User talk:Sitush

Have you come here to rant at me? It's water off a duck's back.

Pervez Dewan as a reliable source

As discussed earlier, Pervez Dewan's book "Jammu Kashmir Ladakh" ISBN 81-7049-179-7 was used to sight the population census of India. However, you have reverted the same stating that Dewan is not a reliable source. Would like to understand why do you think so. Have explained earlier that he was the 'Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir' while writing this book - which in India means he 'signed off' on all population census figures. So in a manner speaking, he was an authority on the official records in the state. I see no reason to doubt that he would provide wrong population figures in his book about Kashmir. Can you explain your concern. 'Ambar (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction - Divisional Comissioner is a central Govt (Govt of India) position & not a state govt position. I have shared the Govt of India (IAS) website with you earlier.'Ambar (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained at Talk:Kashmiri Pandit, and did so at the time of my revert. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you review the latest Kaul article in my sandbox (view history) & let me know if any further modifications may be necessary. ^Ambar (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bunt community

please try to view edits from a bunts perspective.its commonsense to have images of popular celebrities on page rather than some unseen scholar or billionaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.146 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are going to be blocked per WP:3RR but, in any event, there are discussions at Talk:Bunt (community) and your argument above is actually favouring my opinion there, ie: the images are undue weight. So why have any images of this type, whether your variety or those that already exist? - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely copyvio

Hello my friend. I could use a hand tracking down the copyvio source for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty#Ikshvaku_dynasty_in_chronological_order_up_to_present

Chunks are finding their way into other articles via copy paste. It stinks of copyvio and I can't use waybackmachine, and I keep getting blocked from the verbatim google matches I see. Thanks for any help you can give. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha. I see you've found it before. Well, enwp has chunks all over the place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC

I am fighting some hopping IPs over various articles. Just revert on sight because the sourcing etc is all wrong and the content keeps being reinstated, complete with the original cite requests etc from ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will add articles to my watchlist that I see at your contribs. I will revert on sight. Many thanks for the vigilance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you - more eyes are very welcome. I have the feeling that this is too big a range to block, so it may be two or three people working in concert and in brief but co-ordinated spurts. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If I bump into anyone on IRC who is so inclined, I will ask them to watch the pages. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WRT the ip's, the 117.199.195.xxx is probably blockable, but the 117.227.xxx.xxx probably isn't (too large). Semiprotection may be the best option, as you can make the case that these users are editing across a range of articles. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that I will be around during the next 48 hours. Semi-p is worth doing if it kicks off again in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Logo of Patna University

You have removed the logo of Patna University by using some rule which must be convincing. But at the same time we must find the rule to include that logo in the article. Though I do not know who that that editor is I think he has made a good attempt and he should be guided to put the logo at the right place in a right manner. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in a bit of a rush at the time, sorry. The guideline is WP:LOGO. I am no expert regarding images but Magog the Ogre might be able to assist. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have deleted this in a rush and as you admit you are not an expert of images, then you are requested to help include the logo for the article. Someone had done that out of a sheer desire to improve the article. The spirit should be encouraged by all of us. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. Everything is relative here in terms of expertise. Some people are really good at sorting out copyright issues, others at resolving problems with images, and yet others are good at - for example - resolving disputes. As with the real, face-to-face world, we are none of us perfect and all of us know people who know more than us about A or B or C. My comment regarding "rush" related to the lack of explanation: I do usually try to give more detail in situations such as this. As per my earlier reply, the detail is in WP:LOGO. The necessity of a quick revert is justified by Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright. Basically, it is "better to be safe than sorry" - we can always revisit the issue, as indeed we are doing. However, I do feel that input from someone like Magog would be helpful as, honestly, it is an area in which they are more experienced than either myself or, probably, you.

