User talk:Sitush

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

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It runs off my back like a duck's water. (Vikram Seth, "A Suitable Boy" p.416)

Kachhwaha page[edit]

This article has wholly confused two separate Caste groups, the Kachhwaha Rajputs and a peasant community predominantly peresent in Madhya Pradesh who address themselves as Kushwaha. The sources will obviously be correct as they would be referring to the Kushwaha Mali/ Peasant community and not the Rajput one. What you guys have done here is that used the name of one and put in the information of the other. This is nothing short of pure vandalism. I can bring in dozens of references which prove that the Kachhwaha are an ancient Rajput clan, the most relaible one being Col Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan but you guys will bring in those sources which talk about the kushwaha peasant community to try and confuse the topic again. This wiki page is at present providing wholly false information. The kachhwaha page should be restored to its original form and a separate section may be made for the peasant community. In India the lower castes usually adopt clan-names of higher castes, would that mean that wikipedia will turn all of them into lower caste groups ? I see that you are the main person who is distorting and confusing the page, is there any personal reason ? A Personal dislike perhaps ? Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks James Tod is a reliable source is almost by default not going to get their way on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because Sitush says that James Tod is unreliable, we should accept that? Even if you leave James Tod alone, there are several other reliable sources stating Kachwaha as a Rajput clan. T Singh has got a valid point here.

I have read the sources which you had asked me to read, but couldn't find the material which supports the article's language especially the lead. Can you please specify which page of the sources support these sentences of the article :

"Kashwaha is a caste group which started claiming to be a Rajput clan in 20th century."

"The rulers of the same caste group had ruled Jaipur and Alwar".

"Kachwaha is sometimes referred to be Kushwaha."

"A Kachwaha family ruled at Amber, which later became known as the Jaipur State, and this branch is sometimes referred to as being Rajput."

What the article in its present form says is confusing and misguiding. It says the Jaipur rulers are sometimes referred as Rajput. The words like "they claim to be Rajput" and "sometimes they are referred to Rajput" are misguiding as the Jaipur rulers are undisputed Rajputs.

The 'classification' section is also a complete non-sense as it is copy-paste from Kushwaha. And I have already clarified that Kushwaha and Kachwaha are not synonymous.-Owsert (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not just me who considers Tod to be unreliable. Everyone with any common sense does, not to mention leading academics. As for the rest of your comment, try looking at the page numbers that are given in the citations and understanding English prose - it really is that simple. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already gone through those page numbers and couldn't find much that supports the present version of the article. Thats why I have asked you above questions. -Owsert (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Going thoroughly in the sources cited in the article I conclude that :

Sources which are cited for Jaipur and Alwar rulers like Raja Nal and the Goddess and The Dancing girl: A history of Early India simply refer these rulers as Rajput. No source in the article supports the lead that they started claiming to be Rajput clan in 20th century. The two groups are being described in the same article, one is a Kushwaha caste groups known as Kachhwaha, the other being a Rajput clan. 'Kachwaha', as a Rajput clan is nothing but a corrupted form of 'Kacchapaghata', which is the original name of the ruling Rajput clan of Jaipur, Alwar and others. I am going ahead to create an article Kachwaha (clan), using the same sources to remove this confusion. All the Rajput related stuff from the article Kachwaha needs to be deleted and the page itself should be moved to Kachwaha (caste group). -Owsert (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Owsert:, I think that you should discuss this properly at the article talk page. Failure to do so may well be considered an example of a POV fork and then you'll find that you've wasted your time. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Scholberg[edit]

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A little Advice?[edit]

Hey Sitush, since you've helped me out before, I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I just came across a very obvious POV fork, here and here. What is the usual way to deal with this? WP says POV forks are to be avoided (duh) but I could not find anything very helpful beyond that. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd avoid it like the plague. The Koch Brothers articles appeared at WP:ANI twice in 2012 but I also remember a lot of messing around last year. There'll be stuff on the article talk pages - reams of it, probably involving a lot of wikilawyering - and on other dispute resolution noticeboards. People such as @Binksternet: will likely know more about the background but the general subject matter is probably a part of the open ArbCom case about Austrian Economics. That is likely to have a lot of fallout.
As a general rule, recently-created POV forks (certainly, those relating to Indian castes) can often by CSD'd or PROD'd but in this case I think you'd have to go down the route of a merge proposal. I'll not be around to participate. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
My advice in this case is to engage with both articles in their current condition for a few months, improving them as you see fit. The editors who act as gatekeepers will provide you with a sense of how easy or difficult it will be to initiate the merge process. I predict you will choose to let it be. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Much appreciated. Also, I thought I'd posted this message a while back, guess I forgot....Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT & TE[edit]

Noted your discussion. How she can say "I ask again, do you have any evidence that I have ever supported a point of view which is not the one found in the most reliable sources?"

