User talk:Sitush
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. |
Archives |
|---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
|
Contents
Oiniwar Dynasty[edit]
Hi Sitush Why are you removing other references from Oiniwar dynasty . I see you have removed Geneome Mapping , SN Singh History of Tirhut , Recasting the Brahmin in Medieval Mithila: Origins of Caste Identity among the Maithil Brahmins of North Bihar by Anshuman Pandey
You have made the page dependent on only one book thats not Ideal . Please revert your changes and use the authentic reference like History of Tirhut etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:500B:164B:B961:E230:6CED:C38A (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The explanations will be in my edit summaries or in the recent discussions on the article talk page, which is where this conversation should be taking place. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- As an example, see the summary for this edit. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- THat's Burbak up there, Jakichandan can you check where else there's been contribution/disruption? —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Please take a look at 2409:4064:386:7414:0:0:19E3:A8AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2405:204:C004:BA24:0:0:C58:18A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2409:4064:40C:A8D3:0:0:2A05:E8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too. MADHEPURA2018 also seems to be linked. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2001:630:E4:42E0:150B:FFB1:6C:E22E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may also be. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, is this the Bihari nationalist thing? MADEHEPURA2018 was indef blocked for constant disruption and claims of racism. NB: Damien2016 was a self-admitted sock of Burbak (long since blocked). I know that there has been a lot of problems relating to Maithila stuff but never made the connection. How much crap have they got away with? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is this "Jha, Makhan (1997). Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd." even remotely reliable? The article leans a lot on that one reference. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- And is Suyasham, the creator of the article, possibly related to MADEHEPURA2018?--regentspark (comment) 15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Makhan is very poor. I've said so in my edit summaries and at Talk:Oiniwar Dynasty. I' now cleaning out Gajendra Thakur which is just fancruft. There are masses of this type of thing in the Maithili topic area. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- And is Suyasham, the creator of the article, possibly related to MADEHEPURA2018?--regentspark (comment) 15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is this "Jha, Makhan (1997). Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd." even remotely reliable? The article leans a lot on that one reference. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, is this the Bihari nationalist thing? MADEHEPURA2018 was indef blocked for constant disruption and claims of racism. NB: Damien2016 was a self-admitted sock of Burbak (long since blocked). I know that there has been a lot of problems relating to Maithila stuff but never made the connection. How much crap have they got away with? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sitush and RegentsPark: Jha might not be highly reliable but he is reliable to a certain extent. Some other authors also seem to cite his books in their own books. For example this. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also Burbak sockfarm seems to be related with Mithila regionalism, on the other hand, MADHEPURA2018 seems to be pushing Bihar regionalism (i.e. pushing POV on both Mithila and Magadha related articles). Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: I think Burbak is again block evading as Gandhawaria Rajput. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's the same, but I'll let better minds such as Ponyo be the judge of that, I've blocked as NOTHERE based on some of the edit summaries and content changes. —SpacemanSpiff 11:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, on deeper look, I think this needs Ponyo's attention, there's the puppy from down below on this page as well as that Glory account, all of which have been created in the past few days and are adept at edit warring. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Thank you. That puppy account (Good Puppy Heaven) looks almost certain. I am not too sure about the Glory one (I guess you are talking about Suyasham). But as you say we should let Ponyo decide on these. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am more than happy for the admins to investigate me but I find it odd that anyone who takes an interest in the history of Bihar is automatically assumed to be a sock. Can you please give reasons as to why you suspect that I am a sock account? Bare in mind that I have barely 10 edits. Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23 has blocked some socks including Good Puppy Heaven. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are two sock farms at play here, one is Burbak (talk · contribs · logs), the other is Barthateslisa (talk · contribs · logs). If someone can spend time on comparing the edits then we can match the socks easily. The two farms have a long history of edit warring with each other. —SpacemanSpiff 01:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff and Bbb23: I am also thinking that there may be two sockfarms and 2405:205:A047:4F6E:0:0:DF3:50AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is almost certainly a part of one of them. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @GeneralizationsAreBad and RegentsPark: may also like to help. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Please take a look at 2405:205:A0E1:5B7D:0:0:8DC:8B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Thank you for page protection of Mithila (region) and History of Mithila Region pages. I think Raj Darbhanga and Oiniwar Dynasty pages are also in urgent need of protection. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
File:Megan Boyd.png[edit]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Re "looks like someone has copy/paste this tripe": Well, yeah... along with the rest of the EB1911 article that served as the basis for the WP one =P[edit]
I noticed your edit comment "/* Biographies */ links (looks like someone has copy/paste this tripe)". The line in question ("The letters between Gibson and Mrs Henry Sandbach, granddaughter of Mr Roscoe, and a sketch of his life that lady induced him to write, furnish the chief materials for his biography. See his Life, edited by Lady Eastlake"), along with all of the initial version of the Wikipedia article (as with many articles on pre-20th C. figures), was copied from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (in this case from a 19th Century article article by the same Elizabeth, Lady Eastlake.) The 19th C. source also accounts for the much more subjective language throughout the article than is encouraged in Wikipedia. It's good, of course, that you modernized and linked the names. But copy/pasted, outdated wording is hardly surprising, given the common practice on WP of copying EB1911 articles straight-in to start an article, so I wouldn't get too outraged when coming across things like "Mrs. [Husband Name]". :-P
Btw, cute cleanup spoof at the top of this talk page. :) —Undomelin (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Ambattar[edit]
Ambattar is in the back of the NPP queue, could you review it? Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Happy Dipawali[edit]
| Happy Dipawali Sitush |
-Gazal world (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Satyendra Prasanno Sinha.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Satyendra Prasanno Sinha.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)