User talk:Sitush/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Edit summary ping

I pinged you through this edit summary. Did you get any notification of that? Does WP:PING work there too? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems not to work in edit summaries - kinda makes sense. To answer your question, List of Dhillons, Dhillon (surname) or List of people called Dhillon, with a lead paragraph saying something like "This is a list of notable people who bear the name Dhillon" would be ok. Provided that you do not link the "Dhillon" to Dhillon. I'd prefer the third but I'm not aware of any standard. Linking to the caste article in the lead would imply a caste affiliation that may not exist and in many cases would thus imply a BLP violation also. A dabhat to Dhillon or Dhillon (caste) is probably ok.

Just my opinion and how things seem to have evolved over the last few years. You might want to run it past WT:INB but the stuff at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists really does apply to lists that are embedded in articles, not merely standalone ones. That particular aspect has been raised at noticeboards "higher up" than WT:INB (Village Pump was one, I think). - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

While adding Dhillons to the article Dhillon remains the pet job of many editors, i though of just having the list of all Dhillons, irrespective of their caste but just the last name. As the current state of article goes, its less of any article about a caste but more of a disambiguation page itself, where all Dhillons are listed and the first lines says that Dhillon is also a name of caste. Just like Raju (disambiguation). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Raju-related stuff also has a lot of fraught activity due to idiotic pov-pushers etc (hence, frequent blocks and protection) and the Dhillon article is not in fact a disambig. The Raju situation is kind of WP:OSE. Never, ever even imply that a person might be a member of a caste unless it is suitably sourced (in which case, it isn't an implication anyway). Bear in mind that Dhillon (clan) redirects to Dhillon, which could add to the implication if someone goes through the redirect and doesn't spot that this is what has happened. Best to have a list of people called Dhillon - that is quite common, I think. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I have on several occasions toyed with PRODing Dhillon due to lack of notability as a caste/clan. I need to do another source sweep first, though. List of people called Dhillon would, of course, never suffer that fate. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If nothing sufficient exists to write an article about the clan/caste, we will make that page itself a disambiguation page. There is no point in having two articles when they can be simply merged and reformed as disambig page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought about that and I'm not happy with it because it will continue to attract the clueless etc who try to usurp caste articles with POV, OR etc. Does List of Yadavs work better? It clearly states that it is a list of people bearing the name and clearly indicates that some of them may belong to the caste of the same name without implying who, if any, ae such. I'd prefer List of people named Yadav as a title. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. Editors will always come to fill up a list of Dhillons. Best way is we ourselves fill it up with all Dhillon names, irrespective of their castes and not even mentioning what caste they belong to. I doubt there will come any editor who would insist on separating the made list into "Dhillons who are Dhillon" and "Dhillons who may or may not be Dhillon". They simply would be happy that their pet name is on the wall. Of course, converting to disambiguation pages would work only with caste article which are one-liners. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, people have been trying to add stuff about the caste also - unsourced etc, as per usual. Make clear that it is a list of names via the article title, just as we do for many other name articles. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kakatiya Dynasty

I would like to talk to you about expanding the Kakatiya Dynasty article. The article at it stands right now is well below the standards of a decent wikipedia entry. I attempted to work on it before but you did not agree with my referencing. It was a fair point. However, I would like to attempt to improve it again using proper references and formatting. Do you have any concerns?

The first reference I have is a book called "Kakati Ganapatideva and his Times" by Dr. P. Sivunnaidu. The author is a professor at the Department of History and Archaeology at the Andhra University. This seems to be a trustworthy reference to utilize. Here is the link to the book on google: http://books.google.ca/books?id=5U1uAAAAMAAJ&q=kakati+ganapatideva+and+his+times&dq=kakati+ganapatideva+and+his+times&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vqWXU57bBI2syASAuYKYAQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

Please let me know if you have any concerns. I would like to work with you to improve this article.

Jonny555 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonny555, I'm not familiar with Sivunnaidu but his position gives him prima facie authority as a reliable source. It doesn't mean that his is the only point of view, of course, and if there are contentious aspects then we need to reflect the opinions of various reliable sources in accordance with WP:NPOV. It is not uncommon for academics to disagree; in fact, in my experience, that's often what they seem to be particularly keen on - there is nothing quite as entertaining as a spat in a Common Room!

I'm not massively familiar with the era in question. If I have the time etc then I might do some reading about it but that doesn't prevent you from being bold now. You would probably need to be careful not to turn it into an article about pretty much just Kakati Ganatideva himself, since that would be undue weight given that there were several rulers in the dynasty - if that person does not have an article themselves then maybe at some point you might consider creating one, assuming that he is a notable person. The article is on my watchlist (I can't remember why) and you can always drop me a note if you hit any problems or have any queries. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin appeal

I reported Chauhan at WP:RFPP much earlier today. The request is still stuck there but a lot of more recent requests (& some older ones) have been dealt with. The meatpuppetry/socking is ridiculous and the article has previously had a long period of semi-protection. The IPs are still at it now and I can't keep reverting them. Can anyone expedite the request, please?

Semi one year. You should get your own admin tools. Just imagine the sockfest at your RFA! Always assuming that the clueless find it. Through Orkut, maybe? Bishonen | talk 19:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. WP:INVOLVED would have prevented me doing anything here, obviously. I think that I've pissed off quite a few long-standing contributors now also, so RfA wouldn't be the doddle that once it might have been ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. Oh, and I changed a POV statement in the article, "These claims of supernatural origin are clearly improbable and unacceptable to the modern mind", to the neutral "These claims of supernatural origin are clearly true." Yes, you'd simply have to stop getting involved. Hmmm. A bit of a problem there. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Haha! You fooled me. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Bishonen:, they're everywhere. I've been dealing with it via PC at Prithviraj Chauhan and elsewhere by normal undo etc. I've just now found them spouting their stuff at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh also. It's mad, it really is. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

don't edit my page ok 'list of gurjars. never edit and don't touch it.

Bhai mere page ko edit nhi kara kar plz. Kunal gurjar (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

list of gurjars

Plz Bhai mere ko edit mth kar thik h..........don't edit my page Kunal gurjar (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Left a few messages on Kunal gurjar's talk page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Raj gazetteers were poor" - justification?

Sitush,

I noted one of your edits:

08:51, 9 December 2013‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,367 bytes) (-191)‎ . . (→‎Notable people: the Raj gazetteers were poor re: caste id & the linked article does not say this)

Can you explain what you mean by "the Raj gazetteers were poor"? What is the justification? Malaiya (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed Raj sources before, Malaiya, I'm sure. They are rarely cited by modern academics precisely because they were so poor; when they are cited, it is usually in the context of dismissing what they say or purely as "colour" for commentary on developing theories etc. Raj writers were generally untrained in matters such as ethnology, unquestioning of what they were told, engaged mainly in study for the purpose of control rather than knowledge per se, adherents of discredited theories such as scientific racism, and so on. Take it as read that the consensus is and has long been that we avoid them. There is at least one exception, though: Hastings' work on religion is, I think, generally still considered ok. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I've talked with people using the Malaiya name here on Wikipedia before but it looks from your talk page etc as if they were not you. Nonetheless, I hope that the above makes sense, first sentence excepted. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sitush:

• What are the reliable sources for caste histories for the Raj period (1858–1947) in your opinion? Can you mention a few examples?
• While we are on this subject, what sources you consider reliable (i) before 1858 and (ii) after 1947? -

Malaiya (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There are over 4000 castes, according to some accounts, and the number of people who have written about them is higher still. I can't possibly give you a list of the sources that are reliable for the history of a specific caste, sorry. You'll need to read WP:RS to get an understanding of how sourcing workes on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give us just a few examples, say 2 to 4, for each of the three periods, so that we will know what references you regard as reliable. - Malaiya (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Anything on whatever caste it may be that has been published by a respected academic press, eg: SUNY, Brill, Cambridge University Press, University of California. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you mention any specific articles or books? And where did the authors who published their work with these publishers get their information? - Malaiya (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are asking far too broad a question. We have a noticeboard - WP:RSN - and the regulars there generally now only deal with specific requests for comment about the reliability of a source. Unless you tell them what article it relates to, what the proposed statement is, what you want to use as a source etc they usually steer clear of it. Working out what is or is not reliable is probably sometimes difficult, although I munst admit that I generally don't find it so. In simple terms, and excluding extreme cases such as David Irving and Koenraad Elst, you can assume that a modern academic is always going to be okay. We are standing on the shoulders of giants here, and the giants are often the academics because their work has been peer-reviewed.

As an example of what certainly are reliable sources, try the books etc written by Susan Bayly. Anything she writes will be reliable, although her interpretations may not be the only possible viewpoint (see our attitude regarding neutrality). If someone says that a source is not reliable then remember that you can always discuss that specific source with them and, if you are still unhappy, you can try dispute resolution or ask at WP:RSN. You will quite often find that the things have been discussed in the past and that consensus already exists. While consensus can change, there are situations - such as the Raj material - where that seems to be extremely unlikely, for the reasons (and more) that I gave at the top of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Angst = away

I'm likely to be away for a couple of days. Those familiar with the health situation might understand why it is not a good idea for me to contribute further while Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_9 is going on. For those that are unfamiliar, I'm on meds that have some awkward side-effects. Be back when it is all over. No offence intended, here or there. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Sitush. Take it easy, and all the best. Your pal, Drmies (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Be well Sitush. --regentspark (comment) 02:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that but I think you are right to do it. Have a nice break, it's a good excuse for one. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Darn, there will be 50% less ANI discussions without you. Take care. Bgwhite (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Take care. --Jyoti (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope you seek second opinion on some of your meds (Amitryptiline, Prednisolone and Tramadol -- strange combo those 3). Get well soon. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Nice to see you're still around

If you get the chance, can you tell me if you think this has a chance at good article status and if not, what should be changed? Also do you know anybody who can help make a new map for the infobox? The one already there looks like some kid made it with Microsoft paint and the noticeboard for maps isn't generating any responses. With a diet coke and small frieds please. Seriously though, I am happy that you haven't left. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in and out; not really around as much as I was. I've no idea about maps, sorry - a black art to me but perhaps a stalker has some idea. I've just taken a very quick glance at the article and if I were the reviewer (I won't be!) then I'd prefer to see a bit more uniformity of citation. You've got a Refs section and a Sources section but really they are neither one thing nor another as far as style goes. Either have a bibliography of sources and use {{sfnp}} or similar, or don't have a bibliography of sources and use the {{cite book}} etc templates. Having only some items in a bibliography seems confusing to me. But I am a simple country boy ;)

You've also got some entries that look as if they may be a bit vague, eg: "Farhad Daftary, Ismaili Literature, pg. 15" but maybe you've already provided the full info for those sources in an earlier citation (publisher, year, isbn etc). Getting the refs in order will make life easier for any reviewer. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Radical, thanks so much for taking a look. Here's a bit of a long shot...are there any tools or bots that can reformat the citations in a quick and easy way? Or some sort of noticeboard that helps with that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are various tools that can assist with cite formats etc - WP:ProveIt, for example - but I doubt that they'll really aid you in a situation such as this. You could just as quickly untangle things manually. It probably would not take long to sort out because the thing is in your sandox and so you need not worry about WP:CITEVAR. I could do it for you if you're stuck, although I might not be able to resolve every single issue if the sources are not available online. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dang, that's awfully polite of you man. Let me try this: I'll attempt to start a section where I will begin writing the sources, with the goal of implementing the Template:Sfnp format. It will likely take me time so if you're not too busy, you have my full consent to edit my sandbox so the article can move closer to completion. In the meantime, I will try to find a way to get a better image because the current one is just embarrassing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I just realized that I have no idea what I am doing. Do you know of a Wikipedia help page that shows how to have a list of references as the bottom, inline citations consisting of an author name and page number, and a function where if I click on the name and page number the screen jumps down to the list of references? I found how to do the inline citations in the links above but I can't locate how to do the reference list and the formatting in question. I have seen hundreds of history articles like this and now I am drawing a total blank as to what articles they were so I could see an example. I will probably remember when I'm far away from a computer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to use sfnp, details for the use of which are at {{sfnp}}. That style confused the heck out of me at first also but it has grown on me.

You can use any citation style that you like in a new article/sandbox. Although I'm not sure how that works if the "new" article is actually intended as a replacement for an existing one - there are a bunch of issues there involving CITEVAR, getting consensus to mass-change the existing article , attribution of past efforts if the basis for your new version was a copy of the original version etc. The second of those will certainly require you opening a discussion at the existing article's talk page unless there are major copyright issues or something similar that make it a policy-based imperative. I'm going to appeal to my stalkers about that now and I'll talk you through the mechanics of citing in whatever style you wish when we have some clarification from stalkers. I did the same for Rayabhari (talk · contribs) when they signed up and they soon got the hang of it.

Have you searched Commons for suitable images? - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Right now the article is a redirect to a subsection of the Umayyad article, so this is all new. Let me check through the different styles then. I also haven't searched commons yet even though I upload images there, it's a great idea. I'll see what I can find now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox is just about ready to go into article space, even though it isn't quite finished. I've been scouring Wikimedia Commons and found some decent stuff. I switched the unused sources to a "further reading" section temporarily, and I figure the citation methods can still be cleaned up in regular article space. Plus I just want it out of my sandbox. You think it's ready to be put out there? I'm ready to do it right now but wanted feedback from someone first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit, Template:Aam Aadmi Party

Hi, your edit Template:Aam Aadmi Party is in good faith and you are continuously reverting my edits. Please stop this, as I understand you have good understanding of Wikipedia rules and regulations. GKCH (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The template probably should not exist at all, per my understanding of Wikipedia:Template. For example, from that documentation,

The main function of templates placed in this namespace are to maintain consistent formatting and aid navigation between articles

and

Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function.

