User talk:Sitush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Akhilesh Yadav[edit]

why even have a chief minister if everything gets done by the government. why have the brain at the top when all the organs can do the work on their own. The development program launched by Yadav is very unique, since earlier UP leaders were only focused on caste politics. This is the first time in the state's history, a chief minister is focusing on development and you brand it as fan talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buff 4u2000 (talkcontribs) 12:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do not understand the role of a chief minister in India, nor the doctrine of collective responsibility, then I cannot really help you. To the best of my knowledge, Yadav is not a dictator or some other form of essentially one-man government. His article has periodically attracted contributions from people who are clearly trying to "big up" his image. It isn't necessary. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
i do not agree with your views. If the page is about a person and if he is the chief minister (a designation), then the work he has done in that position is okay to be mentioned, especially if it is of a pioneering nature and affects the lives of lakhs of people. We are talking about development, about good roads, drinking water, homes to live, industries, agriculture. How can you brand these as fan talk? i would like the matter to be escalated to wiki top management.Buff 4u2000 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think your very insistence makes it clear that it is fan talk. However, a more appropriate place to put stuff like that, assuming that you are also prepared to include negative information, would be some article about the government for year X to year Y. You would also need to bear in mind WP:CRYSTAL etc - there is a world of difference between what politicians promise to do, what actually happens and what effect that actually has. Also, these are often long-term projects and so assessing them is extremely difficult when we are so near to the event. This is a problem that has arisen at Narendra Modi and which is (slowly) being addressed. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Oswal[edit]

Makes me slightly ill just to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 you should feel better now. I missed that mess - it is on my watchlist but I think I may have been inactive at the time. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The speed with which you fixed it was impressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Drogheda[edit]

I agree the article is in poor shape and I am editing it to improve it. thank you for you help. However, you are a tad trigger happy reverting some things. T K Whitker for example is widely considered a citizen of Drogheda and is a freeman of the town. From 6 years to at least 21 years warrants calling him a noted citizen. I am not sure what is considered being a citizen of anywhere, but if you live somewhere or you residence somewhere has been of enough interest to have been mentioned in a public forum or interview it is fair to include it here. Courtney Love is a good example, the fact she lived in Drogheda , albeit for a short time, is so improbable that it was mentioned in several interviews on TV and in the irish times and Irish Independent … as such she merits inclusion . Shane Horgan is dubious being from Bellewstown. Not sure of wiki rules for inclusion but I see the New York page includes people who are famous but came to reside there. Tommyxx (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If Love only lived there briefly then she should not be in the list. I don't give a crap how many people mention it. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

107... IP[edit]

107.77.213.167 that you reverted[1] seems to be a deluded editor editing from California who believes that he is part of the Musahiban family who are the Afghan Royal Family working closely with the Mossad and Israel. See my comments here. If you seen any on that range doing these odd edits, revert them. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. You come across some weird shit! Mind, the only edit that specific IP did recently is the one I reverted and it was a fairly routine POV - RS issue. Not an odd edit, as such. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Dalits[edit]

Hi, get well soon. In case you make a comeback with time to spare, can you please take a look at this page, List of Dalits. I don't think it fulfills the standards of Wikipedia. People added on the page seems to be a POV or assertions, not sourced backed facts. Barthateslisa (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I had noticed that. I've left a note on the talk page. I've been awake for something like 20 hours now and need some sleep. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Can you make heads or tails of this: Template:Tony Fate? Seems to have something to do with Eric Leach, which I saw that you had edited last month. I'm not particularly well-versed in moving/redirecting pages, but it seems to me we should probably have the page named "Tony Fate" have this content and delete the "Template:Tony Fate." Does that sound right to you? Feel free to ignore as well :) Safehaven86 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mine was a gnoming edit. I have no knowledge regarding the sort of walled garden of articles surrounding the article. I've just taken another look at it though and, frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't been cut right back or even deleted. The sourcing looks awful and it reads like a fan/promo page. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Eg: "They were spotted by the legendary neon knight of sleaze". I might go back later and do some drastic pruning. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole family of articles relating to Symbol Six are suspect. I've tried working on them but they seem to have gotten away from me. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Erasmus Smith, lead[edit]

Hi Sitush. I have made a few changes to the lead, shortening, and attempting to clarify what is to come. Any feedback greatly appreciated. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashok Harsana[edit]

I was just trying to improve the article related to Gurjar-pratihars, which have been my subject of study for a very long period (say 15 years now). I made a mistake by editing the main article page earlier, but realizing the mistake, I just tried to add some information on the talk page of the articles names "origin of Gurjara PThe Real Rana (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)ratihara". Please tell me what went wrong, as I made sure to cite correct reference in all my talks?


