this is one for your care. Fiddle Faddle 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent number one, pop pickers!

I'd really like to know what tune it's meant to follow. Any ideas? I tried, err, a couple, but am at a loss... ——Serial 13:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay

In the interest of keeping the peace, you might want to avoid 'em. Just sayin'. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No intention of going back to that thread. Just shows how out of touch they are: don't understand CU, can't spot an obvious troll, don't understand the issues regarding throwing around sock accusations, seemingly cannot geolocate and, without wanting to blow my own trumpet, seem to be completely oblivious of what I've done for the last > decade or, indeed, just how many admins I regularly interact with. The attitude and blase-ness (?) regarding the role is a stain on the work that many decent admins do. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'm willing to cut colleagues some slack. We're only human. But the lack of awareness. As far as tool use goes, it's been said that even once a year is a net positive. In this case, even that is questionable. Gah, every time I get the shakes looking at backlogs, I'll think of him. FWIW, I'd support you, but RFA has become deplorable. In a way, we miss out on good new admins because users are leary because of admins like him Gah. Net negative. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Deepfriedokra, the lack of awareness has just jumped to another level. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He withdrew the canard. That's something. The screed-- sad. I could be him, but managed to stay active, return after off-wiki adversity, and adapt as things changed. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't. He withdrew the threat of an SPI because he was told by Salvio that CUs would not link usernames to IPs (as he should have known anyway). The actual accusation stands. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now I have been canvassing off-wiki? This is too much. ArbCom alert. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scheisst! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just venting. Boing applied some fire retardant.This need not become a conflagration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggest just leave him to let off steam - he was, after all, poked just a little. I don't think there's any need for any further escalation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation is 100% withdrawn. I am moving on from this. Thank you. Jay(Talk) 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You made several accusations, not just one, and even in the case of that one you withdrew it for technical reasons and then doubled-down on your belief that the IP was me nonetheless.
If you were around more, you might have realised, for example, that you have become a by-word for legacy admins (eg: you and the resysop situation have been mentioned quite a bit on User talk:Iridescent, often as piped links). You might also have realised that I have no need to call in support off-wiki and that I very rarely edit article about Hindu deities or indeed any aspect of Hindu theology. Similarly, I have no interest in sci-fi or superheroes and very little editing to US topics other than my considerable efforts at Crawford family of the White Mountains, which was a rescue job. To suggest that Special:Contributions/66.35.104.149 might be me was absurd.
No-one is saying you have to be here - you can do an edit a decade if you want and it could still make a difference - but your ability to operate as an admin is clearly stretched by your lack of knowledge regarding procedures and you've actually proven that point over the last 24 hours or so. You may think I was discourteous but do bear in mind that I didn't criticise you in the BN thread, merely pointed out what difficulties the resysop caused for those having to make a decision. I let you know about that thread because it struck me that you might think people were talking behind your back and I think BN probably should be treated like ANI in terms of notifications - it is a central noticeboard, not some user's talk page. Sure, I did then add some criticism to your face but, well, QED. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment read. Jay(Talk) 05:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hope I have identified your caste correctly Praxidicae (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! They're still evading their block. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kesharwani page

Bhai jab tmhe Kesharwani ki history nhi pata hai toh use edit kyu krte ho. Bhai mai Kesharwani hu mujhe aoni history acche se pata hai ,ab dubara edit mt krna .smjhe . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmnib (talkcontribs) 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V, as I said here. A read of WP:COI might be useful, too, because in my experience members of a caste are usually incapable of editing neutrally the article relating to their own community. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kesarwanis are Kansal Gotra Agarwal. Sitush, Agarwal are aslo a bania caste and crème de la crème of the Vaisya varna. Also in most castes in India, sub-castes associated with Kashmir valley were regarded as one of the highest sub-caste of the related caste due to their Alpine origin, Aryan features and Fairer skin tone. Do the Kesarwanis some justice. VOT 2H1 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. Whether you are a sock or a meatpuppet or (unlikely) genuinely independent, it is obvious to me that you're spouting the same ridiculous POV as the recently sanctioned contributor. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That one will trouble you no more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some cases are less clear and some caste pushers deserve degrees of warnings, but when it's such blatantly open racism... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: Sam.Johnanderson (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you an cut through the waffle, please?