We have a perfectly good Aam Aadmi Party, with various subcategories and the thing is not navigationally useful in the way that, eg, {{succession box}} can be.

Hoewver, my main problem is that Naveen Jaihind is not notable and this has been confirmed at AfD and then via DRV. That you and others persist in trying to get his name mentioned on Wikipedia is why the creation of the deleted article is now restricted. So, your repeated attempts to add his name to the template are not capable of being linked to an article even to aid navigation and seem to me to be just another strand in the many efforts of AAP supporters to promote their political heroes. You need to stop adding the stuff, as you have been requested to do previously, and I need to think about whether I'm in a fit state to initiate what might become quite an angry, sock-laden discussion at WP:TFD. - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nassuvan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '', '''Nosivan''', '''Maruttuvar''','''Maruthuva Gounder''' (Kongu region) and '''Ambattan''') known also in Tamil Nadu as Pandithar, Vaithiyar/Vaidyar both in the North India. and in Andhra,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kannada Brahmins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *the Vishishtadvaita (Srivaishnava sect - adherents of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy propounded by Ramanuja.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable or not ???

Hi Sitush, how are you? I trust all is well. I'm having trouble to understand if thisthis, this, this, this, this, this and this are reliable websites or not. I know you are an expert in India related topics so I thought if you can take a look and tell me which are reliable and which are not. Thank you very much. Jim Carter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops haven't noticed the message above. Take care my friend. Jim Carter ^(talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I will reply here rather than my page as many stalkers are here who might respond even if Sitush isn't around. Loksatta and Maharashtra Times are Marathi daily newspapers and are reliable ones. The other all you presented are repositories or libraries of books I suppose. So I guess you need to check if the book is reliable or not, rather than those search engines. It all also depends on where and for what you wanna use these. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: please take a look at this draft. The above references are used in the draft and I don't have any knowledge about the topic so please help verify the reference accordance to the draft. Thanks, Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, read WP:COMPETENCE and stay away from the draft. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Gairola

In your edits of 20 June 2014 to the Gairola article you removed the citation for "It belongs to the Sarola subgroup of the Brahmin caste of this region." That citation was to Blunt, Edward A. H. (1931). The Caste System of Northern India. London: Oxford University Press. pp. 137–138. OCLC 6882357.. You then requested a citation for that same statement. Neither in your edit summary, nor on the talk page did you give a reason for deleting the citation. I have restored the citation subject to discussion at Talk:Gairola#Sarola subgroup of the Brahmin caste. --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I did give a reason. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dadda

This article still has references to Gurjar in the phrases "Dadda III, the Gurjara-Pratihara ruler of Bhrgukachha," and "Gurjaras of Nandipuri or Nadol". If these are valid, is the article a valid member of Category:Gurjar which is (or at least says it is) an ethnic category? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

The Gurjar/Gurjara topic is about as clear as mud and we've had major, long-term problems with meats and socks. I've been reading up about the Gurjara-Pratiharas and plan to do more with our article about them. From my research so far, it seems that some academics once believed there to be a connection between the Gurjara and the Gurjar but that opinion has been out of favour for many years now. I'm waiting on some info from RegentsPark, who has access to an article that appears to be a reasonably recent overview of the debate.

There is quite a problem with defining Gurjar anyway, since it is a term used for people from Gujarat, people of the Gurjar caste community and people who claim some sort of ethnicity of another, vague sort. A similar thing happens with Maratha. More, "ethnic group" doesn't always seem to align with "caste". If you wander round a bunch of caste articles then you'll see them categorised as "caste", "social groups of XYZ state", "ethnic groups of ABC" etc; we need to get all that stuff into alignment at some point but I think it might be a long haul just to get consensus. The problem with categories is that they tend to be definitive when the real-world remains ambivalent. For example, as well as Category:Kshatriya, we probably really need a Category:Claimed Kshatriya status and a Category:Claimed Shudra status, which would be used together: groups claim fervently to be kshatriya (usually because of sanskritisation) but their peers still consider them to be Shudra etc. Absolute nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mughal tribe

I just did a massive revert to a version done by you. There was so much crap added and good stuff deleted. I probably reverted something that should still be in the article, but I can't tell, so you might want to take a look. Nice to see you back. This place is much better off with you. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Thanks for letting me know - that one is not on my watchlist but will be when I finish this reply. I've just taken a look at what has gone on and can't be bothered Googling so I ask the question: who was it who said "oh god, if there is a god, save my soul, if I have a soul"? Or something like that. The extent to which we effectively promote crap never ceases to amaze me and the effort required to fix it is, yes, often soul-destroying. I will plough on but it will not be as before, or at least not until I'm off my current meds. I'm not coping very well with fractious situations right now because they induce anxiety and - argh - "suicidal thoughts". Thankfully, right now I only feel pissed off with the world! - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Um

Leave it to me now I think. Probably a sock, but still we don't want you to have any problems. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm around 3RR. We've had this situation time and again at that article - they're particularly trenchant in their claim. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen's English

Hi! We would require your help in copyediting the article Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Its basically a list and hence has less text and should be done with quickly with your speed. No matter whatever we do, reviewers are still "afraid of it needing more copyediting". (Btw, from where does this come? "Am afraid, this won't work." Why do you have to be afraid of it?) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(tps, since Sitush is away). From OED colloq. I am (also I'm) afraid : (with dependent clause or parenthetically) ‘I regret to say’; ‘I regretfully or apologetically admit, report, etc.’; ‘I suspect’; ‘I am inclined to think’. (bolding mine) Example: a1616 Shakespeare Taming of Shrew (1623) v. ii. 94, I am affraid sir, doe what you can Yours will not be entreated.--regentspark (comment) 11:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Aah! I missed the section immediate above about he being away. RP, can you do the copyediting instead? And I understand that it means to be regretful, but I was more curious on why fear has been associated with it. I have come across some nice phrases in various languages where the story of their origin is quite interesting. Hence thought of asking that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about that. The root of afraid (according to OED) is afray (frighten, terrify, all sorts of fear inducing stuff). So, I guess this was a colloquial usage - perhaps signifying a sort of fear of the reaction to a negative answer. Or perhaps Shakespeare invented it (he was good at that!). Interesting how words take on a life of their own. --regentspark (comment) 11:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Google pulls up this. --regentspark (comment) 11:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,RegentsPark It's one of many examples of words having different meanings in different contexts. The Google result is interesting, ie: that this particular contextual usage seems to applys across umpteen languages. I, too, find cultural variations in phrasing interesting, a recent example being that while in many places it is one's heart that breaks, there is at least one (I've momentarily forgotten which) where it the gut. And in English we have a totally unrelated but neat link: "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach".

Dharmadhyaksha, try reconciling "absence makes the heart grow fonder" with "out of sight, out of mind" ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to interrupt the discussion but would be you guys be able to copyedit the article? We would really appreciate any help in this regards. - Vivvt (Talk) 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy-editing. Would you get a chance to see if there are any grammatical errors in the table content as well? That has, specifically, been noted to have a few. It would be very helpful if you can help us iron out those issues. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again but could you take a look and see if we have answered your concerns about clarify tags? - Vivvt (Talk) 13:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakya

I see that you have made a lot of deletions on this article - Shakya. Lot of citations/references that I have provided are removed by you citing various reasons like: - NCERT books are controversial (even though they are reviewed and approved by Ministry of Education, Govt of India) ; - primary sources cannot be used ; - RAJ sources cannot be used.; etc and the list goes on.

First of all, tell me what does "RAJ" means, does it mean "British Raj" period ? (plz explain urself better)

You don't like references directly from ancient books(puranas etc), from RAJ period and even from latest government approved articles. Please tell what level of proofs/citation/references I need to provide to protect my material from deletion because what I write is Truth and I can provide any level of proofs for that.

Do not make BIASED decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, British Raj sources are what I meant and, yes, they are generally not considered to be reliable. It should be possible to find much more recent and properly academic sources.

The Puranas are very, very old and are a primary source - we are not qualified to interpret their meaning/intent etc and it is well-known that many ancient texts exist in several forms and/or have been amended over the centuries. It would be ok to cite a secondary source (such as the aforesaid modern academic) who refers to the Puranas.

NCERT are basically school textbooks and we don't usually use such things. That they are approved by the government of India depends entirely on which government you are referring to, and in any event governments are rarely involved without an agenda. Think, for example, of the way that the Indian government directs people to use a map of the country that simply is not accepted elsewhere in the world. I've just discovered that we have NCERT controversy but my knowledge of the problematic nature of such textbooks actually comes from many, many news articles over many years. An example of that would be this. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As you wish Debate on

you told me to bring consensus well lets start from you please visit "Origin Theories" @ DISCUSS--Amitesh93 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI result

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. All blocked but one where it isn't definitive. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Edits, Stub Sachin Ahir

Dear Sitush,

Firstly, thank you for your contribution and time taken to assess the page. However request that the information that is relevant remain on the page as it is backed by factual sources which are already available on public domains.

Your guidance is always welcome

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartik61182 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kumhar

FYI I restored this revision, and thought you'd like to know. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor:, sorry for the delay. I've been spending time off-wiki sorting out a blog entry for the WMF. I've not had much (if anything) to do with that article but it looks to me as if you've gone for the right version. Hopefully, one day I'll get round to researching it properly: I know of them but very little about them. And thanks for your earlier response on your talk also. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Bhumihar states

WP:COMMONNAME as it suggests

Titles are often the names of article topics, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"

Bhumihar is the common name used on various authentic sites to address them example this, this, this and many more i can site you where its not Brahmin addressal towards the community rather just Bhumihar, all the sites that tell bloating stories of parshuram being bhumihar ancestor and linking us to brahmin has no factual evidence all being claimed by story tellers like Sahajanand Saraswati and many others, while at ground zero, neither brahmins claim bhumihars as their subset nor bhumihars call themselves brahmins except some people having internet access like you yourself. so please change with solid reasons not just qouting a method of writing. --Amitesh93 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Amitesh Rai

Please see WP:RM, as I suggested. Issues relating to the Bhumihar/Bhumihar Brahmins have been causing problems on Wikipedia for ages and various articles have been protected etc to prevent further disruption by anonymous (non-logged in) contributors. The likelihood was that the anonymous people were in fact a single person using different IP addresses ... and now you turn up doing what are prima facie controversial edits of a broadly similar type. You really, really need to discuss this at Bhumihar Brahmin and then, if you get your way, you can go ahead and make all of the modifications that I am currently having to revert. That's just the way Wikipedia works: see WP:CONSENSUS for the basics. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Amitesh93:, @Bishonen:, @Dougweller: Amitesh, please revert your move of List of Bhumihar Brahmin states now. You've already been reverted once and the reasons for that have been explained to you. You need to open a discussion and follow the procedure shown at Requested Moves. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I did saw all the pages regarding the laws of wikipedia you are mentioning but none as it suggests or from where are you really, really referring to bhumihars being brahmins i don't know because consensus can come on many matters by ones who are on internet but will it change facts and ground realities ? how you or others work in wikipedia i don't know but citing some genuine or legitimate source might end curiosites or debates like openly available government documents or news articles by reputed publishers might even make a mark, but citing someone blog or a personal website by fraction of a community gives you right to site illegitimate information? i don't understand your method here. --Amitesh93 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Amitesh

So open the discussion as requested and stop edit warring. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amitesh93, please do as Sitush has asked and don't make such a move per WP:RM. What you need to do is start an discussion at Talk:Bhumihar Brahmin, possiblyy a WP:RFC. Meanwhile I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• List of Bhumihar Brahmin states seems more appropriate for deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed it drastically not too long ago. It'll probably end up being merged and redirected to the main Bhumihar article but things Bhumihar are a subject that I've researched quite a bit without really reflecting that on Wikipedia, so I need to put a bit of effort into sorting things out. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey man i do not know who you are but i want to make some comment on you. you are always referring the fake or defamatory stories of aswani kumar book as the origin of bhumihar brahmin. Any storis or fake rumours can not be cited as a reference. There are many caste who are known by their short names. In west bengal RAJ MISTRI (royal artisan) are known as short name RAJ only. That does not mean they are raja(king). so by showing the news material you are thinking that you have proved your point, it is just a mistake you are committing. If u are so keen to know about bhumihar caste then gather all the clans information of bhumihar caste and their origin, that is done by noted personalities like swamiji. you should not put the stories or fake rumours as a origin of some caste. wikipedia is the collection of most credible materials not rumours or stories so please do not revert those stories i request u repeatedly. one more point i want to mention Bhumihar brahmin name has come in early 19th century before that Bhumihars were called as babhan. Babhan word is stall popular in magadh region. Babhan is merely a pali word for magadhi brahmin which is found in ashokan inscription.U can find this fact from archaeological department of india. Rajputs come quite late in bihar (around 14th century)in bihar at the time of advent of islamist force in northern and western india. so do not associate those things which are completely unassociated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article, which has been subject to a lot of disruption over the years. You'll find that there are many sources that follow Kumar's line and indeed I'll be adding more when the present group of problematic single-purpose accounts run out of steam. You should also note that, in accordance with our policy of neutrality, I am qualifying statements where appropriate, unlike the SPAs who at the moment are repeatedly removing one opinion and inserting instead the opinion of Saraswati as if it were the only intepretatoin. Saraswati, of course, isn't neutral himself: he was at best very heavily involved with the Bhumihar community claims and at worst was a member of the community also.