  1. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth,
  2. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_income_inequality_effects,
  3. Talk:Progressive_tax#Is_this_material_topical_to_the_progressive_tax_article.3F.

She basically ignores any feedback on original research. I wonder if she has some kind of cognitive issues.Mattnad (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

About Yogendra Yadav[edit]

I think it will be much appropriate if you add the nickname with its refs to another section. Don't you think ? It's not his birth name. Just an informal name. It can be added in a separate para, although. Harsh (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. All I did was revert your unexplained removal of sourced content. If you are now suggesting that the issue was merely positioning then I'm at a loss as to why you removed it entirely. If you wish to discuss placement then you should do so at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I Should have added a summary. I am currently editing the article, will place it appropriately without removing the refs. Harsh (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit is well sourced with citations.Lot of anon ips have been playing around with that page for long.They are deliberately removing sourced content.I had requested page protection which has expired now.Linguisticgeek (talk)

About, ahem, that sandbox[edit]

Oh, you noticed? It's almost as if there is a huge general election going on in the world's most populous democracy, or something along those lines... --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Shirt58: In an ideal world, we probably should also be semi-protecting all the articles relating to the contesting parties and their candidates until the damn thing is over. Given the numbers involved and the lack of interest in policing/lack of understanding of the issues, a broad swathe of semi is the only way that the good guys will have a chance of keeping the lid on things.
The elections are now underway but take six weeks and then a few more days for the count. Yup, it is the most populous democracy but also probably among the most corrupt, in part a theocracy, in part a plutocracy etc - a complete mystery to many and an utter nightmare to all. The mystery and nightmare are compounded on Wikipedia by the sheer incompetence of the people that the WMF are encouraging to contribute. Most of them have no interest in building an encyclopedia: they're here to promote their cause and denigrate the causes of others, be it political, caste, religious or even piddling villages in the back of beyond. It is bloody frustrating trying to stem this tide of hagiography, hatred etc & I've long since stopped worrying about biting newcomers, a decent percentage of whom either appear to be or are in fact confirmed socks anyway. Very, very few of them show any willingness to learn our ways, although I guess that makes it such a relief when one does show an interest in doing so. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your censorship.[edit]

1) My post was not very long. The thesis of my argument is in the first paragraph. Most of the length was a summary of all the sources.

2) It was simple and unambiguous and to the point.

3) We are here for discussions and not ad-hominem.

4) This is the first time I am trying to edit a page.

5) Where is the best place to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic12345 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The use of "ad hominem", the formatting, etc suggest to me that you are not a new contributor and, of course, the article has been subject to a lot of meat- and sock-puppetry, as have many other caste-related articles. That said, I've explained the general issues on your talk page. A 20,000-character opening to a thread is just crazy, sorry. You are welcome to try to break your points down a little. A read of WP:TLDR might be useful, along with WP:TPG, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

.Perhaps you would like to explain[edit]

This reinsertion of unsourced and unreliably sourced POV? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand: I see no reinsertion of unsourced and unreliably sourced POV. The edit removes gibberish that often is not supported by the sources (eg: the stuff about camping goes way beyond what the source says), it removes promotional material based on self-published primary sources and it minimises the hagiographical nature of the content. The article has for a long time been used mainly as a promotional vehicle for the organisation: if the thing really is notable then there should be decent third party support out there, and that does not mean caste-related websites such as which are notoriously unreliable and self-serving. There is a wider picture here also, since the GSB claim to Brahmin status is itself hotly contested, although you wouldn't believe so from reading our articles on the subject because, as with the math article itself, they have been subject to POV edits for so long by the community. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Shvrs' talkpage[edit]

Hey, Sitush. Shvrs can blank their talkpage if they want. It's only active declined unblock requests that they're not allowed to remove, compare WP:UP#CMT. That's not in question here. (I thought of putting this note on WP:AN/S, but perhaps not.) Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Aw, crap. sorry about that. I thought it was all active block notices. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And many admins think the same. They'll reinsert a block notice while linking to WP:UP#CMT, but they're wrong for all that. Bishonen | talk 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, I need to stop copying what admins do - they're so often wrong! - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And I thought we'd clarified that, must go back an look at the discussion. At one point people were arguing that "active sanction" included blocks so block notices could not be deleted. We should perhaps keep them in IP pages though. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