Draft:Sri 1008 Jagadguru Dr.Chandrashekahara Shivacharya Mahaswamiji exists and confuses the heck out of me. Sri 1008 means so,ething, presumably. Looks like an honorific to me, as does everything except the chap's name. Even of all you do is move it to the correct name that would be excellent, though I think it is gong nowhere. You are my go to perosn for everything Indian! Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCIN has some useful guidance, although I really wouldn't worry about it here because, as you say, the draft is unlikely to go anywhere. There are thousands of cults in Hinduism, each with their own spiritual head. Whilst the cult leadership may pass from one person to another, each one seems to create a cult of personality also. I'm not great on the complexities of the religion but I know this much from years of reading gibberish here. It is noticeable that the people who seem to create these articles often seem also to lack much in the way of education, which probably makes them ripe material for charlatans etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. I reckon it is dead n the water. Fiddle Faddle 09:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle Faddle how is winning THREE GOLD MEDALS in college NOT an automatic reason for notability??? How many did YOU get? But yeah, holy moly, Sitush's assessment of the article quality is spot on. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I failed my own degree! When an article appears to be so fluffy and promotional and comes from this part of the world my antennae twitch. I just moved the thing 👀 I had no intention of reviewing it, still don't. It's dead in the water because it seems to have been abandoned. A reference for the gentleman's gold medals would be useful in order to substantiate the claim, plus a goodly few others to substantiate the remainder Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove unnecessary references

Please don't remove unnecessary references on the article, you think irvine was not a great source. I don't mind anything if you remove the good article status, but don't remove the information which is referenced from a good book Mahusha (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page, and your own. This stuff has been explained to you and others. Only you are objecting. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju

Other pages haves used the same source even though the particular caste is not mentioned. Also talks in general sense about South India. I think you can revert.EruTheLord (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot and if other pages have done a similar thing then they need fixing. We cannot make assumptions. I thought I had explained this on your talk page and, as I definitely said there, I am becoming very worried with what you have been doing recently - I've had to fix at least three articles so far today. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fineEruTheLord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Oldenburg relaible? Here after instead of taking direct action I will enquire about source if not sure EruTheLord (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it used? Not sure I recognise the name, although Frykenberg is used quite a lot. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one ISBN:978-0-7656-0813-0 EruTheLord (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind you of WP:INDENT? That is something an admin recently brought to your attention also.
Google Books screws up that isbn and presents a completely irrelevant book about China by someone else. I think you're referring to something called India Briefing even though I can't see it. The title doesn't sound promising for caste articles - what is it you want to use it for? - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, That one (Ayres, Alyssa; Oldenburg, Philip (2002). India briefing: quickening the pace of change ). I am not going to use. A page already has it. Want to make sure before engaging in talk page EruTheLord (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which article already uses it? - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kamma This page. EruTheLord (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it just is not needed there, is it? We have a perfectly good alternate source to support the statement. That article appears to have become bloated with overcites recently but I simply do not have the time to sort it all out, especially given that it is now using a lot of obscure books. The entire citation schema has become a mess also. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask them to remove it is just superfluous. EruTheLord (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something is happening here