Apart from that the Hindi version of the article in question are not at all the mere translation. They are completely different from the main article. Please do something about that also. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokharsana (talkcontribs) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You have already got this conversation going on three different article talk pages. Please don't bring it here also. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I see you have now been topic banned from the relevant subject matter for six months. Let it go, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Move[edit]

The page has been moved. Please check if c/e is needed after the move.

PS. Is the edit notice applicable still? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tito. Yes, it is sort of applicable. I should probably modify it but I am having good days and awful ones ... and a lot of bad nights (hence my weird editing pattern). - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
This really dates back several years, when you assisted in reverting edits by one of innumerable self-promotional accounts. Glad to see you're still helping. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are or to what you are referring but thanks! FWIW, I've just come across this (scroll down to the article for the full effect) - not sure if it is self-promo or a fan but either way it is getting the treatment (no pun intended). - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I've edited profusely, first as a registered account, now in the guise of many IPs. No matter; the incident I recall involved a young man who repeatedly added original research to an article on his village, but the real motivation was a persistent attempt to insert a small item from the NY Times that mentioned him as someone who edited Wikipedia using a hand held device. He thought it established his notability, and was off and running from there. Eventually and inevitably he was blocked. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Blimey, you have a long memory! I'd forgotten about him. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I forget most of them, too. But happening across your edits triggers my memory for that incident. Pavlov could have written something about that. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

British Raj sources and Gyan[edit]

Hi, thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up all of the other tribes. Just curious, can you give me a quick explanation for why British Raj sources and Gyan are considered unreliable? Thanks. Fraenir (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For Gyan, see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. I've got some brief notes about the Raj sources somewhere and will post them (or a link) here later. There are some discussions at WP:RSN if you cannot wait. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, no need to rush. Fraenir (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fraenir: there is some info at User:Sitush/CasteSources. I really need to revisit that and improve it. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

..as a fiddle[edit]

This is really good news. Glad to see you active. - NQ (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been editing a lot but in a weird pattern etc. We'll see how things go - back at hospital next month. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bender the Bot is driving me daft[edit]

