||An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag.
Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
Paraiyar page modifications
Paraiyar is a caste group found in the state of tamilnadu,India.I modified the article with all the reliable sources.But you are depicting that caste as a slave caste.And I modified the article by researching into the past history and made edit by giving line by line proof.But one time the caste was a slave but time to time the hstory of any castes change.Our country India was also once slave to british,but because of this the wikipedia article about India cannot be started like "India a former slave of british" though the information is true.It is racial discrimination.Same for this caste also.So if you dont want to glorify this caste then its okay.But discriminating a caste is a punishable offence under Indian Penal Code(Indian law).So I hope u might have understood what I am saying.You have the right to modify the sections which has no reliable sources,but you cannot discriminate a particular group of people because of their past history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS for details of what constitutes a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Balija page edited with proper sources but had reverted back again
U had reverted our page again, But we had given proper sources only but u had mentioned that as Unreliable one, whats wrong with my below proof.
By Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar. It mentions an inscription edited by Dr. Fleet, Vol XIII, p.185, in which Turagavedanga (Thiruvenkata ?) is mentioned as the "scion of Bali race" as Kishkinda-puravar-sevara and Bali-vamsa-odbhava. The publication "Genealogies of the Hindus, extracted from their sacred writings, pg. 48-49" mentions.The Epigraphia Indica, by Bhandarakar, Volume 42, p. 37. Yashoda Devi mentions in her book The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.: Administration, literature and society.
The above one is a strong proof and how everytime u r reverting back and we are highly disappointed due to this ,see we are describing our Heritage and its true and not a fake one right.
Not necessary for us to do this and to to edit wrong information in wiki.
Kindly check once again and revert back
Hello Sitush, I would be grateful for your input on the renaming of the article Dadu Konddeo. An editor changed it from Dadoji saying we do not do honorifics. Now, I could not find a single reliable source that called him "Dadu Now there are very recent news articles in Marathi calling him Dadu after publication of a controversial book on Shivaji by James Laine. Most historians including Duff and Sarkar have called him Dadaji and I believe the Ji is an integral part of his name just like other Marathi names such as Shivaji, Shahaji, Mahadji Shinde, Kanhoji Angre etc. When you have time please check the talk page of the article for more information. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I can do there, sorry. I don't know anything about the person and the order of priority when dealing with COMMONNAME vs HONORIFIC vs NCIN is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So that we don't butt heads...
Like we've done so many times, I'm letting you know that I want to add a 'not to be confused with' tag on one of the pages that you've operated on. Issue is, that a particular community has a similar sounding name to another community from another region of South Asia. But other than the somewhat similar names, the two communities are completely unrelated (in linguistics, origin, culture, gotra, surnames, etc). So is there any specific procedure that I have to follow? ShamusHarper (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Disambiguation is your friend. It might be easier to consider the specifics if you weren't talking in riddles ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the Lohana and Labana communities. I've added a 'not to be confused with' tag for now, but there's this erroneous idea circulating that they're one and the same. What would you suggest? ShamusHarper (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find any source that categorizes the Labana and Lohana as the same, or states that they are related in any way. At the same time, there is no source that directly states that both communities are not related. (There are snippets on Google Books that supposedly make mention of both communities but they're inaccessible to me.) Would it be possible to inject text into the article(s) stating that the two communities speak different languages, have different Gotras, etc..? ShamusHarper (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Injecting something might be drifting into the realms of WP:OR unless the sources mention both communities in the context that you describe. This type of thing is a messy area and it isn't helped by issues related to transliteration etc. I appreciate your concern regarding GBooks snippet views - in fact, I'm pleased to see someone who recognises that issue - but the limitations of our policies can create situations such as this. You perhaps already know this but User:Sitush/Common#GBooks is relevant, as is the general notion that sources do not have to be online anyway.
- In situations where we seem effectively to be asked to prove a negative (that the two are not connected) I think that the onus has to be on someone to prove that there is in fact a connection, with reliable sources even if not online. However, it might be worth raising the alleged synonymity (or lack of it) at WT:INB. You could raise it at the article talk pages but that might lead to two disparate discussions. Perhaps start a thread at WT:INB and then post a neutral note at the article talk pages that links to it? - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, I'm having a problem with the same article with the same user User:JuanRiley who's deleting the some of part in a phrase in the top article that Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead. deleting the part to say that Britain's economic lead was fully eroded. For one I say that this doesn't give an accurate description historically and should be kept that way. I also note that user JuanRiley's edits is somewhat anti-British and trying to minimize the section of the British Empire as an example of before when I last disputed with him, my reasons were historically motivated but he refused to even give a reason to why he kept adding an then-thought unsupported content. Now he's back and trying to edit as he sees fit and justified his edit with saying that the word he deleted was redundant when actually the two word he deleted were necessary to not give a wrong concept. Another theory I have with JuanRiley is that his edit might be patriotically motivated, he tries to undermine Britain in his recent edit and user User:Calidum, who's an American like JuanRiley backs him up. Don't get me wrong, I'm an American too but I detest when edits are patriotically motivated rather than historically oriented. (N0n3up (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC))
Jats of Sindh redirect to Jat people is not fair
Hi Sitush you have redirected Jats of Sindh to Jat people is not fair , its just like hiding the facts, first read that article which you have redirected which is different in every nature from the redirected article.and why don't you tolerate the regional Jat of Sindh, these Jat are Baloch tribes. and if oyu don't restore Jats of Sindh, write about them in this article, so the facts should not be hidden from the world. hope you understand without any bias .
- You were yet again falling foul of WP:RS. Furthermore, the article didn't actually indicate anything about the Sindhi Jats that differentiated them from Jat people in general. Just because a community exists in a certain region doesn't mean we should have an article about it. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear sir, hello, I have been following some of your past edits, and trust that you are feeling much better now; my best wishes for your health. Whenever you have the time, I would be grateful for your kind assistance: as I have proposed a merger between two pages i.e. Awan (tribe) and Awans of Pakistan-- as the latter seems to be to be merely repetitious and incorporating much material that is unreliable, and that has been, previously, removed by various editors from the older original Awan (tribe) page. Could you perhaps take a look at both at your kind leisure and find out some way to resolve this matter. I shall be very grateful, thanks. Yours sincerely, 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Col (retd) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have redirected the Awans of Pakistan article because in fact every single citation in the thing was either unreliable or plain fake. That is, there was nothing to merge.