I'll drop a note on their talk page, asking whether they would be prepared to review. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion; it is a legitimate exercise of fair use, unless I'm missing something (which is certainly possible). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. Do we have to use a degraded version or can we use a copy/save from the source website if degrading it would turn the thing into mush? - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The version from the website is itself already in degraded form. No, you don't have to degrade something if it will turn it into mush. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is much appreciated. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Sitush, sorry to bother you, but if I followed my guts, I'd send this article straight to AFD... Would you be willing to please take a look at it when you have a moment, to see if it can be salvaged or if my approach is the best one? Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much to salvage there - it is just a massive series of unsourced names + BLP violations (ie: sourced, but they have not self-identified). Parkavakulam is also next to useless without sourcing, as is Parkavakulam Nathaman Udayar. I might be able to do something with the last two but the list should probably be stripped and merged/redirected to Parkavakulam if there is any substantive content left. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Brahma_Kamal. Thanks.[[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh

I tend to keep away from images: I am a complete philistine in that area, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Restoring "diet" data on Nair?

You mentioned in your ES that the Diet section with mentions of pork and buffalo "seems okay" but didn't restore it. Was that a mistake, or are we re-examining those cites? I'd be less concerned were it not for the fact that pork/buffalo removal would fall into the "remove absolutely anything that could be seen as negative" editing tactic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part, sorry. I thought that I was reinstating the buffalo/pork etc stuff but clearly screwed up. I have self-reverted. Can you fix? I am off to bed now & I literally just popped my (prescribed) opiate stuff, so my brain will be even more fuzzy in a few minutes. Sorry about this. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the content from Patna College

I think your recent deletion of the content from Patna College is almost like vandalism. What you call as trivial without any justification is not proper at all. This also smacks of bias against this and similar other articles. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Listing in detail umpteen anniversary events is indeed trivia. My own college is somewhat older than Patna College. In 1984, during my time of study there, there were many events to mark its 700th anniversary. Now, go to the article at Peterhouse, Cambridge and try to find a mention of those events. I cannot recall ever editing it, by the way, as I would have a conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the anniversary events are umpteen, they are only a few. The details may be edited and can be made more to the point and impressive. But to delete them completely without giving any chance to justify and by using words such as 'trivial' is highly improper. We should better not compare Peterhouse, Cambridge with Patna College. If we look at history we may find that there were no Peterhouse, Cambridge or University of Oxford some thousand years back. The excellent universities in the world did exist but they were in different parts of the world. At the same time when Patna College or other good colleges got started they tried to follow the examples of Peterhouse, Cambridge or University of Oxford because they had become excellent by that time. No one knows where will the excellence emerge in the coming few years.

By the way you are a great wikipedian, I understand. But You are not fair in this context at all. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have picked another university/college, not necessarily Peterhouse. A single sentence would usually suffice: "X marked its 150th anniversary in YYYY with various events, including an This, That and The Other.^[cite]" In this particular instance, a second sentence for the Bihar Assembly seems reasonable, but it is unusual. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that those details about the events are not necessary, then you may be right. However according to your own arguments they may be included in brief. So the issue is only about the way they should be presented. They should not be deleted, especially when everything has been supported with reliable references.

You are, thus, requested to revert them with due editing. This will improve the article further. I have no other intention in persisting with my point of view. If this improves the article, nothing like that. Let us not be personal about this. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

'Kurmi' ur last edit.

I feel ur last edit not in accordance WP:NPOV. Plz do not be unilaterally judgmental. Warning: Plz do not delete well ref content. Use proper tagging and talk pages to resolve. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaychandra (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Any chance that Bob1781 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet (of YK perhaps)? Could someone, maybe Qwyrxian, do an RFCU? I'm flat out of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The odd bolding had me suspicious but with just one edit I doubt very much that anything can be done unless someone has a direct line to a checkuser who is prepared to ignore the usual WP:SPI process. I think that SPI itself is unlikely to accept a report based on so little. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. Good advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) are at least  Likely, though I'd go as far as calling them a  Confirmed match. In this case, in my opinion, an SPI would probably have been accepted; it was rather evident that this account was a sock. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Sitush and I will be requesting life memberships at Bletchley Park. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any sleepers? I mean, he went out of his way to point out that he always uses his own name ... and then didn't. Mind you, he will be easy to spot if he turns up on any articles. I note that the wording by FutureP is going to severely limit his input even to Dickens etc. Wow. Is it time-limited? Saravask was originally suggesting 6 months, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see here that it is an indefinite topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

YK was bolding like that higher up in the ANI thread but, as I said at the outset, one contribution doesn't mean much at all for stylistic checks. I sometimes bold in mid-sentence, for example. Oh, er ... I'll get my coat. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be Sarvajna. Might be worth checking, if you're able to. True it is one edit, but an edit to unfairly influence a vote, which is a no-no. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this sockpuppet investigation and discussion done at the right place? Is it to be done on user pages of someone who has voted for a ban usually?