Bots are useful, I know, but when they go on major runs they don't half bugger up the watchlist. My list of changes for the last week has more than doubled this morning and I'll have to check the lot because people tend to slip stuff into caste articles etc and then they get obscured by the bot edit. I do wish there was a way to ration what they do - it's almost as if the thing has decided to target my watchlist (it's probably actually targetting a category or five). Bloody nuisance, even if necessary, gnoming. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed the same, though my watchlist is probably not half as big as yours. I wonder if there's a way to make it spread category-wise edits over a longer timespan. Vanamonde (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Sitush, isn't there a checkbox at the top of your watchlist to hide bot edits? EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
There is but it doesn't seem to work (nor does the one for hiding my own edits). I'm not sure if it would fix the problem anyway - I'm not bothered about the bot edits showing up but rather that they may obscure (by being the last edit) an earlier poor edit by an actual person. You'll be aware of the mess that is caste-related stuff here and so may appreciate just how many articles I have on my watchlist, most of which are showing up at being edited by Bender the Bot at the moment but some of which will indubitably have been edited poorly very recently by some *?>"£$%. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've not explained that very well, sorry. The checkboxes for hiding/showing have never worked on my setup, which has been various versions of Firefox on various versions of Ubuntu. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - Even if you get them to work, it will not solve your particular problem - hiding the bot edit{s), does not "reveal" the last non-bot edit. - Arjayay (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I suspected but have never been able to prove. All hiding will do is shorten the list of changes in the watchlist. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I give up. Might as well delete the watchlist! The bot has taken over so much there is no way I can keep on top of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Bender the Bot, it seems to be working through every single article on Wikipedia in alphabetical order—it appears that Wikipedia is having one of its periodic bursts of institutional paranoia about the use of http rather than https, despite the fact that nobody has ever managed to come up with an explanation as to why anyone would want to spy on another editor's account. Best thing to do is grit your teeth and ignore it; assuming it's working alphabetically (which seems to be the case) it's already up to N so should be finished fairly soon. If you'll forgive a bit of OR, I suspect you're seeing it more often than others (I have 10,000+ items on my watchlist, but only 10 Benderised pages showing in the last 7 days) because it's targeting Google links, and I've noticed that articles on Ind-Pak tend to have more than their fair share of Google Books in the sources (probably to do with the relative scarcity of libraries compared to most other English-speaking countries). ‑ Iridescent 15:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm having issues with Addbot from Wikidata .. I need to keep track of wikidata edits (so they don't introduce unsourced junk) but ... my gods, it's killing my watchlist this morning... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Arjayay, I am unclear on why hiding the bot edit would also suppress the last non-bot edit in the watchlist. A change is a change, provided it fell in the 24 hour window which the watchlist is designed to report on. It would take some experiments to see if that's the case. But anyway, you have the option "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent", which can be found in Special:Preferences. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, you may well be unclear as to why, but that's precisely what happens. Since the bug was reported nine years ago and the devs have done nothing other than belittle the many people who've complained about it, I think it's safe to say they don't intend to fix it. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've also had a bot doing things with Wayback - searching for archiveurls etc - this last few days. When we get hit by several at once (or even close together) it really does get tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I deviced a workaround for this problem a few years back: Copy over your watchlist links to a sandbox page and then click on "Related changes" on the left hand tab, use the "hide bots" "hide my edits" options at the top and you'll see all the changes on those articles based on the time period selected. You can do this based on categories too and that makes life simpler. I came up with this when I did a lot of work on women cricketers and the weird edits on those were getting covered up by bots. Problem with this is that you can only see a max of 500 edits in total (newest first), so your list of articles has got to be small.—SpacemanSpiff 16:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Might be worth a go, Spiffy, thanks. I've just noticed that Boleyn has gone on another spree of nominating loads of caste/clan articles for deletion - that's even more work because they're practically acting as a bot when they do that! And muggins here feels compelled to do a WP:BEFORE, which takes a while per article. This is not turning out to be a good day, and with all the recent AfDs (including some that have been relisted from the last batch), it isn't going to be a good week either. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) …which makes your watchlist public, thus making it child's play for every crank, troll and weirdo to to annoy the hell out of you by making a "good faith" edit to every article on the list every couple of days… ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It works well on categories too (just the page you're on, not the full category) and I guess that'd be helpful for Sitush in particular, an alternate method would be to just copy over the history of the bot to a page and then work on the related changes for that. —SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Iridescent:, well, the thing seems to be going back round. It has just done the letter D. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Anoher HTTPS pass through bot? Huh. I've run into this issue myself; the only way to fix it would be to prod that Phab task with some code that can fix the issue while accounting for Quiddity's concern, I believe. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: "... it appears that Wikipedia is having one of its periodic bursts of institutional paranoia about the use of http rather than https, despite the fact that nobody has ever managed to come up with an explanation as to why anyone would want to spy on another editor's account."
I listed some evidence on why HTTPS is a good idea on User:Bender the Bot#HTTP → HTTPS. Further, I initiated a proposal on WP:VPR recently, giving more explanation. Long story short, this conversion of links is useful and important.
As for why it blows up everyone's watchlist, I'm not sure. Usually bots should be able to fly under the radar, I don't know what's wrong is this case. --bender235 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No disrespect, but I find all of that utterly unconvincing; remember we're talking about links to Google Books here, not to an online banking site. In the unlikely event that we do have a reader so paranoid that they're worried about other people knowing which Google Books links in references they've followed, I'd imagine they'd be too busy adjusting their tinfoil hat to even notice the change; "censorship" is a completely meaningless term when it comes to Google Books since the system is location-based and only serves up material which is permitted in any given reader's IPs' jurisdiction; no sensitive data of any kind passes in either direction, so authentication is irrelevant. I don't see how these hyper-marginal benefits justify something which causes the kind of mass disruption your bot is causing. (I wouldn't be sorry to see Google Books blacklisted as an EL altogether, but the reasons have nothing to do with "the Russians are making a list of what books I'm reading!" paranoia.) ‑ Iridescent 13:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Being spied on is a minor issue in this case (even though it is a valid concern for people in certain countries). The main reason here is that we are sending a ton of traffic to Google Books and Google News (they're probably the most-used reference on Wikipedia in general), and when it is using outdated HTTP links, all this traffic needs to be re-routed by Google (since they are HTTPS-by-default like Wikipedia). That takes time, especially on mobile, and it breaks the HTTP referrer (both issues explained in the WP:VPR linked above).
Anyhow, this is a one-time run. All Google links added these days are HTTPS anyways, so we're fine. All that needs to be taken care off are those years-old legacy links (of which, unfortunately, we have literally hundreds of thousands). --bender235 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've prodded the Phabricator ticket along a little. If only someone with PHP skills could send a patch there... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Liang[edit]