A sock is on his way, seems[[3]] like Kalangot and Othayoth shankaran.Outlander07@talk 13:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, certainly a similar vein but I'm not sure about the style. I missed the edit because the article had dropped off my watchlist. I'm guessing I misclicked the page some previous time. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks like you stripped this article last year on the basis of the sources being unreliable. Do you have any opinion on the notability or even verifiability of the claim in the article that this dude was the ruler of Katosan State? I couldn't find anything on a search, but of course I'm limited to searching in English, and there's no indication of what his name would be not in English (nor what language to search in). I can take care of PROD/AfD if it's suspect information, I just wanted to check with someone who might know. ♠PMC(talk) 03:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure, sorry. The difficulty is likely because Katosan was such a trivial thing: around 10 sq miles, fourth-rank etc. I searched Sage Journals, Cambridge Core, Oxford Journals, Oxford Scholarship, Project Muse, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis and a bunch of other places - none even mention the state, let alone the ruling family. I ofund one useful source for the state article at GBooks but nothing about the person. As for language, Gujarati is the obvious one but there are hundreds of languages in India so that is a bit too much like hard work for me and would involve a lot of dodgy Google Translating.
My gut feeling is, yes, the person existed and "ruled" the place (he would have not really had any independent power, being a vassal of whichever regional power applied at the time). I base that on the Raj sources which, although unreliable for many things, should surely get the name right for someone who was in power during the time of compiling those sources.
Thakur, by the way, is a title. There was a very active Koli-related sockfarm operating when I last edited that article, trying to boost the image of their community. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to check for me. I'm going to cheat and turn it into a redirect to the state, since you couldn't verify enough info to retain a separate article. Cheers! ♠PMC(talk) 04:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It has been around long enough for people to attempt sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos any chance of semi at Bania (caste). Anons & new-ish accounts have been disruptive for days and I can't revert again. I did leave a note on the article talk page re: the Assam claims that they keep (very poorly) inserting but I have the feeling they may not even realise that talk page exists. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I reverted the most recent edit and have semi'd the page for a week. If you run into any more issues after it expires (or if you need it increased) just let me know. ♠PMC(talk) 07:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have wrongly inverted my added information on page Rangar

You have wrongly inverted my added information on page Rangar Page Representative (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative is blocked for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for making threats

You have made a threatening/insulting comment on a users page. Please refrain from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.241.246 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which page, says who? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare User talk:Pinkeshsharma. Bishonen | tålk 11:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just knew this day wasn't going to improve! - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathore article

Hi, I just wanted to clarify that I did copy and paste the paragraph from Utcursch's talk page after we had a discussion about the citation. You can still find it in Utcursh's page. I feel that it talks more about the intermixing of Rajputs and Kolis rather than calling the Kolis Rathores. You would have better understanding so I wont try to change it if you feel that the citation is in its right place. Ranadhira (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranadhira I can't see the sources but Utcursch usually has it right so I'm happy to go along with that. For future reference, it isn't usually a good idea to copy/paste an entire thread from one talk page to another. Certainly, if you are going to do that you should include a WP:DIFF in the pasted version that points to the original discussion, and a WP:PERMLINK might be best. It saves a lot of confusion later. Using a permanent link can mean you do not have to paste the actual thread at all. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. Ranadhira (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi bro, eruthelord has started editing devendrakula velalar and devendra kulathan page without discussion. He has also removed statements without prior discussions. Pls look into the matter. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush told to remove venkatasubramaniam and associated sources but you did not give any explanations after that. EruTheLord (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, god, not again. I think now is the time for bed. Early for me but ... yep. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No bro, we can discuss things and sort it out on our own. He is open for discussion as well so it’s easier for us to discuss. If there is any help needed I will contact you. Thank you Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For all you do, every day, day after day, without ceasing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A nice surprise on waking. Thanks, both of you. - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.

FYI Praxidicae (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Sitush. This is Fire star on heat. A user with name Dinesh2069 replied me vulgarly on his talk page for my warning. I request you to go through this [4] and please warn him. He got many warnings. Yet he is reluctantly making edits. Thank you and have a nice day Fire star on heat (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needed a help regarding the article Allahabad