I recently undid your removal of the |location= from two cites in the Narendra Modi article. You appear to believe that the field is for the publication location of the newspaper. That is not the case. It is for the location the article was filed from or occurred at. See Dateline for more detail. --Auric talk 14:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Auric:, no, it isn't. See Template:Cite_news#Publisher. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't say that. It says "Geographical place of publication". The dateline is the location from which the article was submitted or "published". --Auric talk 16:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've raised this at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Exact use for place/location?.--Auric talk 16:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If it were that then "location" for a book would be, for exmaple, the house where the author wrote the book but in fact it is always the location of the publisher. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
For a book, yes, but not a newspaper article.--Auric talk 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've commented in the discussion that you've linked above. Maybe it is the old accountant's training in me, but consistency seems an entirely reasonable goal. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As have I.--Auric talk 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved your comment[edit]

Hi mate, I moved your comment to what I suspect is the correct section on the Modi talk page. Hope you do not mind. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I've literally just sat down again, with a cup of coffee this time. Seeing that talk page was not a good start to my day as it involved meeting up with a known political POV pusher. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I came here to thank you for your patience to hear me out. Well, I can't take that back -- you get it -- thank you! :-) I assume you 'may' be referring to me here. In that case: yes, I do have my point-of-view -- but that applies to everyone? I did not attempt to revert any edit and tried to discuss on the talk page. It is the activity in these pages that I am also loving to get involved. There is huge chance that I will pretty quickly wane from these articles. It does help me get more interaction though! Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Lucky for me that I had already had two coffees under my belt smile, had to DL Game of Thrones first. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad you have your priorities right. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

One for the complaint generator[edit]

Outstanding! Bishonen | talk 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

That's, like, random! Where did it come from? - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That is genius, I did not know you had a pack of attack dogs, just that little mutt smile Darkness Shines (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You weren't aware that I am hated by at least 1 billion people who have never actually met me? - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Only a billion? Could have sworn it was more, let us aim for a trillion. And exchange the puppy you have for a few Direwolves, much better than attack dogs. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Kashyap Rajputs[edit]

Two almost identical articles... Kashyap Rajputs & Kashyap-Rajput. Not sure which one stays and which one goes. The articles are slightly different. Bgwhite (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a single reliable source in the first of those. Joshua Project has been rejected at RSN because it is a Christian advocacy group; the other two are from The People of India states series, which plagiarises works by the utterly hopeless Raj writers. I'll take a look at the other one in a moment. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've removed all the crap from the second of those. The creation of a redirect from Jhinwar is probably correct but obviously means that we need to explain the various names. I can expand the article but it really should be listed as "Kashyap", which at present redirects to Kashyapa; moving it to Kashyap Rajput would be a good second choice; moving it to Kashyap Rajputs would be plain wrong because we do not pluralise caste names in titles. It is never hyphenated. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you're further enlarging your popularity... Great to know that I'm a project! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan, just noticed your signature. You can move the "font size" inside the span tags. You can also drop font size=2. 2 is the default size. This will save some space or allow more space to create an outlandish signature. Bgwhite (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite:, actually, this seems to be a POV thing. There are far more references to Jhinwar than to Kashyap Rajput, once one excludes mirrors, Farcebook, a village called Jhinwar etc. It is almost certianly a case of sanskritisation, since there is no way that low-caste artisan/labouring communities would be accepted as Rajputs by their peers. I can't prove that right now, but I'm pretty sure of my ground and so Kashyap-Rajput should be at Jhinwar, while Kashyap Rajput should redirect to that page. The hyphenated version should simply be deleted - it simply is not plausible. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, Farcebook is an intentional thing, not my usual typo! I hate it. Joshua, I'm not sure that I'd want to have the project named after me ... - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You already have your own special ANI board. I think it would better to have your name be a verb.... I was just situshed, pronounced cy-tush. Definition... my butt was hauled before ANI.
Once I saw the articles dealt with a caste, I knew I was out of my league. With the usual POV pushing and vandalism that accompanies these pages, I had no hope of fixing it up.
Ha! This one is particularly messy and I think you've stumbled upon an entire farm of puffery and misunderstanding that could involve 20 or more articles. I'm going to copy/paste some stuff that I've just written at Kashyap-Rajput (with attribution to myself) and then that article can be deleted as an implausible title not even worth redirecting. It could take me several days to sort out the rest of the problems. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio for symbol aap[edit]