I am aware of the Babhan name - I use it in the article - and that there are two positions regarding it, one being that it originates from a generic term for "brahmin" and the other being that it is a derogatory term. However, while people are being silly at the article, it is difficult for me to include all of the many things that I've read about the Bhumihars over a fairly lengthy period of reading. I'm also not particularly well at the moment and that, too, slows things down a little. Have patience, please. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey man you should not paste some story about any community as the origin. Either you do not write anything about it or write some credible information.you should not write some tale to heart the sentiment of any sect of society. Posting any rumour or some fairy tales about any community is not at all acceptable. I accept and strongly condemn about involvement of some of bhumihar brahmins/babhans in caste related conflict, but it was both sided. Many of landlord babhans were killed in massacre lead by maoist. why not you also post all those information. I have read the book by aswani kumar, he have written all article making bhumihar/Babhns culprit but he has not written the suffering underwent by babhans of jehanabad because of maoist. Babhans were restrained to grow crops in jehanabad and many were killed in their own farm land. why not he write that also. There are many fairy tales about every caste which are defamatory why not he collected all those information it will be amusing a bit but society dividing. one more thing i want to mention why not you paste all the massacre lead by muslims on their wikipedia page of islam. you can not dare to think so because they can do anything. There are many fake legends about the origin of islam also, even a movie is also made by westerners, why you do not care about it and much more concerned with the tales about babhans. so please do not so such a prejudice about any sect of society. Many stories has been framed for different sect of society which are embarrassing. It is upon us to judge which one is correct and which one is wrong. I do not think you are so novice on being decisive on this topic since you have mentioned you have read vastly about babhans. so please write something fair and do not show bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that you need to note the following points:

• Article talk pages are a better venue for discussion about articles - usually, more people will see the discussion
• Wikipedia is not censored
• There is no deadline for article development
• The source you are referring to is an academic historian and a respected publisher. Alternate opinions from reliable, independent sources are of course welcome and indeed I have some lined up, if only I could spend time developing instead of dealing with some decidedly odd and disruptive behaviour
• Off-wiki co-ordination, typically as meatpuppets, is frowned upon. That you and some others are suddenly turning up and making similar points etc regarding the article might be construed as being because of discussion at a community forum at, say, Orkut. No-one can stop you discussing there but while you are doing things here you have to abide by Wikipedia's policies. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed some posts from Bpandey89 and Amitesh with this edit. They were dated today. You've both been told before that Talk:Bhumihar Brahmin is the correct venue and you need to be aware of WP:SOCK, which has already caught out at least three accounts contributing to that article. I think a read of talk page guidelines might assist you also, especially Bpandey, who was inserting new stuff in the middle of my earlier replies. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard (H. A. Rose)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added Joshua Issac (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Jatav

Hi Sitush, I see you have reverted my comments posted under the page 'Jatav'. for 'Good Faith'. I have the following queries to what you have now published: 1. How can you still refer someone as untouchable or dalit? 2. In the early part of the twentieth century, the Jatavs attempted the process of sanskritisation. Who says sankritisation was merely 'attempted' that too only in 19th century. 3. 'Chamars and Jats inter-married and formed the Jatavs. A lot many people also claim that Yadav and Jatav are from similiar families. 4. ""they felt, enhance their acceptance as kshatriya"" on what basis can you state all these points???

I dont see any logic or reference as to what you have stated above.

Also you completely reverted the whole page, although it stated all facts as stated by various scholars in books published over more than a century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrysharma (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your changes were not sourced. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Following are the list of references for what I quoted:

• http://www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Jatav-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html
• http://www.jatavsamajonline.com/history.html
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3458000499.html
• Facets of Indian Culture.
• Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History

Dalit literature

• Annihilation of Caste - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
• Dalit Theology: History, Context, Text and Whole Salvation by James Massey
• Subalternity and Religion: The Prehistory of Dalit Empowerment in South Asia by Milind Wakankar
• An Unforgettable Dalit Voice: Life, Writings and Speeches of M.C. Rajah edited by Swaraj Basu
• Ramnarayan S. Rawat Reconsidering Untouchability Chamars and Dalit History in North India
• Untouchables? - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
• Who were Shudras ? - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
• Encyclopedia of S. C. in India - Nandu Ram
• Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in India - B. P. Chourasia
• Harijan in Indian Society - S. N. Srivastva
• Untouchability - B.Goswami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrysharma (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You will have to give more information. Page numbers, for a start, and which statements each of those sources are intended to support. But I can tell you now that the untouchable/dalit thing stays - Wikipedia is not censored and that you do not like a particular term is irrelevant when it is in fact the most commonly used in the English language. I can also tell yuo straight away that some of the above sources are not reliable; for example, the jatavsamaj source. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Sitush, 1. But even you have not mentioned any page numbers for anything that you have written. Also quoting down page/line numbers from several books is unreasonable. 2. Its not about my liking or not liking. This term although would be used in English but is not acceptable by the constitution/law in the country. 3. Half of your content posted is also unverifiable and unacceptable. 4. So how can we check reliability of these sites? Even you haven't quoted any website that is reliable enough for what you say? 5. My text was neutral in context and socially acceptable to all, which yours definitively isn't as I could see from a lot of revisions earlier also. Wikipedia does not support one sided comments.

Being a social rights activist, I humbly request you to remove these unverifiable and derogatory remarks.

Thanks, Jerry Jerrysharma (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The article does provide citations with page numbers etc. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs, so if your purpose here is to pursue your social rights activism then I'm afraid that you are going to be disappointed. Nor is Wikipedia concerned with the legalities of any particular term in India: we reflect the views of independent reliable sources, not some partisan government social engineering project.

Caste-originated websites are almost never reliable in the Wikipedia sense. They are, for example, not independent of the subject.

For citing, see WP:Citing sources. It is not only reasonable to expect you to cite as appropriate but is almost always a requirement of our verifiability policy. It is certainly a requirement for the changes you were making to the article, which do not fall into the "blindingly obvious" category such as "the moon is not the earth". - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sitush, 1. Fair Enough,I would quote the exact page numbers now. But do incorporate the same in what is already written on that page. Please mention the page numbers in the books you have referenced earlier. 2. Independent reliable sources: Even if these independent sources are quoting something, it doesn't mean anyone could post one sided comments. There have to be neutral and mutually acceptable comments. 3. Nowhere in the text written by me is mentioned something like: ""the moon is not the earth" I had mentioned four possible theories of origin mentioned by various authors. Also it was explicitly stated that any or all of these theories could be true. Jerrysharma (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah! You were referring to the Lynch source. I didn't add that but I've now found the page number from Google Books and inserted it. I can help you with citing stuff but not without knowing what page(s) of which source supports which statements. I'd also beware of using Ambedkar because he was an activist. Rawat's "Reconsidering ..." is good - I have a copy here. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe I've completely misunderstand this discussion, but I had an edit conflict so will still post my comment. Jerrysharma I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. Yes, sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS often take a particular view of an issue. That's life. If I understand what you mean by "neutral and mutually acceptable comments", we don't require it and it doesn't sound like that would meet our guidelines and polices (but to some extent it doesn't make sense to me). Not all sources can be used - some are simply not important/significant enough - see WP:UNDUE. And it is not up to editors to suggest what theories might be true (and if they conflict, how can they all be true?). See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to understand Sitush & Dougweller, Let me explain.... By "neutral and mutually acceptable", I was actually referring to one of the five pillars of wikipedia. And yes we need them to meet guidelines and policies. :) Let me quote again the second pillar of Wikipedia 'Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.' It specifically says "...giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone." and ".. we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately"

This means we cannot just quote one point of view written by only one independent author. Instead, as unbiased readers,we give multiple points of view, as described by various researchers and authors.

Also we as unbiased contributors cannot say which book, magazine is not important. For some readers, one author might be relevant, for others he might not be.

It is up to the readers, which point of view they want to take. But we have to show them all.

Also when we talk about a certain racial/social group, we have to be absolutely neutral. We cannot use terms/sentences which are deemed derogatory by that race. For example calling someone untouchable (even though the constitution of the country has totally banned it) is obviously not recommended. 2. A statement there says "It has also been suggested that the Chamars and Jats inter-married and formed the Jatavs". At a lot many websites/books it is said that Jatavs are linked to Yadavs, Jats, and other races in the region. So either we present both the view or none. Stating only one view gives an undue weightage towards one side. Please go through the text I updated in the revision pages and you would get a clear idea.

Hope it helps. :) Jerrysharma (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand our concept of neutrality. It would not be neutral to pander to the opinions of a community by avoiding the commonly-used term: the neutral approach is to use the terms most frequently found in the sources and that are most likely to be understood by the general reader. I think perhaps you also misunderstand how Wikipedia articles develop: most of them do not appear fully-formed, practically none of them will ever be complete. Thus, people are encouraged to add reliable sources that support new statements or amend existing ones. Unless someone is deliberately ignoring certain sources in favour of others (which happens a lot on caste articles), we assume good faith. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the existing claim of origin but that does not mean it is the only claim and you or anyone else can add other information etc provided that you abide by our policies. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps interesting

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pacnews The Banner talk 21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tanu Sharma

The subject does not seem notable. She has been covered in a lot of news articles over the sexual harassment allegations that she has made. Other than that, I do not see any other significant coverage on the subject. Should it be nominated for deletion. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think so, as WP:NOTNEWS. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

sfnRef and italics

We no longer have to use .27.27 to indicate italics in the sfnRef template. In fact any articles that do so now have broken Harvard citations. I can't see any recent edits to the template, or to {sfn}, so the change must have come from somewhere higher up, in the site css. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you've lost me, @Diannaa:. Italics in the sfnRef template? I wasn't aware that I'd ever tried to use them. - Sitush (talk)

Here's an example: Diff of Tirunelveli. Just wanted to let you know why your watch-list might be lighting up, as a lot of the articles needing fixing seem to be ones you have worked on. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've never seen that construct before. In fact, I've never seen sfnRef before either. Nothing to do with me, guv ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My bet is the ones you'll see come from Ssriram mt, who has gone on a spree of supposed improvements to Indian geographical articles seemingly with the intention of accumulating GA stars. Alas, many of the improvements are not improvements and many of the GA are undeserved. I got bored trying to stem the tide of poor writing and so eventually left them to it. Probably, I should list a lot at GAR but then I'll get accused of stalking or something. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: - you have come to a wrong place to inform. The user has no habit of adding content of any sort in the category stated, neither has the habit of respecting content/contributions. I can correct the sfn portions where i used the .27.27 - it is a news to me that it accepts quotes. This may not be the place and the topic has been beaten to death many times, but it is presumed as if all GAs were done undercover in a day. There were different reviewers, many underwent GOCE, many underwent corrections and some failed too. If someone is greedy about number of GAs, they can very well scratch walls around, but not the contributors here. What do we do with the stars - it is all a personal satisfaction that one derives that leads him/her to contribute here. GA, B,C are mere scales and the content always speaks. In the same line, there are users here who carry stars for articles like Thoothukudi where their contributions are next to null - introspection is a very good medicine!!Ssriram mt (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Namdev

Hi Sitush, This is regarding my edit on Namdev reverted by you goodself . I am not much active on enwiki and mainly contribute on hiwiki. I operate in a restricted environment & can access only wikipedia & not wikidata. Therefore, while I welcome the revert, request you to please link the Hindi page hi:संत नामदेव with this important article through proper channel. Your help will be appreciated. Regards. --Manoj Khurana (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pahari people

Looks like an article that at least could benefit from being on your watchlist. I reverted a string of edits where I doubt anything was of actual value, but have a look at it. Thanks, Sam ^Sing! 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

From the same user now comes the new article Nepali Bihari. I don't recall seeing an article with {{Cn}}s added by they who wrote it. Sam ^Sing! 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a sock of the rather prolific Admirenepal. They'll be blocked soon and were blocked as Jrpoudar (talk · contribs) only 24 hours ago. Damn nuisance. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Moderator misusing Wikipedia content for profit.. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You can start calling me Sitush Jr and I'll start to call you dad. The second time I've gone before ANI in a week. I know of two more discussions that can go to ANI. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you should always listen to your dad but I know what you teenagers are like ;) I'll say it with the voice of experience and you'll just go right ahead and ignore me: let other people deal with the complaint and if it is still running in, say, 12 hours' time then just maybe say something there. I've learned that the hard way, lad. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What did you say? All I heard was crickets chirping. Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well dad, I'm there again. You have taught me well. Life father, like son. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mathur Vaishya

Hey sitush,

I am a mathur vaishya myself and the Information I have updated is from our website's page.Also,the information mentioned is true.I would request you to restore the page,if you cannot then I shall go ahead. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushGuptaMV (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 July 2014‎

Hi. The material that you added and which Sitush removed was completely unsourced, so he was right to remove it. See WP:V for our verification requirements and WP:Cite for how to cite sources - they need to be actually cited inline in the article such that anyone reading it can verify it. I'm not quite sure what site you say you are using, but "our website's page" suggests it is a caste association site or similar? Such sites are generally not considered to be reliable sources here, as they are usually not neutral and usually do not have a neutral editorial function. Also, your own personal assertion that what you say is true is not acceptable either - we can only go on reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition and requirements. If you have added material and had it removed, please do not put it back as that would constitute edit warring and could get you blocked. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page, present the sources you wish to use, and try to achieve a consensus - if you get a consensus in support of your material backed by policy-based reasoning, then you can put it back, but not until. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from Kolosinghtarar

Hi, thanks for your messages .I am a Tarar myself and a Jat(as per Hafizabad District council office records)from village Kolo Tarar, hafizabad district, punjab Pakistan and i suggest you should visit our area and then you would know what Tarars are. also visit this page www.pagevamp.com/page/tararfamilyworld/about I have several ref made related to my changes. If you wish, you can read the book in my ref which will provide you beter insite of Tarars. If you have any further question please dont hesitate to contact me. If you wish i can send you records from Hafizabad District concil office about Tarars. I would need a postal address though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolosinghtarar (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Please let me know before you make any changes as its really depressing to see all changes wiped out suddenly. also check this site aswell http://www.jattworld.com/online/library/books/jatt-clan-names-starting-alphabet-t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolosinghtarar (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I added references under Tarar page. Did you read them? Could you let me know what is not right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolosinghtarar (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

These messages were copied from User talk:Sam Sailor#Message from Kolosinghtarar ––Sam Sing! 15:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I provided references. Did you check them before your removed my changes from Tarar page? Thats not nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolosinghtarar (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC) @Kolosinghtarar: Please read my edit summary: "Rv poor writing, dubious sources, MOS violations; most here is a copy from http://www.pagevamp.com/page/tararfamilyworld/about an indisputable non-reliable source." It's often difficult to write about subjects that one is closely connected to. I notice that you told Sitush in this post that you yourself is a Tarar. You are most welcome to contribute, but it has to be in a dispassionate way using reliable sources. Even if sourced a blurb like "Tarars have many heritable qualities and extinguished features which make them anterior as compared to other Jat tribes." is not something to copy-paste into an article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Sam Sing! 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Hi Sam, I made some changes. Please check the references and let me know if that ok. Look guys i am not trying to be rude just trying to help (Kolosinghtarar (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)). @Kolosinghtarar: Nobody said you were rude, Kolo, we're just trying to make you understand what many people don't grasp: Wikipedia is not a place for writing whatever you want. Blogs can be used for that. On Wikipedia we are, to put it very simple, somewhat boringly factual when we write. I'll put an invitation to The Wikipedia Adventure on your talk page in a second. It is very awarding to take the tour. And did you contemplate joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan? Sam Sing! 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kolosinghtarar, I have copied our conversation from my talk page and moved it here, as Sitush is much more skilled in this subject matter. (Hope you don't mind, Sitush.) Sam ^Sing! 15:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kolosinghtarar: I realise that it might depress you but we have policies on Wikipedia and we must abide by them. Among those policies are ones relating to verifiability and reliable sources. Websites promoting particular castes, for example, are almost never considered reliable, nor are sources written by so-called ethnographers from the British Raj era. There is nothing to stop you using such sources on some other website/blog etc but they're not acceptable here.