After the ban is already enforced, what is the point in checking it with other users? It is user:Sarvajna now, someone else later one. It server no purpose, I think this is done in very unusual disorderly manner in case I am unaware of usual way. Even this discussion is forked between here and user:YK's page.

Is user:Sarvajna informed of this? In case investigation were done methodically, I would have suggested bunching up of of editors ids to do this at once. I am not sure if anyone was informed at all, not even user:Bob1781. Now this is going nowhere other that post-ban talk between users who voted for permanent ban.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It started as a perfectly acceptable query and would have stopped there, around my second reply, had it not been for Salvio spotting it. Salvio is a checkuser as well as an admin, although I must admit to not realising that he was a CU until this thread. Now, CUs are particularly trusted people and while they do make mistakes they also do from time to time use their additional tools outside the formal SPI system. You see this happening at ANI and even in response to direct approaches on their talk pages (Tnxman, IIRC, sometimes does this). In this regard, nothing is unusual but let's get something straight here: Salvio was not involved in the ANI discussion and he was not approached to check this situation out. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My question is if this is the way SPI is done without referring to concerned party, here user:Bob1781? Usually there exists a page for sockpuppet investigations.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was started without me, that is fair enough. But it is not fair to drag me into the discussion without informing me, without giving me a chance to represent my side of the arguments. Fowler I would be very happy if checkuser can check if Bob was me or not, I was already actively involved in the discussion so I don't think I would require another account just to influence one vote when I know that the margin was huge, I am surprised to see Qwyrxian and Fowler accusing me of something without even letting me know about the discussion also is this the official discussion of the sockpuppeting?--sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I let my imagination run wild I would accuse Qwyrxian of creating the SPA and trying to malign anyone who opposed YK's ban(honestly how many of you all noticed the bold pattern or what ever it is). Well I would like to see what the checkuser has to say about who was this Bob is/was, also if there were doubts that Bob was not YK then the block is not justified. Thanks

P.S: I am not really accusing Qwyrxian it was just an example on how false theories can be built without knowing the truth --sarvajna (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer Thisthat2011's question, yes, there is a page for formally requesting sockpuppet investigations here. However, informing the concerned parties is NOT required, as noted at item #4 here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of my fictional reading includes detective novels. So, and seeing how desperate you all were to block YK and seeing how the discussion was not ending at all even after so many days and seeing how few Dickens' editors gave neutral comments, it wouldnt be completely shock if that sock was of someone of the supporters. And purposefully bolding and then using it as a doubt is possible. In fact that was a nice touch. One might use small fonts to frame me in future. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open an SPI, naming all and sundry. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Given the nature of the edit, an SPI case will likely be accepted. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Though, after reading this, it seems fairly clear who bob1781 is. Unless you're implying that there is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of YK and that Salvio is a part of that conspiracy. --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. My point in raising an alternative was to extend good faith to YK. I looked at the edit, and looked at previous edits in the thread, and thought that maybe YK had been falsely accused. I'm sticking my metaphorical neck out for someone who doesn't really deserve it, out of a sense in due process and fairness. If YK had not sockpuppeted, I do not think he should be blocked, because I think the topic ban solves the problem. I didn't want to start an SPI because I am not a checkuser and don't know how likely the results Salvio saw are, and it's not like a second CU would turn up any new technical data. Thank goodness I don't have time for WP for the next 3 days because it irritates the hell out of me to be accused of being conniving when I was being far nicer than I at all needed to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" Assuming here that there is already a sock master, and therefore assuming it as another user - it is hardly of any consequence for it is upto the admin. As also AFG is great as usual. For other information, check discussion on YK's page.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian you suggestion "does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" does not sounds like extending good faith. Also Qwyrxian and Fowler&fowler would like to know this [[1]] --sarvajna (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Makes me want to propose a new policy: WP:TOLDYOUSO. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing Rewari