Hi sitush, why is a logo considered a copyvio , it was created by me through ms paint, there is also little bit of confusing with me on how other political parties can carry symbols ? (ofcourse i do not support any ) , can you guide me to right reason ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The entire issue was discussed extensively at the article talk page, at Commons and at WP:NFCR some months ago. The outcome was that the broom logo was not acceptable but the official AAP logo was ok. It's all there in the archives somewhere. One suggestion was that AAP could get round it if they themselves incorporated the symbol into their official logo, as some other parties do. In any event, switching the official logo for the election symbol and introducing Indic script was very clearly a POV-y edit, being done at election time when many illiterate people are voting; quite why illiterate people would even look at Wikipedia is beyond me but that issue, too, was raised in the past discussions. Since people got blocked for changing it last time round, I strongly suggest that you just leave it alone: there is far too much jiggery-pokery going on across all Indian party articles at the moment and there really is no need for you to add to it.
What other parties are showing their logos at the moment? - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

citation fixation[edit]

Hi Sitush, can you fix the citation of Sfnp|thakur|2004|p=6|ps= in Aurobindo article something is wrong in my usage of the format (interestingly a neutral source! after long time. ) Shrikanthv (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. The name is case-sensitive - you were using "thakur" in the {{sfnp}} but "Thakur" in the {{citation}}. Also, the dates in the {{citation}} were confusing things. No big deal, and you'll get the hang of it. I've only glanced at the source but, yes, it looks like it might be much better than some of the other stuff in there. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo and PR[edit]

I started on the peer review for Sri Aurobindo before noticing that you were in the middle of quite a bit of an overhaul and a GA review. Can you let me know when you're finished so I don't bother reviewing text that might not be there tomorrow? I wish the primary author would have noted on the PR that all this was going on. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Spike Wilbury:, sorry about that. Although I'm not the primary author, having only got involved when I noticed that something truly dreadful had somehow been listed as a GA, I probably should have delisted it from PR also. I won't be able to complete the overhaul because some of the latter sections about integral yoga etc are just gibberish to me. If they mean nothing to you either then perhaps the PR should be delisted now and then someone can relist if/when the more fundamental issues are resolved? - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, but I'll at least read through the rest of it. I may just leave more general comments on the PR to point the author in the right direction, and then close it. Thanks for you attention to the article! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kachwaha (clan)[edit]

Glad to see that was settled. I just didn't have time to figure it out, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think the issue itself has been settled - we're dealing with someone who is pushing a Rajput agenda across various articles - but clearly which ever admin it was could see that the article was a POV fork. Now I've got to deal with the move request. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

you made it to the newspaper[edit]

hey... your name featured in today's newspaper in India :)

--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Great. Please add Press mention template in mentioned articles. --TitoDutta 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Tagging done TitoDutta 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fame indeed, but when did you get to be a moderator? Can I be one too please? Eric Corbett 02:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably ToI meant "editor" --TitoDutta 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think people should get their facts right and then say what they mean. If one fact is wrong then it casts doubt on the whole article. Eric Corbett 02:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have seen many news agencies (not only Indian) referring to WP editors as moderators. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Then maybe the WMF ought to address that misunderstanding. But of course they won't. Eric Corbett 04:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've said in a couple of threads above, the WMF have a lot to answer for when it comes to India-related stuff. Anyways, I've just emailed Jay @ ToI to point out the error. Sometimes they correct the online editions.
I think there may be another published interview with me in ToI before too long, so if any of you have any hobbyhorses perhaps now is the time to raise them. I might then mention the things, given the opportunity ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • An interview would be excellent to get some highlight on our issues. Go for it and give the interview well. --TitoDutta 06:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As most probably you got and email from web citation, I gave your email id while archiving the news article. --TitoDutta 06:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ToI explanation for "moderator". Jay has got back to me regarding the use of "moderator" in his ToI article: "Thanks for reading the article and point out the mistake. The "moderator" part was added by the editor here so that the 'layman' would be able to understand the difference between an established editor and a random editor. Although the terminology is incorrect, as I pointed out to the editor last night also, but the general usage seems to be ok. ... This is something our editors are forced to alter so that the common man understands and don't get confused. I wish there was a better way to explain that..." I sort of see the point: we do have a lot of difficulties explaining the administrator concept both on- and off-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wauw! Good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats! Now that you appear in "reliable sources", you can have your own article as well at Sitush. smile §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources is the usual requirement. Come to think of it, I satisfy that criteria, too. I've had my own stuff published in newspapers etc way back when ... and I don't mean the Letters column. But autobiographies are frowned upon and I'd rather stay non-notable. Of course, if the death threats or legal actions come to fruition then things might be different ;) I'm off to Shrewsbury for a few hours now - any Wikipedians visiting there, please feel free to say hello: I'll be the only person in town without a single eye in the middle of their forehead. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
congrats, will your opinion of toi change now ;-) -sarvajna (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sarvajna: probably not! However, I will grant that the quotations of me are accurate, including the unattributed "messianic" one. In my experience of the UK press, I've often been misquoted. In fact, in January 1982 one newspaper ran a quite lengthy "interview" with me in Manchester when I was in fact working in Edinburgh and had not spoken with them either verbally or in writing. It was harmless stuff but disconcerting nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice. Much better than my mention (first paragraph) in the media. I can't wait for the Indian elections to be over. I getting tired of reverting waaaay too many pages. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bgwhite: I rather suspect that the outcome will prove as problematic for Wikipedia as the process itself. Narendra Modi is likely to win and it has amused me to see the US and European countries trying to find ways to accommodate him despite their clear distaste for the man: that's diplomacy for you, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