I'll try to find some time to research the Tarars properly and you are, of course, welcome to develop the article yourself. Just try to work within our policies in order to avoid disappointment. If in doubt, you can always ask me or someone else before adding something. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ethics of Hinduism

Hi, I reverted your edit to Ethics of Hinduism, which replaced the page with a redirect to Hindiusm. If you think the page should go (rather than being improved), please submit it to articles for deletion for discussion. The page is linked from over 500 other pages (including Hinduism itself), so I don't think it should be deleted lightly. Vectro (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd already replied - see User_talk:Vectro#Ethics_of_Hinduism. There was no attempt to delete. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Sengunthars

Hey Sitush, I can provide the page references. Can you revert your changes?

Thanks, Giridharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridharan79 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Giridharan79: have you read and do you understand User:Sitush/Common#Castelists? I mean no offence but if you have then I think the best thing would be for me to reinstate the list in your sandbox. You can work on it there and then copy it over to the live version of the list once someone has reviewed your citations. We tend to have a lot of problems with sourcing in such lists and I really, really doubt that Eugene Irschick's book shows many of the people listed as self-identifying as members of a caste. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

CYSS

is it possible to create a page for cyss and link into main aap wikipedia like othe political organisations has done - (Cyssindia (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

@Cyssindia: you are going to be blocked soon anyway because you are violating our username policy and you have a conflict of interest. Please do not create such an article even if you change your name. If the Aam Aadmi Party students' wing (CYSS) is notable then someone will create one in due course. Personally, I doubt very much that it is and it can be covered perfectly well as a section within the main AAP article. Wikipedia does not exist as a medium for promoting your organisation or that of anyone else - something which many AAP supporters seem to be struggling to understand. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stubbington House School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bollocks. You should consider WP:V, or would you like me to add your name to the list of alumni? Two of us spent ages fixing that article and I want a source, please. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Sources are required. This is no edit war. IT is enforcement of consensus and WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And so do I: WP:NLIST. What purpose does {{uw-ew}} after 1 revert serve, Demiurge1000? Sam ^Sing! 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the consensus? If only on this page, it's in the wrong place. Sitush, you appeared to acknowledge (in your edit summary) that the person was indeed an alumnus and that if he was, then he'd likely be notable. If so, then these material facts are not challenged by you. "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". So you're using content deletion as cleanup, when you know - or apparently believe - the content could be sourced.

Either way, feel free to keep the article in your preferred version.

User:Timtrent, I thought better of you, TBH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: are you suddenly lacking in clue or what? I never said he was an alumnus - I asked for a source! And you've been around long enough to know that redlinks in lists should be sourced almost as a matter of course. And you can fuck off with your accusation of ownership: try WP:BURDEN. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't have any preconceptions about you, but your words speak loudly now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: You've templated a regular, wrongly accused him of ownership, seemingly rubbished the two other people who thought you were in the wrong and now you try to blame me for reacting? What a prat. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're regular enough to be healthy, you're regular enough to know better. You may care only about your owned articles, but others care about a collaborative editing environment. Did you bother to explain your revert on the new editor's talk page? No, of course you didn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, leave. No good can come from this any more, only bad, which is where we are at. Next time, come in with a question. Coming in with a threat and unappropriate talk template is totally uncalled for and does absolutely nothing to get this resolved. Chastising Timrent and the calling Sitush for ownership was totally uncalled for. Doesn't matter what the content dispute was about, you came here ready for war, which is never going to resolve anything. Any more talk here will be seen as further escalation into something personal, not related to content and will be dealt with. If you have a question for me, please ping me at your talk page or leave a message at my talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question for you, and surprising though it may seem, Sitush is not the only person who doesn't appreciate threats. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone commenting here should take three deep breaths, have a cup of tea, go smell some flowers, feed the pets, and then come back and say something kind and helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find that I cannot get to sleep because of this. You have been wrong in every particular and should know better. Just go away, please. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

^^ Demiurge, that is. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup. {{Alumni}} refers. A citation is required to link the person, who really ought to be notable in our sense, to the institution, whether they have an article already or a redlink. I do not understand the huge discussion about this, and will take no more part i it for Sitush's sake. No-one has died. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[[1]] discussion

I got overheated on this discussion and the other person has no intention of talking. Any suggestions on what to do, especially on any backtracking I should do. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm don't know if you both have a rapport in wiki that you might actually take sides. Still, take a look at the conversation yourself. Isn't there a difference between saying "You aren't supposed to do and so" and "YOU NEVER do so and so. NEVER"? Doesn't that read more like an order, particularly since he used caps? Since he asked your opinion and you are "willing" to see what can be done, please do. I still don't get what makes Gyllenhaal's commercials notable but not Vikram's. He said, "Gyllenhaal's commercial was notable enough to have an article." An article exists not of the commercial he did but of the organisation whose cause he seem to have supported. The article merely mentions Gyllenhaal, that too only once. There is not even a single sentence that discusses about him or the commercial he did! If that makes it notable why isn't Vikram's, considering that two of the three organisations he did the commercial for has an article in wiki? Even the reference that supports Gyllenhaal's commercial doesn't seem to qualify WP:RS while Vikram's are those of leading English language newspapers in India.

BTW, did I ever attack him personally? When did I ever indulge in "name calling"? How would you have reacted if someone said the same to you? "We don't go around listing every fricking commercial a person has been in." Doesn't it get personal here? I wanna know how he gets the right to decide which is notable and which isn't and I am supposed to give in to his opinions. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the userspace linking, I was improving the article in my PC's notepad and had linked it to the userspace then. I was using 'Show Preview' until I was done, and I needed that link for reference. When I finished and saved, I forgot to remove it. I later removed it myself when he pointed it out, realising my mistake. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't worked on a filmography before. Hence, when I started, I took Gyllenhaal's as a reference as it is FL. And frankly, only after noticing the 'Music video appearances' and 'Commercials' sections in his filmography did I remember Vikram too have featured in a few and hence added them too. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Bgwhite realises that they overstepped but there was a bit of fault on both sides and it is history now. Unlike some people, Bgwhite is not one to hold a grudge and I'd hope that you are the same. I'm more concerned about resolving the content dispute and that should take place at the article talk page, not here. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But, since we are at loggerheads, isn't it better if an uninvolved third person steps in, instead of us trying to figure it out between ourselves? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've never edited the article but if you are concerned about involvement and neutrality then why not try WP:3O? Please note that Bgwhite did not ask me to comment on the dispute itself but was rather seeking input about how to address the bad tempered-ness. And the bad temper has, I think, gone away now simply because you both took a step back. Which is good. I don't always follow my own advice, a spectacular example of which is in a thread just below this one! - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in India

Can you please watch Religion in India due to recent vandalism. Nestwiki (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can watch it but I probably cannot do much unless it is blatant vandalism. And if it is of a persistent nature then you really need an admin, which I am not and am unlikely ever to be. I'll take a look anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some help

If you are up to it and have the time, please take a look at these two topics on my talk page: #1 and #2. I vaguely recall the accused editor (it's been many months since I blocked them) and a lot of stuff about Pashtun. I have a vague recollection that some of the assumptions I made back then were not completely accurate. Unfortunately, I know so little about the subject. All I can see now, although I haven't looked carefully, is a bunch of fighting going on between Saladin and others. If you don't wish to delve into this, I understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: While not all fault lies with Saladin in these latest flare-ups, there is little doubt in my mind that they are a nationalist/ethnic POV-pusher with little regard for our policies except when it suits them. As a minimum, I think they need to be told to discuss on the relevant article talk page before removing any seemingly sourced info (ie: anything with a cite at the end of it) and not to add stuff that is not sourced. We could use the ArbCom India-Pakistan-Afghanistan sanctions to force them to discuss properly before editing an article for points related to nationality/ethnicity etc. They'll either comply and (probably) be flushed out for the POV-pushing that I strongly suspect is going on or they'll not comply and be blocked for that failure. Those ArbCom sanctions were intentionally broad in scope even though the issues that gave rise to them primarily concerned problems with nationalist edits. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

More generally, I sometimes wonder whether we need to insist on sources for nationality/citizenship/ethnicity, at least for articles related to the subcontinent. The tribal warring can be incredible sometimes and original research is common. I guess we could already do that for living people but a lot of the problems relate to dead 'uns. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. I understand when something is unsourced, but sometimes a source is used, but either the source is unreliable or it doesn't support the material, and I can't always tell. I know little about the foreign sources, and if the source is in a foreign language, I'm stuck with a machine translation to verify the accuracy of the material. That usually is inadequate. As for this editor, I think the best thing for me to do is to leave it alone. If someone wants to take the editor to a noticeboard, that's up to them. Also, I think I noticed that C.Fred is involved, and he's a very level-headed fellow, so perhaps he can deal with any issues that require administrative attention. Even if he's involved, he can make a determination whether administrative action is warranted. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you ever come across a source relating to the subcontinent and you aren't sure whether it is reliable and/or supports the statement then feel free to ask. I may or may not be able to help you! C.Fred is good, yes. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush1

You? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BADHAND for that extra shot of attention? ;-) Sam ^Sing! 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of a sock situation - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema Welling. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

pamiri people and list of pashtuns

for pamiri people source is this and [this

the reason why i added gojal pakistan was because the second largest population of pamiris is in pakistan and the headline doesnt state anything about that.. i would appreciate if you could revert it after looking at the sources

also in regards to list of pashtuns, pakistani is not an ethnicity but a nationality but kapoors are not pashtun as sources have been provided in the main articles of kapoor family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the sources and revert if necessary, thanks. However, you've been advised before that the best place to discuss content issues is on the talk page of the relevant article. Why you keep ignoring this advice, which has been given to you by multiple contributors, is beyond me but you've said nothing at Talk:Pamiri people and you provided no source for your original edit (you've also had multiple advisories about WP:V). You can raise such issues at an article talk page and still attract the attention of a specific editor by using the {{ping}} template, which can be handy if you suspect that they may not be watching the page.