I wonder why you do not want the page on Rewari improved. The entire page is in shambles and I find several deletions from you, never any improvements. You are doubting my latest reference on Hemu on Rewari page calling it dubious. Please send to me your e-mail Id and I'll send to you the photo copy of the reference I have cited. Also please do not delete this edit till the issue is sorted out, whether, the citation is true or dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.121.163 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The mere existence of a source does not make it reliable. Your source was "Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya by Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya Dhusar (Bhargava) Memorial Charitable Trust (Regd.)Rekmo Press New Delhi", which appears to be something published by an advocacy group rather than, say, an academic press. In any event, the more problematic issue is that the content simply overeggs the pudding. We have the Hemu article and the Rewari article is not about Hemu, so let's keep things in proportion. If you wish to continue this discussion then I suggest that you do so at Talk:Rewari, where there is a greater likelihood of input from others with an interest in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush Ji,You have raised three objections on a minor point. Now it is for sure that Hemu was born somewhere, otherwise there was no need to talk about him. As per his community and decendents whose Trust is mentioned above, which you have called 'an advocacy group', Hemu, was born at Machheri village in Rajasthan. There are other citations also on this by various writers. What bewilders me, why any one would 'advocate' for a simple immaterial fact. However, if there is any other claim that Hemu was born in a particular city, I would like to be enlightened on this. I had put the fact of his birth at Maccheri on the page to remove an absurd comment which said (although he was born elsewhere). When I deleted the words written in brackets as they diluted the contents, my comments were removed by you; when I added his birth place Maccheri, you do not accept this also. Second issue is of proportion. Hemu, his Haveli in Rewari are important for Rewari page as Hemu was the only Hindu ruler, who won 22 battles across North India and who could rule from Delhi briefly out of the long span of 1192-1947. So this makes important for Rewari page to carry a few (3-4) sentences on Hemu. Third issue you have raised is of overegging the pudding? No way.Simple facts with no adjectives look impressive about him. There is no pampering. Also, you visit the page frequently. Do you find it in good shape ? Please suggest how to improve it. sk

I did say Talk:Rewari, not here. Please. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Indian railways worked on by the KGK

Could you take a look at this article if you get the chance? I deleted an entire unreferenced section but the whole thing looks like cruft to me. I'm hopeless on caste issues! --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it before. I thought it to be a pointless article then and I still do think that to be the case. Talk about a niche subject! AfD? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My tired dyslexic brain read "KGB." Any potential for that list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha. I'm sure that the KGB worked on a few railways in their time. The KGK list appears to have been deleted before. And a note for both of you: I may venture out to sup a pint of beer tonight. If I smoked big, fat cigars then I would probably have indulged in that way also. You know why. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is referenced to a couple of obscure books and it would appear that every single inch of track laid in India had a KGB or KGK hand putting it in place! BTW, f&f, I landed at the list because I was looking for a list of Indian railway companies (not there). What say we move this article to List of Indian Railway companies and be done with it! --regentspark (comment) 16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a move would make sense, although I am surprised that no such list of railway companies already exists. If the KGK are widely known to be occupationally (is that a word?) railway builders then a couple of sourced sentences in the main article for that community would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Railway companies .... I remember reading about the early ones (1851-56), but don't have my books with me, though some might be mentioned in Company rule in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

PS Here's the relevant section; it mentions a few early companies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it. But it needs a ton of work.--regentspark (comment) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I will get round to it if no-one gets there first. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing Jadeja

Greetings Sitush! I have seen that you have edited the Notable Jadeja section of the page, erasing names of notable Jadejas on account of poor references cited. Could you please provide guidelines for sources that are permissible as the ones I have used were seen to me as being sufficient? I am unsure as to what is permissible when proving 'ethnicity'? Thank you in advance. Tamasic (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The most universal rule is our reliable sources policy, which applies always when trying to meet our requirement that things are verifiable. Things get more complicated if the person is still living, for which we have the policy concerning biographies of living people. There is an extension to that, called WP:BLPCAT. Now, the gist of BLP in terms of matters such as religious beliefs and ethnicity is that the person concerned should be shown to have self-identified as a believer of this or that religion, or as a person of X ethnicity.