First off, kudos for showing remarkable patience there. Second, I feel like the quickest way to end that argument would be address the one point that Nick does bring up, that the "criticism for the riots" sentence is somewhat vague. If we could replace that (and only that) while making it a bit clearer, it might stop some of the bullshit. And in that respect, a tweaked version of Nick's text might work. Of course, if you feel it's better just to freeze the whole thing at this point and edit after the election, I would defer to that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I didn't have much to do with creating the lead as it stands at present, despite being involved with the article at the time when it happened. That kind of upsets NickCT's belief that I've somehow got a grip on the thing. It is my understanding that the bland state of the lead was by design, being the outcome of protracted negotiations between pro-Modi, anti-Modi and neutral factions: one of the things about consensus is that it often result in the lowest common denominator prevailing. Changing the thing during the campaign could open a big can of worms, given the history, and the lead is going to need an overhaul when the elections end in a few weeks' time anyway.
I've given several reasons why NickCT's proposals are no more accurate than the existing statement in the lead. But it is not my article and there is no need for anyone to defer to me. I'd just rather people understood the history and, indeed, the subject before wading in with proposals and I'm not convinced that NickCT does. Some of that lack of understanding may also be because the body itself needs some work. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I didn't mean I would defer to any "ownership" of the article; what I meant is that since you're more experienced then me, I'd trust your judgement on a borderline case. I understand that the current form is a "lowest common denominator," but having been monitoring the page for more than a year, I think it might be time for another stab at the issue. If you'd rather take a back seat, that is fine by me, although I would of course really appreciate your input. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Tinkering with it is not the answer. It needs a complete rewrite, as I said in the RfC. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you please try to see where I'm coming from for a minute? I'm not saying this "tinkering" is making it perfect, but there is a place for small incremental improvements, is there not? There is a need for a re-rewrite, that has to wait till the election is over; but the two are not mutually exclusive. The sentence is currently vague; the new version is 10% less so. That's all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I ripped into it yesterday and even NickCT seems now to recognise that his proposals wouldn't work without a lot of modification. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the latest attempt I posted there minutes before replying here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just seen that and replied there. It is obvious that you've read the damn article; would that Nick had done the same. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hold on[edit]

Please wait for atleast one day. I was working on Early Nationalists. Every time I try to modify it and I face edit conflict. So, please wait and don't trim the references because I can define the full source. So, request you to hold on for atleast a day or two. Jim Carter (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You marked your own creation as patrolled, having had it rejected at AfC and userfied. I'm not sure that was a good idea. Put it this way, I don't mark my own creations as patrolled even though I have reviewer rights.
The thing is full of problems and while I am pretty confident that solutions exist for many of them, WP:BURDEN applies. I'm slightly concerned about WP:SYN also but it is difficult to be sure when there are so many very poor citations. As I said some weeks ago, this is not a worthless effort but I'm unsure how far it can be taken while complying with our policies etc. Believe me, I've got umpteen articles in my head that will never even see the light of day because of these and similar policies - anty frustration that you feel is likely shared by me!
I don't particularly enjoy playing the lawyer here but best to nip these things in the bud and see someone learn from it than to let them fester and see the creator go on to produce more of the same & then implode. There was one spectacular example two or three years ago when over 1,000 Indian articles were deleted in the space of a few minutes due to someone being allowed a lot of rope; I think you're better than that & I'm happy to assist in the learning process. So, fire away with any questions etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo[edit]

Most of this was copyvio by Varungarde (talk · contribs). I suspect the rest is also from a source I can't find. I wasted about an hour on this stupid, stupid article. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Life Divine" has over 1100 pages, and does not contain the word "spiritualism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
So it needs a new title or a redirect. Right now it's simply regurgitating a tiny part of the book. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)