@C.Fred: Regarding the old chestnut of Pashtun/Pakistani ethnicity vs nationality generally, please recall the conversation at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor. Ignoring the ethnicity etc entirely seems to be the optimum way to deal with the problem and is usually possible. The point is rarely important and this solution would certainly make it less likely that you'll get blocked, provided that you explain on the relevant talk pages and you seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring about it. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive. You'll notice that I have used {{ping}} in this paragraph: that is for the benefit of C.Fred, who is a level-headed admin and has (probably to his regret!) been drawn into some of the current issues. - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I have seen your profile and immensely respect you for the valuable contribution that you have made to some of the articles. I am just a new user and would like to be guided and supported by an expert, in his field, like you. You have an impressive collection of accolades and mine is just a token of co-operation and friendship. Khufiya Vibhaag (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilove canvassing

Weird. How's he picked them? Some new,some inactive.... Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help for Dadasaheb Phalke Award FLC. Your copyediting made a lot of difference. Its a FL now :) - Vivvt (Talk) 14:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vivvt: No probs. Glad your hard work paid off. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for concern / remembering me. Your guidance was of great help for me to contribute. But sometimes, it is frustrating, when my edits are reverted without reason/on silly grounds! e.g. Gol Gumbaz. I am a little busy in real life activities : in India, the working hours sometime extend from 10 am. to 8 pm plus time taken for returning from office : then I find little time to contribute. Regarding your connection with Bangalore, I knew of it when glancing through your talk page about a year ago. /I've got some ugly skeletons in the family closet/ I donot agree it as ugly skeleton , because I consider it as historical statistics, maybe long forgotten! What we do now, today or this year or this decade matters most. Thanks. - Rayabhari (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rayabhari: good to know that you're still around and that you've got your priorities right! Work is more important than Wiki. I'm afraid that silliness is never going to go away: it happens and we just have to deal with it. Keep on doing what you do. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

message from sockdologer

you are very serious Wikipedia offender. you removed very reliable sources I added to list of Rajputs. I know you'd wish to remove Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as well but for now you have left to do it some other time, the reason being citation of Encyclopedia Britannica. you are indeed a loser. I will not add those references again because if people like you are sitting on Wikipedia to make mess of the well referenced things. then its better I quite from Wikipedia and stop reading it as many other people has done due to your malicious mischiefs. at the end I must that please get a life because your intentions doesn't matter to people who have a real knowledge of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockdologer (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:MIRROR, WP:BLP and note the words at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, you've been up to your malicious mischiefs again, you devil ;-) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Quit (sic) - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Malicious mischiefs from an ignorant scurvy dog. These people should write for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that one has now done this - a most bizarre criticism of me not signing my message. I'll say no more there but my bet is that story also will not have a happy ending. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Sock"dologer is an interesting name. Blocked per WP:DUCK.[2] Bishonen | talk 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Indic Scripts

Hey Sitush, I could use a little help here  NQ  talk 15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of. Thanks.  NQ  talk 15:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not change the definition to Propaganda or vague meanings in Wiki texts as youth is misguided and mis informed due to errors in edits

Dear Sitush, I can understand your eagerness to keep the propagand about hate of british imperialism alive... But the definition is a definition... U cannot simply say "Inquilaab Zindabad"...which literally means long live the revolution to "Down with the imperialism"... Many of the young viewers come to Wiki to read about bhagat Singh and most of them do not go to the link about Inquilab zindabad when its definition is given in bracket (which is wrong when we say "Down with the inperialism"). You are teaching wrong things to the youth bro.. Secondly, Bhagat singh was a revolutionary, a member of HSRA, wanted to bring the socialist changes in a free India... That can be seen with his views on ineffectiveness of future Democracy...Even when we add a non-definition "Down with the democracy" tag here shows he wanted a free India...thats it.. without the revolutionary changes in Indian system... That was his key profile which you are taking away frm his information in the wiki...

Frankly, I'm not sure that the precise translation really matters in the context of this particular article but we just follow what the sources say: it makes things verifiable and easier to deal with. You'll note that another experienced contributor has reverted you also. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption, Aam Aadmi Party

I have reviewed your editing history and habit of regularly inserting libelous text into Wikipedia articles on India such as India Against Corruption andAam Aadmi Party and their top leaders, so as to convert Wikipedia into a "battleground" and defame/damage them electorally.

As the changes you have made just now seem to be yours alone and without consensus of other editors, I am approaching the leadership of both organisations, ie. India Against Corruption as well as Aam Aadmi Party for their official clarifications arising from your edits, since I am a registered voter in India. Mansjelly (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: "libelous", see WP:NLT. More generally, approach anyone you like - it won't make a blind bit of difference. The issues have been discussed extensively, including at WP:ANI, and you are very obviously not new to Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mansjelly: The opinions of India Against Corruption and Aam Aadmi Party have no bearing on Wikipedia's policies and practices, and neither organisation gets to say what editors can and cannot do here on Wikipedia. If you think there are changes needed, then you should discuss them on the talk pages of the relevant articles, provide sources to back you up, and try to achieve a consensus to support you. If instead, however, you simply go around making personal attacks on editors on their talk pages, you are likely to find yourself prevented from editing. Finally, implying illegal action is quite likely to get you a quick block as per WP:NLT. Mansjelly, I seriously suggest you have a read of WP:NPA before you decide how to proceed further - and take a look at WP:RS and WP:Consensus too. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird conversation I had with the OP here: User_talk:NeilN#Ashish_Nanda. First the information is in the public domain and now it's covered under the Official Secrets Act. Huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The IAC pressure group seems mostly to be a bunch of self-appointed paranoid nutters. On Wikipedia, at least. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Nayar Caste

I thought I'd ask your thoughts about what to do about this. Mentioning members must be a blp vio, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: it seems from this comment that Dougweller has picked up on your query here. I've been a bit busy uploading child pornography to Commons, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I responded to Dougweller with thanks for that. As for that other thing, wow, that is one horrible, horrible false allegation. One really does neet a thick skin to edit here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thick skin, a sense of humour and/or proportion. All those who are gnashing their teeth about naughty words at the moment really don't seem to understand how trivial it all is. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

You're welcome. I was actually a little tentative about closing the thread since I wasn't sure you'd gotten all you wanted from it, but it was attracting socks like flies on horseshit - didn't seem much point in offering them another venue in which to libel you. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I didn't feel it appropriate to close it because, although idiotic to anyone who knows me, they were raising criticisms of me. Given the current belligerent climate across numerous noticeboards and talk pages, there might have been someone who would accuse me of censorship. Alas, I can pretty much guarantee that those behind it will be back very soon and doubtless they'll also be doing stuff off-wiki, like the death threat I got when they were last beggaring about. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, who wouldn't love a hobby where you get death threats and criminal accusations as standard? Stamp-collecting is for wimps. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Beach Thomas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Beach Thomas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Beach Thomas

The article William Beach Thomas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Beach Thomas for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good gods. What a freaking silly thing for someone to start. What the hell, are we under a full moon for weeks or something? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we can only look forward to more and more of this kind of nonsense given Jimbo's vomit-inducing statement above. I find the idea of loving or being loved by anyone on here to be distinctly creepy. And Jimbo would probably prefer we all forgot that he was forced to agree not to use his blocking tool as a result of some rather unloving behaviour on his part. Maybe he's found religion since then? Hallelujah! Eric Corbett 00:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it is going nowhere, although I'm not even sure what the point of naming me as a party may have been. The responses from @Salvio giuliano: might go a long way to explaining the words used by my Italian sister-in-law, although it could be that working in Britain has just rubbed off on her. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Beach Thomas

The article William Beach Thomas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Beach Thomas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

William Beach Thomas

Moving the conversation here since the GA review is done. I think I'd remove the parallel structure by replacing "not" with a description specific to the troops". Perhaps "Public opinion at home may have been mollified, even uplifted, by the efforts of the correspondents but the troops were less impressed by the newspaper coverage, despite the demand among them for newspapers from home being high." Or just "less impressed"; or perhaps "scornful" or something similar, if the sources support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I'll have a proper read of the relevant bit of the zeugma article, and a think. And a re-read of the sources, of course. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I going mad or what?

Yes, am I going mad or what? Replies to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_5#Dhanada_Kanta_Mishra. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Child: "Where are we going?"

Morrissey: "We're all going mad."

Child: "I thought we were going to Kew Gardens?"

Pete "Elder Goth" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Howdy Sitush, just saw your !vote here, thanks for doing that. It is pretty clear that it is a COI issue. Yesterday, someone has send an email and threatened me for nominating it for deletion. I haven't responded and totally ignored it. Is there any way to report it?? Or should I disable my email function?? Suggestions?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think you should disable your email — not unless you get a storm of unwanted messages — but do continue to not respond. You mean a threat of real-life harm of any kind? If you believe there's anything credible in such a threat, you can report it to the WMF by emailing emergency@wikimedia.org. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

A conflict of interest is not a valid reason to delete. There are valid reasons in this instance but COI is not one of them. As for the email, I tend just to ignore them even when they're extreme in nature. However, if it was sent through the Wikipedia email system and offered a threat of some type then you might want to report it to emergency@wikimedia.org - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Bish got in there. That's a weird edit conflict - have they enabled FLOW without me knowing or what? - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The most valid reason according to me is the fact that the subject doesn't pass notability. All the mentioned sources doesn't actually implies that the subject is notable. I don't have much knowledge about Indian film related subjects but they easily become famous after a few appearance in front of the camera, which is not enough to establish notability, it is the reason why I nominated it for Afd. Another reason is the tone of the article. Almost everything is written in a promotional tone. And COI is a supporting reason. Anyway, I have filed a report at the above email. They stated a clear intention to harm by saying "we will chopoff your fingers". Thanks Bish & Sitush for the help. Happy editing Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

I have a feeling my humble efforts at the band article were a more difficult edit than they needed to be; another editor who helped me described my work as "long and complicated", haha. I don't have previous experience with doing my own article, just a ton of more minor editing (mostly on other people's work on music topics). What happened was, I wrote a smaller article, and I think I only used Huff Post and All Music, maybe one other source, and I was sure that was enough to get a "stub" approved. It was rejected. In my inexperience and hubris, I just argued a lot with the experienced editor. He got a nice and helpful editor to work with me, and she pointed me in the direction of adding less 100% solid sources; well as the article was getting longer, discouraging a rapid review, I used that time to be thorough in the project (using my novice techniques all the while), and created what you found, probably having gotten carried away in the process, and certainly never sure if the work would pay off.

Thanks so much for your patient help. I'm pleased, not so much for myself, but for my subject, whose years hard work (IMO) was notable, especially relative to many who are already in Wikipedia, and deserving of representation. Will "see" you I guess! Keithramone33 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Keithramone33

Gossiping and Synth on Sangh Parivar

Also see the talk page. "saffron terrorist" is clearly fake term and it was a edit of a sock,[3] vanamonde93 continues to recover it and edit war. But none of the sources back this term. Same with some other information but this one is major. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Will have to wait, B. My modem has just bust and I'm low on my mobile broadband data allowance - what I've got, I need to use to find a new modem. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

BNA

I followed up on access to the BNA and might edit here less frequently as 100 year old newspapers are so much more interesting than today's. If my edit count goes down I blame you :) I'd never have applied if you hadn't mentioned it. J3Mrs (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm suffering from that problem also. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Some help

Please see this new article. I don't have knowledge about the subject. Almost unreferenced. Please take a look. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Message to Sitush

Hi sitush, I have edited Bhagwati Charan Vohra the page with authentic source . His comrade Yashpal in his autobiography has written about his death birth and this faith which is I think is most reliable than any other sources. And about the Khatri they lived Nepal also Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darchoola (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Darchoola: I think you might benefit from a read of WP:Citing sources and WP:NPOV. You didn't provide a source for all of the changes that you made and when you did provide one, it was pretty meaningless. In addition, Yashpal's view may be only one of several: if various reliable sources say different things then we have to show all of them, not cherrypick one. I'm not even sure how useful Yashpal's autobiography is as a source: yes, he knew Vohra as a fellow revolutionary/co-conspirator but he is unlikely to be independent.

I can help you with citing stuff but would need more information. For example, the full title of the book, the publisher, year of publication, ISBN number (if one exists) and the page number(s) where the information is contained. You might also want to provide a quote from the source if it is difficult to get hold of. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Please go through the page when Bhagwati was died on the banks of Ravi while testing Bomb as written below in the text how can you write he died in United Providence on the top ? where Ravi flows ? surely in Punjab, Lahore and not in United Province , Do you need any other reference for conformation for that also ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darchoola (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Darchoola, which page number is that, and in which book? Yashpal's autobiography? If so, what is the title of it? I'll certainly look into it but, as I said, I need more details about what we're supposed to be citing. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, there is an inconsistency in the page. The "Death" section says he died when a bomb exploded on the banks of the Ravi while the infobox says he died in the United Provinces. The Ravi flows in the Punjab and not the United Provinces. Also, while not particularly reliable, note this source [4] which says that he "died on the banks of the Ravi" (viz, The Punjab) but also says the bomb exploded on the Delhi - Agar Railway line (Agar is possibly Agra?) (which would imply the United Provinces). I'll see what else I can dig up. --regentspark (comment) 11:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

this source says he died of wounds sustained in Lahore. Though it is possible that he was wounded in Lahore and then moved to the United Provinces, that is extremely unlikely. Pending some other source, I'll restore Darchoola's edit. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: as I've been trying to explain to Darchoola, I don't care what we say provided that it is properly sourced. I've not had time to delve into Vohra's life. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yashpal has written autobiographical book in four volume Sinahavalokan(Retrospection) : An attempt of armed revolution in India published in 1952 by Lokbharatiya prakashan Allahabad. Book in Hindi is story about armed revolt by Hindustan Socialist Republican Army and role played by Yashpal. He has written Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev were his classmate in Lahore and Bhagwati charan was a two class senior to them.He wrote Bhagwati was a tall almost 6feet and handsome man and was a Gujrati Brahmin but came to Lahore from Agara where they lived. In volume II PAGE NO 137 He has written that center committee meeting of HSRA held on third week of January 1930 at Kanpur which he had attended. In that meeting Bhagwati charan was chosen as Secretary or Coordinator of HSRA, Azad was commander in chief,Damodar swarop as propaganda chief. In page 176-183 he wrote about incident which killed Bhagwati charan. Pseudo name of Bagwati in party was Hari , He died due to bomb blast in his hand while testing on the bank of Ravi river. He was cremated drowning into the river by Azad,Yashpal and Bachan as he had written in his book.

Hi Sitush ,Varna (Hinduism)You believe that the translation is incorrect but according to Chinmayananda Saraswati who is a much respected Hindu preacher and the founder of Vishva Hindu Parishad the edited translation is correct and regarding the brevity of the edit ,i hope you would understand that the writing the whole 3 page explanation will not be making Wiki useful to people who are just looking for brief explanation.Hope you wont remove my edit this time cause this will be the 3rd time when you would be doing that ;) P.S If you dont know something ,don't remove it .There are lot of things that you might not be knowing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devagyarishi238 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time even after me explaining ,as well as given you the sources you are undoing my edits .Stop doing it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devagyarishi238 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Devagyarish238: I missed your first note here because it is not really correctly placed - it would have been better if you had created a new section at the bottom of this page. However, since you have been reverted by two people, it makes more sense to discuss the edit at Talk:Varna (Hinduism). Please can you do so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging the 2 Indian caste system articles

How much longer do you have to wait?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to see several people supporting a merge. Last time I looked, there was only the two of us. - Sitush (talk)

My talk page

If you cannot conduct yourself with more honor, I would like to ask you to stay away from the discussion on my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Please explain "More honor"? This seems ridiculous to me. Where have I gone wrong? - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, it would seem that you are content to see people label me as a misogynist (which is wrong), happy to tolerate people who misrepresent a thread (which, surely, is wrong), happy to see someone label an entire cohort of Wikipedians as "corrupt". Etc. But not in the slightest bothered that I get death threats, umpteen *genuinely* libellous statements and have recently been accused of uploading child porn. This situation is madness, it really is. You are well on the way to losing one of this project's rather useful contributors. And for what? - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

From Jimbo's talk page Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. I guess that open door got chucked out of an open window!--regentspark (comment) 23:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

He has done this to others before and it is his right per TPG. But it looks to me like an over-reaction and, indeed, seems to be a contrary reaction. Boing has just gone, Drmies looks unhappy and so do umpteen others, including quite a few self-identified females. Most of these people are long-standing and intelligent contributors who quite evidently do not show a misogynistic bias etc, who allow and engage in what (strictly speaking) borders on "social network" conversation on their talk pages.