As far as those policies apply to caste-type assertions, there are a lot of experienced contributors to Wikipedia who consider caste claims to be just another form of ethnicity, and therefore self-identification is required if living, and really good sources even if they are dead. Merely bearing a name that is commonly used by a caste group is insufficient to meet the test because, well, there are always exceptions to the rule, often even in India itself. Also, I could quite easily and at a low cost (currently £37 UK) legally chance my last name to "Jadeja", for example, and so any statements that we make here based on last names are ultimately original research. Is this enough information for you to understand what is going on? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your kind time. Information noted. I understand that it is possible for one to change their name, therefore an assumption of notability based on surname alone is not reliable. So now, with context to the names of deceased Jadejas that I had included, what references would be permissible? K.S. Ranjitsinhji, K.S. Digvijaysinhji and Kumar Shree Duleepsinhji are most certainly not individuals that changed their name by deed poll. They were the Jam Sahebs of Nawangar and have been widely documented as being so. To not include K.S. Ranjitsinhji, an international cricketing luminary who's own Wiki page meets all requirements, would do disservice to the 'Notable Jadeja' section. Remedy- would it be possible to cite a reference that explicitly states that the title of Jam Saheb is only bestowed upon the Jadeja rulers? Thereafter to follow up citing a source where the individual in question is referred to by their title? I look forward to your kind feedback. Thank you. Tamasic 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a reference about an alleged uniqueness of the title would suffice. As an example of how titles are not always what they seem, although most people would think that the title "Doctor" indicates a person who has undertook a high level of education, it is in fact also the traditional name given to the seventh son of a seventh son in Irish families. Another example would be "Prince", which is not always a royal title, etc. If the people whom you name are as well-documented as you say, and their ethnicity is relevant to their lives, then someone must surely have recorded the connection. An additional point to bear in bear is our attitude to synthesis of information from sources.

This talk page is watched by quite a few people and perhaps someone else will jump in with a different opinion. I do not always get things right ;) - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"I do not always get things right" Now this is an understatement if there ever was one, I am absolutely seething with anger and extremely frustrated at complete ignorance shown by you regarding the article "Jadeja", may I please ask what right or what knowledge you have regarding the history and origins of jadeja ? I am sure zilch or zero. I had painstakingly gathered all the information related to the clan, myself being one, have done any research at all ? the refrences that were given by me were from the English representative that were stationed at bhuj during the time of Maharao Deshulji, and these books could be found in the gazzette of bombay and english presidency during the time British rule in india, I cannot belive that absolutely all the information has been deleted..

Khengar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.222.90 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel angry and frustrated. I will try to revisit the article within the next 24 hours in order to re-examine what I did. Please do drop me another note if that does not happen. I'll put my response here when I have checked things out. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this series of cite removals by me. Do you not understand the info in the relevant edit summaries? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with this removal. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my earlier removals, see Talk:Jadeja#Sourcing of rulers etc and please take the discussion to that thread, if they are the ones to which you refer above. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sitush. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done but, alas, with a big thumbs-down for DRN as it relates to India stuff. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Epic India