Ring ring. Hello. Is this Sitush? This is he. What do you mean, "this is he?" This is he. Me. What is the antecedent for "this"? Me. Then why were you talking about him? Me? About who? This he you mentioned. That's me. Why didn't you say so in the first place? *Click*

What Is The Reason When Why You Delete My Translation Of Rachel Liang, And I'm Not Angry If You Give A Right Reason For It, Because It's Our Obligation To Give A Right Details And Grammar At Every Article Of Wikipedia, So If I Did Some Wrong I Will Accept It. (愛耶穌, Talk 21:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And Sitush, I Also Want Ask Why If I Use My Phone, There Is Some Number 7 At The I Don't Know What It Called Of Search, So It Means I Have 7 Notification, But When I Click It There Is No 7 New Notifications So What's The Meaning?. (愛耶穌, Talk 21:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that the article made almost no sense in the English language. The information is still in the history and someone can retrieve it if they want to make a better job of translation. I did ask for translation help before removing the information, and I left a note at Talk:Rachel Liang also. I realise that this must be disappointing for you but, however confusing the article may have been, your ability to translate into English is 100 per cent better than my ability to translate in the opposite direction.
I don't know enough about the notifications system to explain your other query, nor do I use my phone much for Wikipedia purposes. I do know that it has been changed a few times, so maybe the developers are still working on it. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
愛耶穌, I think Sitush still uses a rotary phone; I'll add a picture, in case you're younger than 25 or so. I do agree with him on the article. The next step, as far as I'm concerned, is to find decent sources, and if you find English ones, it will be easier a. to write an English article and b. to collaborate with English-speaking editors. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Good caption, Drmies. Reminds me of a story from the British colonial era. Someone in the Foreign Office in London decides to phone a Governor of a far-away colony. He gets a minion to arrange the call. The phone is answered by a servant at the Governor's Residence:
London: Is this the Governor's Residence?
Servant: Sure is.
London: Is the Governor available?
Servant: Sure is.
London: Thank you. Long distance from London.
Servant: Sure is.
And the servant ends the call. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't help but picture one of these guys trying to set up the call.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Existentialism and grammar, Sitush--a glorious combination. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Now you are being Satre-tastic? - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Drmies, that caption pretty much sums up my first month of phone conversations (clarification: not as him) after I moved to the US! —SpacemanSpiff 01:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not interested, sorry. I've got a much thicker skin. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Teacher1943. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought he was a sockpuppet. The comment that he had never met an editor as arrogant as you, after ten edits, was telling Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Castes/Surnames/Tribes in the Sub-Continent.[edit]