Will Wikipedia carry on? Of course it will but it is now not only losing contributors but also those among them who have done very significant amounts of work, often in areas where WP most needs it (eg: educating, enforcing copyright and BLP violations, resolving situations involving blatant legal threats, dealing with huge amounts of POV content). I am sure that "honor" is a nice thing but it doesn't make the world turn round and I'm still mystified as to how it applies to me in any case. I have my moments, as you know, but nothing I've said on Jimbo's page seems to justify what amounts to an accusation of being dishonourable. Not that I want to get into the semantics of whether "have more" is the same as "being dis-". If he really felt that there was a problem then he should have blocked me for TPG violation, NPA or whatever it is that "more honor" relates to. That would have been a first but I invite him or anyone else to go for it. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully Jimbo will explain himself. But, now that I've scanned the discussion itself, I must say I'd lean toward BHG's view on obscenities. I've never understood why EC, an otherwise erudite sort of chap, feels the need to 'c' this or 'f' that. There are far more effective ways of pointing out the idiocy in the statements of others. I've heard worse so it doesn't bother me but I can see that it doesn't pass muster with the suburban set. Meanwhile, do bear in mind that you're not here because of what Jimbo thinks or says and there are many many editors here who respect what you do on Wikipedia! --regentspark (comment) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I not really fussed either way about the "obscenities", except that it becomes the thin end of an Orwellian wedge of which we cannot predict the end. What words next? I sometimes say "Bollocks" and honestly believe that is not gender-offensive to anyone, and I've heard it said in the seemingly proverbial workplace, courtroom and even church. Honest.

In any event, I strongly suspect that the "obscenity" issue is not the "more honor" issue. I might be wrong but I doubt it because I've not really said much about EC. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that there are a fair few female contributors out there who have done much more than those coming out of the woodwork at the moment and who have no problem with me. This is turning into a complete mess and for some reason I am being made the scapegoat. While Jimbo is just "another user" on paper, he carries weight and he is throwing it about. Again, I invite someone to block me if they really think I've overstepped. Not that I'd particularly want to see it, but surely @Eric Corbett: would be a more appealing target for weight-throwing? - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You'd have thought so. I suppose the danger now though is that we're moving into Thomas Becket territory now that Jimbo has expressed his displeasure. Eric Corbett 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Beckett. Of whom all I have read is Godot. Perhaps I'll have time to read more soon, although if Godot is a decent measure of the man's work then maybe I won't bother! Eric, is "dramatic" an obscenity in any dictionary? I've not been able to spot it as such but it seems to be the word that was causing some offence to some people, apparently because it is most obviously a misogynistic put-down in the context that I used it. Really, this is a scary situation: someone misrepresents etc and the person who calls them out is "done" for using a perfectly innocuous word correctly. Amateur dramatics or what? - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh! Wrong Beckett,and me a historian! Time for bed. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Our Thomas Becket is ... still sucky. Sorry. I've always destested the little ... hyper-idiotic ... archbishop and have only done basic cleanup. Becket had a martyr complex a mile-wide and no ability to be diplomatic. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It befuddles me that such intelligent, highly esteemed editors as have commented in this thread, have so completely misunderstood Mr. Wales comment that it would seem instead as a scapegoating ploy against Sitush. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Wales employed the most brilliant metaphor I have ever seen while achieving a nearly perfect threaded discussion to use for all time; that shows what civility is, why it must be required, and how easily it falls asunder when its importance is halfheartedly feigned. When taken as an if-then conditional statement, hurtful scorn is observably generated in the collective reply. But, when evaluated the way it was actually given, a statement of if-then/else conditions, its meaning becomes clear; and the insult first presumed emerges in truth as honorable praise of exceedingly high magnitude.—John the Baptist (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The above was an inside joke, given in poor taste, I admit. I apologize Sitush.—John Cline (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Well, I've probably burned my bridges with Jimbo now (as if it matters). Sitush, you can just ignore what he says. Seriously, don't take him seriously. It isn't the first stupid thing he's said. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear, nor the first pompous thing he's said either. I've exhorted Jimbo on his page to justify the "conduct yourself with more honor" thing above, but I fully expect him to ignore me, as he has ignored Sitush's question here. Floquenbeam, you removed Jimbo's personal attack above. I never liked the idea of whisking those off into the closet, since generally an attacker embarrasses themselves more than the target, which was certainly the case here. You should let the people see. At the very least, link to the attack, so interested people can understand the following comments without a day trip through the history. I've done that now. Who needs to see a link to WP:NPA? Bishonen | talk 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

I took it one step further, simply restoring the comment. I agree with User:Bishonen that personal attacks only make the attacker look bad, and in this case I think it would be best to leave the original wording, especially since Sitush had responded directly to the bit about "more honor". We could argue about whether WP:REFACTOR applies here, or whether Jimbo's comment was egregious enough to merit the {{RPA}}, or whether it is best to ignore personal attacks altogether, but I think in any case the point has been made sufficiently, and it is now best to let this slip into the archives in a more reader-friendly format. (Not an endorsement or anti-endorsement of the comment by me...I haven't actually read the discussion on Jimbo's talk page.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I was just somewhat deferring to Floquenbeam by offering a compromise rather than reverting him outright. But I've just remembered he doesn't rate that any more, haha. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure reverting me is a personal attack. Or dishonorable. Or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Hi, Sitush! Seen you around, admire your work, Jimbo's got no idea what he's talking about, I wouldn't touch your areas of editing with a 10-foot pole. It's bad enough in the medieval stuff. But we need folks like you - willing to edit in POV areas and ensure quality. We need more of you... not more of Jimbo. (Figured I should at least say "hi" while I was here) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's a populist who'll climb onto this gender gap brouhaha for as long as it suits him, without actually doing anything. We need to see a lot less of him. Anyway Ealdgyth, haven't you got a girly article to write on lipstick or something? ;-) Eric Corbett 13:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What I know about makeup would fit onto the head of a very small pin. I haven't worn it in over 20 years (and that was a one-off for a wedding - I quit wearing it in 1987 when I first went to college - too much bother for early morning classes). Current research interest is obscure Anglo-Norman clerks and noblemen. And eagerly awaiting access to the ODNB again...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

EaldgythIf you don't get it, let me know. Unless they've axed it due to budget cuts, I've got access via my library. And JSTOR through Yale. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My JSTOR Is working now - I was one of the original 100 trial accounts WMF wrangled, so it's still working. I'm approved for ODNB, it's just ... awaiting activation. I just dropped off some really exciting requests at my local library (Basset Family Charters... anyone?) for ILL searches. Feeling much more refreshed and eager to edit after the dustup this winter and spring at Middle Ages... thankfully now the sockpuppets are banished. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion on Pashtuns and Afghans

But to be honest, the reason i edit articles to Pashtun is mainly because people can better understand to whom the article is related to. In Saddozai article, Durrani empire is better choice as comapred to Afghan dynasty as most people know about durrani empire but mainly afghan nationalist change these articles on regular basis. even the Afghan dynasty is referring to Durrani empire if you click on it. I would appreciate if you could use durrani instead of Afghan. Thankyou SitushSaladin1987 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Generally speaking, we have to follow the sources. An exception might be, for example, preferring to use "Hindu" rather than the archaic "Hindoo" but, even then, if the statement is a quotation then we need really to stick to the source. I did a bit of research on the Sadozai last night and hope to do more because that article needs work. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

edits on Cheema article

You have just accused me on sockpuppetry on the Cheema article, I find this offensive. I was the one to insert a deletion tag on the article to have the article completely deleted, since the way you left it was after removing of content over the years has left the article which does not belong on an encylopedia. I will be requesting a sockpuppetry check, as well as arbitration on the article. I was happy to have the article deleted, but since digging a little deeper, I have found disturbing evidence. So, I a sure you will be more than happy to support the arbitration process. Syanaee (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked a question. You were supporting the work of a prolific sockpuppet, LanguageXpert, both by reinstating their dreadful addition and with your comment on their talk page. (Experienced socks quite often will play two accounts in that manner). Happen it looks like you are not, given your response above. That's good news and I apologise if you have been upset.

We don't delete articles just because you do not like them. I really need to do another sweep of potential sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)7

apology accepted, I went directly to the talk page. Issues still remain of a disturbing nature, where primilarly you have deleted sections of the article which have been well cited, I check them and I found those citations to be accurate namely: (An advanced history of India by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar; Hemchandra Raychaudhuri; Kalikinkar Datta: Macmillan. Sources from the Chachnama, 13/33/20-2.Mahabharata 13/33/20-2, Manusmiriti X.43-44, (Sindhi Culture, by U.T Thakur Bombay 1959), Diodorus in Mcgrindle, p 370 p. 270; History of Civilizations of Central Asia, 1999, (Glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and NWFP, H A Rose), Chowduri, J. (2012). Caste system, social inequalities and reservation policy in india: Class, caste, social policy and governance through social justice. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. These are unexplained removal of cited content, of well cited Indian academic literature. Furthermore, I did not want the article deleted due to me no liking it, this is the second time now you have used baiting tactics, I wanted the page deleted since it only had 1 line of text after your sustained removal of cited content, and therefore did not meet the notability criteria of an encyclopedic article. Please refrain from making contentious comments towards me, this is your first warning.Syanaee (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do stuff unilaterally - you will notice other people supporting my removals back then on the talk page. Sources from the British Raj period are generally not reliable and this has been confirmed from time to time at our reliable sources noticeboard. Neither are ancient religious texts considered to be reliable. Of the remainder, there were various reasons for removal and I would have to trawl through the history to determine them. I'm not usually wrong, though, when it comes to sources for caste-related articles. The Chowduri one doesn't ring a bell but people have had ample opportunity to provide quotations etc from it and never did so. I'll take another look at that one, certainly, but I think it will be a library job unless you have a copy. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Syanaee: I've worked out why the Chowduri book went. See VDM Publishing. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sit, just popped over to say thanks for reverting Nangparbats usual nonsense on my talk page. The user complaining here is obviously a sock, my money would be on Zordanlighter. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No probs re: revert. I'm taking Syanaee at face value. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you start an arbitration, sockpuppet check, I don't appreciate these false accusations against me. This is becoming completely silly. It's an excelopedia not a platform for historical revisionism by some members such he Hkeler, and the likes of Street_Scholar. Syanaee (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are such articles accepted on Raj era sources: [5] I will be requesting an abbitration just to clear the air. Just to make sure there isn't any historical revisionism going on. Possibly sometime this week. As I gather all the evidace and review all of your other edits too. Hope you will support me in helping to improve these tribal articles. Syanaee (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please consider the spirit of WP:OSE and WP:DEADLINE. I'll find you a link to the most recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard soon. You're not going to get your way, Syanaee, sorry: I've been dealing with this stuff, and with people such as yourself who think differently, for years here. I've been taken to WP:DRN, WP:ANI and practically every other venue that might be classified as "arbitration" in the sense that you mean and it's never changed the outcome. Not because I am infallible but because the community generally thinks the same as me and we operate here on the basis of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's one. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking to get my way, this is the 3rd time you've misconstrued what I've said. I am not doubting your claim on the raj sources, there does not seem to be any uniformity in one article you've edited you've cleared allowed Raj era sources to go unchallenged, yet on another article you've removed those sources, and reverted the article. I have said the article as it stands does not serve as an encyclopedic entry. Also don't let your air of arrogance be your own fall. I think we should also request a sockpuppetry check. On both our accounts. The arbitration request will be filed, I am going to call your bluff so to speak. You've insulted me on a number of occasions, accused me of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence. Syanaee (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I can think of better ways to spend my time. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pingali Venkayya

Dad and Titodutta. Pingali Venkayya has been the subject of alot of vandalism over the past few weeks. I just put a one-month protection on the page. But, there may be vandalism that has gotten thru. Could you take a check. If you combine both of your internet connections, you might get a 300 baud modem. Tito, as you see I now have a WikiWife and WikiDad. The position of WikiMistress is still open. Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Namaste Sitush Sir and hello Bgwhite. Sitush Sir, this direct mention has given an opportunity to write here. I first want to inform you, although I have been very inactive in Wikipedia these days, I have been following (more or less) the recent conflicts you have gone through, including Mr. Wales' comments. When you wrote "Am I going to become mad?" (above), I felt ". . . that too, for free. . .".
  I have added the article Pingali Venkayya in my watchlist. I have read the article (I have not checked the source). The "Career" section is peculiarly written, first the person becomes an expert of diamond mining, then he takes a railway guard's job, then he goes to college! I have also checked the recent non-constructive edits. Those are meaningless disruptions. Thank you. --Tito☸Dutta 22:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• It was a mess of copyright violations, blogspot rubbish, apparent fiction and inconsistency. As The Hindu says, the guy is largely forgotten and there isn't much out there about him that isn't an obvious mirror of one version of our article or another. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I always wondered what the circle doohickey in the flag was and what it was for. I found it fascinating that Venkayya and Betsy Ross were alot alike, except Ross hasn't been forgotten. Both made minor changes, more made up information about them than real facts and both lives went terribly downhill after "creating" the flag. Bgwhite (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• You are welcome @Bgwhite. I am glad that I could contribute a bit. Tito☸Dutta 18:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FindMyPast

I saw you're one of the names who signed up for FindMyPast, and I'm just curious, have you heard anything back about that yet? I wasn't sure if they were giving out the accounts immediately or they were waiting for 50 people to sign up or something. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC) (also have signed up)

I've heard nothing but am sure it will sort itself out. @Sadads: has been doing a lot of different WikiLibrary stuff of late and you might notice that the landing page for FMP contains stuff relating to one of their other Library projects, ie: British Newspaper Archive. It looks like they copy/pasted and got waylaid before being able to fettle it. Sadads is quite probably in London at the moment but you could always drop a line on the FMP talk page if he doesn't respond to the ping here. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well if no one else has gotten it yet then I'm not worried. :-) Thanks for answering. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @All Hallow's Wraith: I have yet to process those, they are on my todo for this week. I was waiting for a confirmation from FMP on what I needed to collect. I am contractor with the Wikipedia Library (hence the amount of activity), and am juggling a lot since Ocaasi is taking a couple week vacation w/ Wikimania. Soon we will have some trained volunteer coordinators that should make some of these processes go a bit quicker :P Sadads (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quack, quack?