Another mystery. Looks like someone has written a research paper on wikipedia (or is this a real term?) --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I know right, the "Epic India" that is being referred to was called as Bharata Khanda. I'm not that great with early Indian history, so there is all the likelihood of an equivalent English language term existing. "Epic India" doesn't seem to be the one though. Lynch7 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is a book? --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something here :) ; are you asking whether the article itself is like a research paper? Lynch7 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Is Bharata Khanda a book of some sort? Or is it just a term used to describe early India? Or is it something that is used in ancient texts? (I suspect the last one.)--regentspark (comment) 21:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, its a term to describe the "continent of Bharat". I find it in the Rigveda, and the Rigveda even gives a description of the length and breadth of the continent. Of course, its in Sanskrit, so I'll find the verse tomorrow morning and put up a quick translation. Lynch7 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Based on a cursory google and jstor search, it may not be a bad idea to move the article to Bharata Khanda. Epic India is used in a more general way. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Khanda literally means section, here continent. आशिया खंड (Aashiya Khanda) would mean Asia continent. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So what should we do with the article. Bharata Khanda is, as you say, a description of Bharata in vedic times. Should we retitle the article Geography of India as described in Vedic texts? A descriptive title would better here.--regentspark (comment) 11:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bharata Khanda would be better --sarvajna (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But then, this particular article speaks about India during the time of the Ramayan and Mahabharat (hence leading to the name "Epic"?), but Bharata Khanda was during the vedic times. So there may be a mismatch. Lynch7 12:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What I understand is that even during the times of Mahabharata, India was called as Bharata Khanda (Correct me if I am wrong) --sarvajna (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the Mahabharata. My only qualm with Bharata Khanda is that it is not in English. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Bharata Khanda could qualify as a notable term on its own; unless of course, scholarly sources have a better English term. Lynch7 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lynch if you consider modern India or Republic of India, it is the English equivalent of "Bharatiya Ganarajya" so I don't think there is any English equivalent of Bharata Khanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so; "Epic India" consisted of much of British India and parts of Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar. Some sources say it consisted of a large portion of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. So, "Indian subcontinent" would probably be a rough equivalent in today's world rather than the Indian Republic. Lynch7 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

done. Needs some cleanup to confine it to its mythological definition. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This image found on the article is based on the Mahabharat, as is noted on the file page, and "India" at the time of the Mahabharat didn't encompass the whole of Bharata Khanda. In any case, I'd really like to see a good journal paper on this topic. Lynch7 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked on jstor and there is nothing except for indirect references to the term. Google produced this and this (which seems to associate Magadha with Bharata Khanda). This isn't going to be easy!--regentspark (comment) 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and find some books related to this. But I'm very uncomfortable having "Epic India" renamed as "Bharata Khanda" in the article's present form. Could we generalize the time period to the "Vedic period", instead of saying "During the Mahabharata time", which is definitely not completely true. Lynch7 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead (but I have no idea what I am doing,). --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This must be the longest thread on my talk page in which I have had no involvement! My apologies to all who are involved - I have spent the last few days 90 feet (27 m) up two trees, cutting them down. Well, they are now a little bit shorter, but there is still some way to go.

I am pretty thick when it comes to the ancient Indian texts etc. I know of the major ones - the Puranas etc - and know when they are definitely not suitable as sources per Wikipedia standards, but most of this goes over my head, sorry. Nonetheless, feel free to continue the discussion here and, yes, I am learning something from it.

An aside: thanks to MikeL and Boing for doing the necessary clean ups elsewhere on this page, in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Pandit

Hi Sitush, you have reverted the definition of 'Pandit' from the Kashmiri Pandit Page. I put it there to explain the meaning of the word and its derivative / relavance in Indian society. However, you have also called it a CopyVio? --Ambar (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not double-checked (it is late, and I am off to bed) but my edit summary says that there was a copyright violation of the source. That source was the Merriam-Webster dictionary, per the citation. It takes ages to load pages from that thing here but, even if it is reliable as a source (& many online dictionaries are not), I guess that I spotted you had copy/pasted the definition from that dictionary. You should instead have said something like, "According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term Kashmiri Pandit means people who blah blah blah". I'll try to take another look tomorrow but I am not going to wait several minutes for the M-W page to load, which is definitely my common experience with that website. I did it once in order to check out your addition, and I know that M-W pages often take a long time to sort themselves out. That in itself is not a great sign. What does the Oxford English Dictionary say, I wonder? I'll try to dig around. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit article - in my sandbox

I have further added to the Kashmiri Pandit article and made some formatting improvements. Kindly take a look at it in my sansbox and leave your comments. --Ambar (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do! I notice that you got yourself a mentor, although I've not kept an eye on what has been going on. That is a really good step on your part - well done and I hope that it works out well for both you and your mentor. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste System in Kerala