Hello Sitush! Hi. I would like to bring to your kind notice that a certain user named Kashmiri, has made edits to page Prayagraj that appears to be affecting the whole neutrality of the article. I do not intend to name any user in particular, I just need to bring to light some particular edits, done consequently one after one, that has changed some of the long standing status of the page. Firstly, the user removed the metropolis status off the page stating that it isn’t really a metropolis, without providing any reference to the edit made, while the Census commission states those cities which are in prominence, centred, administrative headquarters which have a population more than one million, are referred as Metropolis, and the population is already referenced. I have no intention to get involved in any conflicts with any user. I know and understand that he might have done that in good faith, I just would like you to only revert back the metropolis status of the page since the population of the city is exceeding one million, and it is a city of importance, I do not ask you or intend to add anything, I just want neutral data to be restored back. I even provided Government link for the city given on the Government Urban and Environmental Studies website about the stats of the city. Under Chapter 2, City profile, section 2.3.1 it clearly says ” Allahabad city comes under Allahabad metropolitan area along with Cantonment board and urban outgrowths. Population of metropolitan area is 12,16,719. Male constitutes 655,734 and female constitutes 560,985 of the total population.” http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/19UP_Allahabad_sfcp-min.pdf The user Kashmiri hasn’t participated in any talks on talk page, nor has provided any significant reference on why the edit that was long stable was suddenly removed from the page. Alongside, I also provided a media article link back in 2006 when Allahabad was mentioned along with 5 other cities in the states and given metropolitan status. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/Six-cities-to-get-metropolitan-status/articleshow/2210886.cms We editors look up to you for everything. Kindly help. Harshv7777 (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the citation needed on page Vaibhav Saxena

Hi Sitush, I noticed your citation needed template on the article Vaibhav Saxena. I would like to answer your question that you could not determine the newspaper cutting archived there. It's written in Hindi 'Sahara News Bureue. The journalist's name is Dheeraj Srivastava and the date and page of the publication are also mentioned. request you to kindly check it and if you find it okay, then please undo you edit or suggest the best workaround. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiloverindia (talkcontribs) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help need on a page

Hi bro, pls check on the Kudumbar page, sources are being removed. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This perennial dispute between Mamallarnarashimavarman and EruTheLord is starting to get a bit much — I have already partially blocked both of them from Devendra Kulathan earlier today. Perhaps more sweeping sanctions are due... El_C 03:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C if I were you, I would put topic bans on both of them. Keep them off all caste-related articles and discussions etc. It isn't just the battle between them because they are both individually making some appalling edits and I for one cannot keep up with it. That's why I more or less walked away from this place for the last 24 hours. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Will sanction. El_C 04:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any personal disputes, but removing sourced statement is right in your view?
I didn't revert the edits which was done on that page, This things looks destructive for the Wikipedia pages. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are both destructive and even now neither of you seem to understand WP:INDENT. I am at my wit's end with the pair of you. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please review and adopt usage of WP:INDENT, Mamallarnarashimavarman. Anyway, I didn't say anything about personal, but the constant edit warring between the two of you spanning multiple articles is a problem and it needs to stop, El_C 04:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, well, I've just reverted here and that is one of many examples of EruTheLord cutting a swathe through stuff that could easily be sourced. OK, the bit lower down that article is relatively a tougher nut to crack but the bit about being eleted to the Lok Sabha (ie: a member of parliament) is a matter of official record and I bet I can source it within five minutes from now. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was already sourced in the body anyway but I found this, which is the official parliamentary bio. - Sitush (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors now topic banned indefinitely from all caste-related pages, broadly construed. The sanction has been logged. El_C 04:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We now have to repair months of disruption. - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. Well, better late than never. Note that if there continues to be problems in the IPA topic area outside of caste issues on the part of one or both editors, the topic ban may be expanded to encompass the entire IPA topic area (including but not limited to related BLPs). If possible, please keep me appraised. El_C 04:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My suspicion is that the problem is now sorted. It is all related to South Indian caste politics etc, as far as I can see. The region was once described as a "lunatic asylum" of castes (especially Kerala) and sometimes the inmates get to spread their madness on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after I was blocked from editing the Devendra kulathan page, I wasnt edit warring. I just wanted to protect the page from vandalism. I approached you all for help, put me on ban for caste pages seems not right, pls explain to me. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can check my contributions after the partial block Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]