[6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-admitted SPI or 3RR or...? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to find a CU online so I can dump the following:

Any connection between the single edit of Aapkalodu (talk · contribs) and the efforts of User:Devagyarishi238, both of whom are doing the same stuff at Varna (Hinduism) despite the issues raised at Talk:Varna_(Hinduism)#Varna_System_from_Bhagwat_Gita by three different, experienced contributors.

- Sitush (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just find an admin and point them to this thread. The self-admission = block. No need to clog up SPI or AN3. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Thank you for calling the admin hot-line. All our admins are currently busy by abusing their powers. The estimated wait time is 93 days. If the call requires admin abuse, please press 0 or leave a message at Sitush's talk page, our leader of abuse.

<beep>

Thank you for pressing 0. We actually don't care, but we must fake niceties. Press 1 for a block. Press 2 for Sitush or Eric Corbett to insult a user, now with extra cun&. Press 3 to have a user's edits all reverted.

<beep>

Thank you for pressing whatever number. You have now annoyed the admins by thinking they give a crap about your petty problems. You will now be blocked.

<click>

Kinda like playing Russian roulette... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I've come here in a little break from abusing my powers in order to rant at you. This series of edits rapidly transformed a gutted wreck into an interesting little article.Thank you! And here are a couple of first resorts, one for you and one for the drinking buddy of your choice. Now, if you'd like me to block you both for 30 minutes in order to give you time to savour these, just say the word! -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles being created by a non-English user.

I have a feeling you've dealt with non-English editors trying to create articles.

Thanks to the protection nepristupačnog the Cvrcke, Većići are the longest in northern Bosnia, the international unbalanced attacks by Serbian forces (including the air!), and then, with the huge sacrifices made by the free territories of Travnik.

My favourite, Out of it comes out in a field funnily just before Večići

If you can't guess, the article is about a river. I've asked them to stop and contribute to their native language Wikipedia. Someone who speaks Bosnian has tried to get thru with them. They are writing new articles on the Bosnian Wikipedia, using Google translate, copying the output here and then being reverted on the Bosnian site. Any suggestions? Bgwhite (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hoary:, thanks for that. @Bgwhite:, WP:CIR unfortunately. If this is a pattern and they're not listening then they'll have to be forcibly prevented from contributing. I mean, if the Bosnian WP is reverting their native language stuff then presumably even if it did make sense in English, it has some sort of other problem(s). A timesink is a timesink in any language. Just trying {{ping}} and {{reply}} to see if there is any difference - but I guess I may never know without reading the documentation. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides ping and reply, there is the ever popular {{yo}}. Sometimes, a template redirect is not a good thing. Bgwhite (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh! That one's for the Facebook aficionados. Although I suppose it does have the advantage of brevity when written, I've always tended to ignore people who "yo" me in real life - it just seems a bit intrusive to me. Perhaps that is because they always seem to shout it. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like you to stay

I'm sorry if my use of the word 'dishonorable' was upsetting to you. And yet I disagree very strongly with the characterization of some about my words and their motives and so on. I can be criticized for many things but following the popular fashion of the moment is not one of them. Rather, it's more that I have a very strong sense of consistency across time that can be quite inflexible.

What I'd like to do, and it seems possible that email will be more peaceful for it without the chiming in of various people with various agendas, is have a conversation with you about these issues so that I can make sure that we understand each other. On my talk page I gave a detailed explanation of why I was disappointed in your behavior, and I'm happy to go into as much detail as you like, either here or there or in email.

I am a big believer in something that I'm likely to talk about at Wikimania (haven't fully decided yet if I can formulate it well enough to suit me): moral ambitiousness. I think that we should not be reaching for mere civility but something bigger, something stronger, something more powerful. And that is genuine mutual love and respect, held to dearly even in the face of a difficult disagreement. I think that you are capable of much and that you may not have ever had the chance to reflect on how descending from a dismissal (without really hearing) of a concern into calling someone a liar and delusional is not the path to harmony and love in life.

There are some who I think, with sadness, are not reachable by this message. In those cases I sincerely do hope that they walk away with dignity and create their own space where hostility, misogyny, and all the rest are tolerated. That space will fail to thrive, and perhaps through that failure they will learn something.

But I don't think that you are among them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I've had quite a few emails about your note above, and not one of them has been complimentary, eg: "what a steaming pile of condescending self-righteous bullshit" and "Jimbo is an idiot, and a dishonest one at that. He's also a person who likes to give the impression that he's still running Wikipedia or that he has some kind of authority over it, but most editors do not listen to him and rightly consider him a moron. He also has a tendency to say he'll do something or he'll campaign for something and then forget about it the following week." I suppose these sort of comments are to be expected: people on your side of the fence probably would not email me. But they come from people who, by and large, have kept out of the recent fracas.

I'm still considering whether or not further discussion would be a worthwhile use of my time, in part because you seem to have misread what I said and that isn't really a great starting point. Still, a few more days of consideration will not go amiss. You'll be busy with Wikimania over the next few days and I've got to make the most of a short-term, rare opportunity to earn some money, even if that opportunity does involve being sworn at a lot by my colleagues in a typical private sector English workplace. And if I don't hear them (I'm profoundly deaf), they just resort to common sign language or throw something at me. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've kept out of the recent fracas and here's my two cents: Why don't you engage Jimbo and use the opportunity to form your own opinion? Much better than relying on third-party emails. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I am considering. Among the problems is that I know of people who have been asked to engage with Jimbo via email in the past and they've not been very happy with the outcome (the contents, of course, being privileged). Those people are not the two whom I quote above, nor indeed any of the others who have emailed me of late. Equally, if any engagement takes place here then it could just become another act in the present circus and the forumshoppers will be all over it. I also need to get my blood pressure down: his original note in the section above really, really p'd me off and I'm afraid that his subsequent analysis in his response to Begoon at User talk:Jimbo Wales only made that worse. Right now, I've got a bit of real-life work to do and I've got a GA nomination in the process of review: civility issues will still be around next week, Jimbo will be and so will I, provided no-one arrests me for distributing child porn in the interval. That, too, rankles because even the allegation, if spotted by some eager beaver, can affect my ability to coach young kids in rugby ... but it is out there now and all I can do is keep refuting it until the WMF deign to tell me what the heck is going on.

Thanks, by the way, for stepping in to help out with various India articles of late. Some additional experience to stem the flow of (mostly) sewage is much needed, much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, it wouldn't have to become another act in the forumshopper circus. If you want to, and Jimbo is up for it, you could engage him on a dedicated page, for instance a subpage in your space, which would be public but not allowed to be edited by anybody other than you two. I did that once, in 2009. I wouldn't say it turned out exactly useful (I ended up leaving in frustration, finding Jimbo "profoundly deaf" in a more metaphorical sense than you), but we both tried, no doubt, and I do think it's a far better option than e-mail. Sunlight is better than hidden corners. There is no technical way of preventing others from chiming in, but we simply asked them not to, and it worked fine. I had expected to have to revert a few commenting spectators, but no, nothing. Such a page should perhaps be semi'd against flyby IPs, though. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC).

hope over experience

Thank you for the caption --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

I wanted to tell You that I have adapted article Večići. The earlier bugs are of technical nature. Why can I not edit the even application of the article?

Yahadzija (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yahadzija: I'm sorry but I cannot see that article because it was deleted. My bet is that was because people could not understand what you were trying to say. Let me see if I can find some information about it and restart the thing. Then maybe you can add to it. But, really, your English skills seem not to be very good. I won't edit the Bosnian Wikipedia because I know that my Bosnian is useless; what people are saying to you is that your English, while better than my Bosnian, is simply impossible to understand. No-one means to insult you. Any Bosnian editor around who is willing to translate this? - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find an active Bosnian-speaking editor at the moment. I have created Večići for you. It would be nice to have a photograph of it but it cannot be one that is copyrighted. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

In my articles I try to talk about the events described in your references to Večići.

Yahadzija (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yahadzija: No problem. I will leave you to add stuff for a while and then go back and clean it up. You have just added some census information - we will need a source for that. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Grabovica cited

Thanks again a lot!!! In Bosnian masacres there are two same-nmed places of crime: Grabovica in Herzegovina (cited), and Grabovica in Bosnia (Kotor Varoš). I am going to edit some references for Bosnian.

Yahadzija (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry about that. I should have actually read the link. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yahadzija: you have just added a lot of Bosnian sources but I am not sure that they should be there. We prefer to use English-language sources on this particular Wikipedia. If you are going to use Bosnian ones then it really needs to be to verify something that cannot be verified in English ones. And you will almost certainly need to provide a very good translation, which I suspect you cannot do. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My vision - My mission

Last week I visited all of the sites I write about. All are still at issue. In a worse condition than my description. Trying to more people find out about their misfortune and injustice which they appear.

These are very beautiful landscapes. I feel a moral obligation to write about local peoples and the region in which they live. And on the conditions, of course! I am grateful to all who have helped me, and to You in particular. Another ridicule my confusion.

Yahadzija (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yahadzija: we have to be careful because Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I can understand how a visit to these places where horrible things happened must affect you but we have to try to keep our emotions out of it. Fortunately for you, populated places are always notable here - it is not something that I agree with but it is the policy and certainly the Vecici place has plenty of mentions in sources anyway. It was a horrible time and lots of really bad things happened that will affect people for years to come but, still, we have to be careful not to be seen to be campaigning etc. It is not a good idea to think of your work here as being a "mission".

If you go back to Vedici or any of the other places, it would be really good if you could take some photographs. We could only use one or two in the article but we could put any others on Commons and use {{Commons}} in the article so that people can see them. That's something to talk about on another day, obviously, but a photograph always helps an article.

I don't know who it was you think ridiculed your confusion but if I do know that you and @Bgwhite had quite a few messages going back and forward. If it is Bgwhite that you think ridiculed you then, sorry, but I disagree. There have been some big problems with your contributions and Bgwhite was doing their best to sort them out. If it is Bgwhite that you mean then please can you forgive them? They meant well, as do you. Bgwhite really is a good person.

I am not sure how much of this you will understand because it looks like you may be using Google Translate. I will continue to try to find someone who is fluent in your language and in mine to help us both. But if you are prepared to listen then do not let this put you off: we will do our best to help you write about these places provided that we can stick to the rules that apply here. - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

MORE HONOR

Lol, so Jimbo is Klingon now? betafive 16:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Klingon is a synonym for clueless, then perhaps. I lived with a Trekkie for a while but I'm afraid it's not something that I ever really understood. I'm probably in a minority here when it comes to not having a clue about Star Trek. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have added more inline citations to the Syed Mahmood entry.

I am pleased with your interest in Syed Mahmood. I have gone through the article and added more inline citations where requested as well as in a few additional spots. I'd be happy to add more if you like. I have reformatted your references to Kozlowski's book for appearances sake; I hope that is acceptable. Some may find your references to Syed Mahmood's drunkenness offensive, but it is well-attested by contemporary witnesses. It might not have been necessary to include references to that drunkenness, but you have worded it diplomatically in any case.Aguenther (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense

Sorry if I offend you. I like working on articles about actors, singewrs, that stuff. I can aviod creating categories but I can add existing categoiries if the apply well to article about a living person. I'm just taking things slow. And please call me by first real name Kristine. My hat's goes off to you for respecting me. Nice to meet you.216.232.130.24 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I will gladly accept your help. Please just call me Kristine ok? I answer to my first name in a heartbeat. Venustar84 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kaya

Thanks. Trust me, I was confused by it at first too, because I was checking the Juno Award lists for verification of that claim and not seeing "Kaya" listed anywhere — but once I saw "Francis Martin" in the list on something like my fifteenth passthrough, I remembered that the article had asserted "Francis Martin Lavergne" as his birth name, and Googled "Kaya Francis Martin" to see if that was the answer. Sometimes it's research skills, sometimes it's just blind dumb luck. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good read about you on Times of India

Was just reading the old TOI this morning and read your quotes in an article which was printed on first page of newspaper. Amazing!! Great work Sitush.