Dear Sitush, Thank you for your invitation. I have commented on the issue Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. --AshLey ^Msg 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Now you are moving in a negative way. Entire Syrian Christian issue is not in discussion. Discussion was related to Syrian Christian -Nair relative status. Please avoid edit warring while I'm quoting reliable sources. Else we could go for mediation.--AshLey ^Msg 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing Syrian Christian issues in a manner that is undue weight for an article concerning the general Keralite caste system. I rather think that it may be something that you are particularly interested or even involved with, which is not necessarily a bad thing but we have a lot of POV pushers in the caste area and such articles are subject to general sanctions. I'll add the appropriate template to the talk page, which is where this discussion should be taking place. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have marked a different point in the document for POV-push:Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala. Now, you please try to understand who is trying it to push. My points are from academic sources and if you still consider it as POV-push, let's go for mediation. Please don't promote edit-war. --AshLey ^Msg 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE TALK PAGE. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my Talk Page

Not sure what you mean by me deleting messages. My page was getting large and cumbersum so I deleted some of the earlier messages, which have been all been responded too. For the record, I have also responded to your messages, but rarely has to been extended to my messages.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ezhava: My edits

You reverted my edits to Ezhava with an edit summary of "Sorry, but I am not convinced that most of these edits agree with the sources (or the lack thereof)." Well yeah, they might not agree with all the sources, but I swear all that I added, all that I added, came from those sources in stone. I know my description was awkward, which I plan to fix, and go ahead...revert me! SanctusofRajput (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise you not to rush in. Most of your changes related to Nossiter, whom I have read. Of your other changes, the sources have been variously tagged for quite some time. If you can change the statement then you can also fulfil the requests made in those tags. Articles such as Ezhava are subject to general sanctions and it is not a bad idea, especially if you are new to Wikipedia, to consider carefully the potential impact of your actions and discuss them if someone has raised a doubt. I raised a doubt, and the correct place for discussion is not here but rather at Talk:Ezhava. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

my Distance Learning edit

You reverted my good faith edits claiming that spam comes from my sources? I don't understand. Pcm130 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to determine why Distance education and Virtual education are suddenly receiving a lot of edits by what amount to single purpose accounts, but the contributors do not hang around long enough for me to make any progress. My suspicion is that there is some sort of class project going on and, if so, it would be helpful to know which and to have some contact details in order that any problems that arise can be ironed out. There are people here on Wikipedia who act as ambassadors for such projects, for example, and can really assist in their smooth operation. Some of the contributions from the SPAs have been very poor indeed, although others seem ok to me.

Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School has a chequered history here on Wikipedia because there has in the past been the appearance of spamming and non-neutral editing. Since your edit mentioned PCCS in a somewhat peculiar context given the general nature of the article, I thought it best to remove it until someone decides to respond with the necessary information. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. We're all M.S. in Ed online students and our task this week is to edit a wiki. While I see that the other students edits are not meeting the standards of wikipedia, mine had sourced material that was reporting criticism. I'm new to this and won't get back to you soon. I wish you had read my edit before deleting it, because it is not spam and was an attempt to add further information.Pcm130 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For which school? Who is your course leader? How can we contact them? I did read your contribution, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dr. Clint Born. What was the problem with my contribution then, if I may ask? Pcm130 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way that Dr Born could email me or Salvio giuliano in order to set up some kind of liaison? We both have "Email me" links on the left-hand side of our user pages.

Regarding your edit, well, it certainly was sourced etc but the PCCS issue gave rise to doubts. I could reinstate it but right now I think it is more important to get some liaison going. Here at Wikipedia, people are expected to collaborate and if Dr Born is going to mark you or others down because you have been unable to edit then (a) we always rate highly the willingness of contributors who are prepared to discuss & you should let Dr Born know this (perhaps direct him here?) and (b) once some liaison is sorted out then perhaps we can lift the semi-protection and allow edits to resume.

I am very grateful, honestly, for your co-operation. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've found his contact details. I'll try to find someone here who has experience in academic liaison. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is PCCS, PA-cyber? I will email Dr. Born to let him know. I can't guarantee he will contact you. Thanks. Pcm130 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PA-cyber is probably how those in the US refer to it. I'm in the UK! If Dr Born does not make contact with someone here then the likelihood is that the class project will be over because I rather think that course leaders are supposed to do so even before a project commences. This is starting to get slightly out of my range of experience, but I am fairly sure that I am correct. OTOH, if he does make contact then probably things can be smoothed out and then everyone will be happy. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

fuck off

don't fuck with me . fuck off