Hi Sitush. I have seen you deal with South Asian related topics, and with the "castes/surnames/tribes" topic of the region. You must be aware of the the kind of mess these topics tend to generate on WP. Going through these articles histories i realized that you have been dealing with them firmly; apparently, one user, namely "User:WALTHAM2" was adding a plethora of Caste/Surname articles on WP, which you stopped him from doing owing to non-notability. There are many other such articles here that have unverifiable references mainly from Raj sources or have no references. Recently two pages (Banday and Bandey) on Kashmiri surnames came up. Sameer212121, the creator of both these pages used some references that have either no mention of the caste, or they are Raj sources (which i guess are not accepted in WP). User:Sameer212121 links them to a variant of Pandey. Another user has come up with another source (TareekTarikh-ei-aqwam-e-KashmirHasan) that is unverifiable online, and getting a hard copy is difficult; this user has also probably used "original research". I merged both the pages to Pandey since that is apparently what User:Sameer212121 thought of them as. But, the page is being un-merged and restored to its Raj sources and other unverifiable references. The unverifiable part becomes more of a concern because long stories are being used as content for these articles. Furthermore, Kashmiris have well over 300 surnames/given-names, and creating articles for all of them is like using WP as a directory for these surnames and that too supported by Raj sources. Also Wikipedia:Notability comes into play here. Other articles that go along these lines are Douli, Khamb, Maldiyal Mughal, Junhal, Hamals, etc. We need to stop such articles from popping up unless there have fully verifiable sources that don't come from British Raj census/ethnography. Have a look at these articles, i suggest deleting them. Regards, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Just a sidenote: articles about surnames (tagged with {{surname}}) are pretty common. Aside from any information they might have about the surname and its origin, they usually double up as WP:SIAs listing the people bearing the name, and if there are two or more such people then these articles are normally kept (see WP:APONOTE). Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Perhaps Douli (one reference, to the British Raj publication "Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 6"), Khamb (unreferenced, non-notable, has been tagged as such since March 2015), Maldiyal Mughal (unreferenced), Junhal (tagged as unsourced since November 2015) and Hamals tagged as unsourced since July 2011) can be redirected? Not sure to what, though. What do you say, Sitush? Uanfala, I don't see any lists of people bearing the name in these. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
I was intending that as a general note, I wasn't implying there are any lists in these particular articles. But having at look at them, I see that Hamals looks like a plural, and there are people with the surname Hamal: Benisha Hamal, Rajesh Hamal, Pramesh Kumar Hamal, although these could also go at Hamal (disambiguation). Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirect Hamals to a newly-created Hamal (disambiguation), listing people such as those Uanfala mentions and making no mention of caste/tribe because that would be a potential BLP violation involving a non-notable community. I'll take a look at the rest when I feel more inclined to wade through what will indubitably be another spate of argument from members of the alleged communities and/or fairly clueless inclusionists. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
As i see it, unless these caste/surname/tribe articles have non-Raj sources that can verify the entire content, they should not be on WP. Content-verifiable sources becomes especially important in these articles seeing the contentious nature of the "Caste" topic in the sub-continent. If this measure is not used, we are calling for endless POV pushing, original research, and edit warring. Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. However, where they are turned into a list of notable people who bear the same name, and where they do not mention the unverifiable/unreliably sourced caste/tribe, they are no longer an article about the caste/tribe. Thus, the problem goes away. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Random WWI Indian rulers[edit]

Not sure if this would interest you, but I came across File:The Maharajah of Tikari (6306248225).jpg and was thinking of putting it in Tekari Raj, but I suspect that article needs some TLC first. Do you think it is one of the rulers? I had more luck putting File:Sadeq Mohammad Khan (6282373533).jpg in Sadeq Mohammad Khan V. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I will take a proper look at it tomorrow but one thing is already obvious: the thing is a puff piece for Bhumihar claims to Brahmin status - that is a long-running problem that has involved multiple pov-fork articles using alternate spellings etc. A lot of zamindari estates were very, very small also - often little more than a village and some surrounding land. Obviously, some were also huge! - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: that article is a mess and I may need to spend some money to sort it out. However, I think it pretty certain that the photo is of a member of that family. I can find no similarly-named family. There is quite a lot of user-generated stuff out there that seems to accord with the impression (eg: this), and also things like this - Miss Elsie Forest of Australia becomes a Maharani in India. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it and making those edits. The history given at the Flickr page is interesting (scroll down to see the comments). Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Afd opinion[edit]

Please share your opinion in my recent AfDs regarding the "Jat Clans", as they are your good suite. Please follow up them at this link. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am getting swamped by the number of caste-related AfD nominations being put forward by you and Boleyn. I like to do a WP:BEFORE and when people go on a spree of nominations that can become time-consuming. The benefits of doing so, though, should be obvious if you compare this with this. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)