Here is the link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/After-Facebook-and-Twitter-online-poll-war-breaks-out-on-Wikipedia/articleshow/33880000.cms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit Gosain (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, several people mentioned it here at the time, thanks. Alas, at least some of that article is wrong and I can prove it because I've got the email conversation here between myself and the journalist. But that's why it is also known as the Toiletpaper of India, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Derogatory content by self styled editors! Please stop this

In the introduction: the intoduction starts with term 'non elite' and 'backward caste' so as to give readers as impression of a lower . The Jats won majority of medals for India in recent olympics, commonwealth games and they are present in every sphere of life- from doctors, engineers, sports( Sushil kumar, virender sehwagvijender singh, saina nehwal). Acting(Ranbir hooda. mallika sherawat, dharmender), Politics, building( DLF) , Army(including present army chief)so why the negative aspects are highlighted?

In the Varna status only based on fiction of Uma Bharti it is written: Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, which is offensive , without evidence.

Whenever I tried to edit the page by highlighting achievements of Jats in sports, army , positive social customs they have been deleted.

It is a clear assault on the community by other caste hindus who think that the best way to exert superiority of there caste is to highlight negative aspects of Jats.

It is offensive to a large majority of Jats (including 60 percent of sikhs who are Jat)

I have stopped donating to WIKIPEDIA and will try to raise awareness about its content.

Please look into it and get it fixed.

Regards, Pawan W Wikipedia information team Dear PC, Thank you for your e-mail. This is a content issue and beyond the scope of the volunteer response team. We do not have an editor-in-chief or an editorial board, so if you have suggestions for improving or correcting an...

P PC to Wikipedia 0 minutes agoDetails Well someone needs to take responsibility for the contents. If we will allow any rogue to write anything about anyone it will put the reliability of Wikipedia in question. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen3333 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CENSORED, WP:NPOV and User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. I apologise for the alphabet soup but I am getting a bit fed up of having to repeat myself time and again. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Jatt People article

Can you comment on my suggestion here [7] it needs work but I think we need to balance the view discuss on article talk-page ping me, I don't know how to ping. Syanaee (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Syanaee: I responded at Talk:Jat people, which is on my watchlist. I notice from there that you have now worked out how to ping, which is good. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Shudra

Hello, I had edited Shudra page with proper citations, why are you promoting misinformation/biased information on wikipedia? What do the Shudras have to do with Dalits/scheduled castes/scheduled tribes? Pls revert my factual edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark121212 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spark121212:. Perhaps your changes were correct but they lacked a reliable source. I reinstated your Ambedkar stuff after reverting your changes to the lead section. Ambedkar was, of course, not a neutral observer and it is important to note his status both as a polymath and a dalit activist. Generally speaking, if we mention a source by name in the body text of an article then we should try to contextualise that name. That is, we should explain why the opinion of the named person is relevant. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:. My sources are scholarly, and thus very reliable. You have characterized Ambedkar as "untouchable" which is extremely "discriminatory" and a crime according to article 17 of Indian constitution. No one is a "neutral observer" but Ambedkar was not "a Dalit activist" as you characterise him but the man who wrote the Indian constitution; an activist does not write the constitution of a country, a statesman and a scholar/expert does. So your argument is simply untenable. Also, V.P. Singh's affirmative action, the population of Shudras comprising 43.5% of Indian population, all stated with citations and hyperlinks, have been deleted for no reason. They must be retained.

Also see "Scholarly referenced content on this page is being removed" on the Shudra talk page.

Responded at Talk:Shudra. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Shudra. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Someone should have patted you on the back earlier for your work on Bicycle helmets in Australia, where, undoubtedly, your taking the lead has led to that monster being an article again. The gods only know how many trees and oil you saved. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It has probably swung too far the other way - from far too much pov-y detail to far too generalised - but thank you for the thought. If the advocates of both "sides" could have come to more agreement regarding weight etc then we might have better hit the spot. I'm not particularly proud of what I did there because it really hasn't done anyone much justice. Perhaps some people can rebuild it in a manner that both does the subject justice and still respects NPOV etc: I just found the lowest common denominator. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe, but that's not your fault. It was a monster, and when I went through the edit history and clicked on the diffs I was surprised to see to what an extent it was one: from the article in its full glory you couldn't even gauge how much dead wood there was. I just ran into another, a typical fan site, Haunted Mansion--though the helmet article at least had the benefit of having acceptable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded File:St. John's Church, Manchester.jpg. Didn't want to add it as you put up a tag!! Thanks for your work on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: feel free to add it, tag or no tag. My problem was that someone was repeatedly trying to reorganise what I was writing, across numerous paragraphs, at the same time I was trying to expand the thing. That makes life very difficult, especially when citations are being reused. If someone is actively editing then I think it is far better to reorganise once the core material is there. Maybe that's just me but I was losing stuff all over the shop. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Eric and I think you have enough for a new article. Apologies for getting under your feet, a case of over enthusiastic editing and I haven't been enthusiastic for ages. J3Mrs (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: yes, I think you are right. Don't worry about the getting under my feet: it wasn't as if you were being disruptive and you'll certainly make a better fist of organising the material than I would. In fact, I'm going to grab something to eat, so feel free. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Good job folks. I think you might move the full detail on the church to a separate article though and condense it to a summary for the garden article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect caricature

I've just created it

Tito☸Dutta 06:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction

Were you going to put forward a topic ban? If so, and assuming it is for the person(s) I'm thinking of, I would support it. Cheers, DoctorTerrella (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do but I'm not in the frame of mind to engage in any lengthy arguments right now, and this one would definitely be a lengthy argument simply because of the tendentious nature of those for whom a ban would be sought. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion'd be appreciated

Greetings. You opinion would be appreciated here. Don't worry, no Hindutva related nonsense, just a caste related question. And no tendentious editors around either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You are well used to Indian matters

On that basis I believe that your opinion at Wikipedia:ANI#Assistance_requested_at_Fringe_Theories_Noticeboard and the subsequent proposal would prove useful. There is background reading required, and consideration of a topic that some state to be fringe and others assert to be mainstream, together with the behaviour of a relatively inexpert editor. I have worded my request carefully so as to seek not to influence your contribution in any manner. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not great on the deeper aspects of Hinduism and astrology (nor, indeed, any other religion) and I'm really not in a great place at the moment generally anyway. I'm trying to keep out of convoluted discussions where possible. @Redtigerxyz: might be able to offer something - they're certainly my first port of call when it comes to matters relating to Hinduism. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. I was really calling on your experience with editors from India rather than the topic per se, but if Redtigerxyz woudl like to take a look I think it would be beneficial. Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fiddle , Commented. However, I do not wish to continue discussing on the threads about these articles. The user has some good articles, but many have problems. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Fiddle Faddle 12:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Highly impressed with the quality of your research and speed in which you've created St John's Church, Manchester which with minor work should be approaching GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got some more stuff to add to it but need to be in the mood. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

St John's Church, Manchester

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of St John's Church, Manchester, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: St John's Gardens, Manchester. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to say great stuff but it seems I was beaten by a bot. J3Mrs (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: the bot turned up within seconds! I think that the only church article I've ever had much involvement with was the one for Besses o' th' Barn Congs. I've attempted a restructuring but have no idea if it either follows our conventions and/or is the best way to treat it. I've got some more stuff to add but would appreciate some help/comments etc, especially if I've messed something up. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My first attempt at a church was St George's Church, Tyldesley. I copied the structure from the numerous church articles by Peter I. Vardy who is great at these things. My suggestion would be to combine the origins and demise into a history section, maybe with those subheaders, and retitle the office holders to Clergy. For a church that isn't there anymore I think it's a great start. J3Mrs (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks. I've done those and some other stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So I see! You seem to be on a roll, I'm keeping from under your feet for now but you might like this. I've bookmarked some stuff on the Byroms at BNA so I might start to put together an article after the Bank Holiday. I'm having a teabreak from gardening, just dropping by to see what you've done. Keep up the good work. J3Mrs (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We definitely need some extra biographical stuff about the Byroms. I know we have a bio for John but the rest of the family pop up a lot at BNA and elsewhere. If nothing else, we could create Byrom family of Manchester or whatever. I'll leave that to you because I've got to create articles for various putative links in the John's Church thing. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Started Edward Byrom, agreed on a family article and name as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nailed

I am working on editing articles versus editing talk pages[8] but sometimes, oh the sirens call so sweetly. NebY (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Religion of Jawaharlal Nehru

I have heard a lot about you. We are having a problem with the Religion section of the article Jawaharlal Nehru. An editor is trying to use fake refs to include unwanted lines. Jawaharlal Nehru is an important topic in the history of India. We would be obliged if you can join us in this discussion [9]. Thank you.Indian4747 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Namas(Rishi)

I do not know who declares the mythology reliable or unreliable. Is Bible reliable ? Was there any Jesus ever except that people believe? Do you think it documented history? Is there not an Article on Bible and Genesis ? Is not there a dispute regarding wherefrom Genesis came ? Do you judge its athentication? I think you have missed the point. The question you raise is not applicable of a mythology. H.H.Resely has mentioned the myhtology , the community has told to him. It is not that he has fabricated it. I do not find any meaning arguing with you. You are beyond any reasonableness. Thanks.It is not a good faith or bad faith editing. Bible is also , and all mythologies are good faith writing. Do you have the honesty to suggest deleting those for that? No you have not . I don't find any meaning arguing. 14.96.35.129 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr Sitush you have not replied here . You have not replied anything. Risely has written community faith, the mythology. I am Not editing anymore. Let the non-sense remain there. 14.96.35.129 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) H. H. Risley is a really poor source and your edit at Namas (rishi) was full of pov-pushing, even down to your choice of article link, which should have been Namasudra even though you claim that to be an offensive term. The Namasudra community has been pushing for a preferred recognition by officialdom for well over a century and this is something that needs to be discussed in a rounded manner at Namasudra, not stated in a pov-y way at a tangentially related article. At best, you could perhaps add Namasudra as an article in a "See also" section of Namas (rishi).

A fair amount of discussion about naming etc has gone on over a prolonged period but there have been so many pov forks created by the Namasudra community that a lot may well have been deleted and/or be visible only on the talk pages of articles that have now been redirected to Namasudra. I'll see if there is anything I can do about that. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is probably one of the key books about the community but it is several years since I read it. I'll have to dig out my copy. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Edit on the WP article "Bene Israel"

Hi, Sitush. I noticed where you were taken aback by a source book that I cited dating back to 1937. Actually, the chronicler, Mr. Haeem Kehimkar, was closer in time to the event in question and should, therefore, be considered a trustworthy secondary source about events that happened close to his time. If you haven't yet seen his book, I would highly recommend it. A pdf copy of his momentous work written by Haeem Samuel Kehimkar, The History of the Bene-Israel of India (ed. Immanuel Olsvanger), can be viewed online. Type the title of book on Google Search and you should be able to see it. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena: my apologies for the delay - I'm not having a great time of things at the moment. I think the best course would probably be to raise this at the article talk page. You may well be correct but there is always a potential problem when a source is "close to the action", in either or both of time and cultural space. As a general rule, we try to avoid pre-1945 sources for Indian anthropology etc but there are some occasional exceptions. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:, do you think that there's any scholarly place or room for inserting what Mr. Kehimkar wrote about David Rahabi in the current WP article on Bene Israel? Since there are several opinions regarding the identification of "David Rahabi," perhaps there is a place to mention his view as well. After all, we do find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views, etc." Based on this, there is still a place here for the representation of Mr. Kehimkar's view as to who was the real "David Rahabi."Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've already explained, you have to ascertain the reliability of Kehimkar. I'm not sure what other views are expressed but if a source is not reliable then that scuppers it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Invisible marks?

I can't see how to comment on someone's edit summary directly. Only way seems to make a small incidental edit, like the "." that you reverted, then write my own edit summary. DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some people seem to manage to make something called a "null edit" but I've never bothered working out how they do it - probabyl add a pointless space or something. In any event, if you want to pursue a conversation then the place to do it is on the talk page of an article and not in edit summaries. (I'm not having a go at you here, merely explaining how things are supposed to be done: many a block has happened because people try to converse through the summaries and, indeed, it is probably one reason why the WP:AN3 noticeboard specifically asks whether or not the complainer has attempted to discuss properly beforehand). - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. A null edit of a pointless space seems to not to be digested as an edit, shows up as nothing and the edit summary is not even saved. I understand about talk pages, and I've already done my fair share of talking. Just curious, and thanks for your responsiveness. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I did realise that you meant well. But out of interest, I'm going to ping @Bishonen and Drmies: - clever, experienced people who can probably put me out of my null edit misery also. How do people do this, you two? I've seen very occasional situations when it might be useful, eg: if I forget to add an edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Too clever by half, Drmies. I still can't see what you did. Am I now blind as well as deaf? - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think DoctorTerrella must have missed actually making the space. If you do add a pointless space somewhere (double an existing space, that way nothing will show up on the page), the edit and the edit summary will save. Always did for me, at least. (And no, you won't be able to see what Drmies did, but it was a space.) Bishonen | talk 01:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

In that first one I removed what I considered a redundant comma. Just because I could. In the other one, yes--a double space, which doesn't render as anything on the screen. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A little confusion going on.

• A null edit is when you click edit and then click save. The reason to do this is because the job queue is running behind. Job queue processes things like updating categories. A null edit will run all the jobs in the job queue for that particular article. For example, the article may register as being part of a hidden category, but the problem was actually fixed. Doing a null edit will remove that hidden category.
• A dummy edit is changing one small thing to record an edit summary. Adding or removing a space will often not register as a dummy edit. Drmies edit was a dummy edit and not a null edit as he said in the edit summary. Of course, saying a "Drmies" edit is another name for a "dummy" edit. Bgwhite (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, experimental results on this (admittedly) trivial subject: My adding a space within a pre-existing block of text is saved as an edit (along with my edit summary). Adding a space at the end of the block of text is not saved. At least, not for me. Okay, enough. Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)