Jump to content

User talk:Sitush/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Template contribution to Modern Dharmic Writers

Hello Sitush -- I noticed you just did a bit of cleanup to Template:Modern Dharmic writers. Are you aware that because of the perseverance of User:Joshua Jonathan, the template is hardly included in any pages? (try clicking on 'what links here'). Personally, I never agreed with his conclusions, though I didn't (and alas probably don't) have time to do sufficient precision-arguing to undo what he has done. How do you feel about the issue? To me, his approach seemed contradictory: He agreed that the topic of the template was not simply religions in India. But then he claimed that "Common Name" principle applied, even though the "Common Name" applied to a topic that merely overlapped with the template, rather than being the same as the template. My opinion is that it would be good to resuscitate the usage of the "Dharmic writers" template - whether by the name "Dharmic writers" or "Writers in Indian-derived religions" or "Indian-derived Dharmic religious writers" or whatever -- rather rely on the fragmented templates that have been energetically propagated by JJ. The broader (more inclusive) template would give a broader vision that surely interests many WP readers, while still satisfying those WP readers who are interested in a particular tradition. And contrary to JJ I believe we can find some supportive scholarship (besides Malhotra), and some is all that is needed. In my view, JJ's misguided quibble about "Common Name" has served to needlessly marginalize that whole segment of readers, whether or not that is what he intended. Alas, however, I confess up front have little time for carrying these arguments forward into action. What is your perspective on these issues? -- Presearch (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have almost no interest in the template. For what it's worth, if I had my way, most of the articles about dharmic writers wouldn't even exist because they're mostly walled gardens, reliant on a small, fringe-y eccentric community: the sources are often primary. self-published and almost circular (ie: X is used to verify something in Y, Y is used to verify something in X ... and no-one else cares, rather as often seems to happen with articles about libertarianism). But I'm not going to be getting involved with them any time soon and if you have a problem with JJ then you'll need to find someone else who is willing to deal with it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. To tell the truth, I don't know much or have much of an opinion about many of the details of many of the Dharmic writer articles. Except that I would suspect that in at least a substantial portion of cases, interest is broader than what is reflected in available citable sources. But still, if structurally they're walled gardens, that is not ideal, and an issue to be borne in mind. Thanks again for your response. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful

Hi Sitush,

thanks for the feedback; you're right, I should have noticed that one. I've added the article to the bot's exception list so that specific case won't happen again, and I'm going to have a rethink about getting the bot to notify me about article context for things like this. I certainly saw in other articles that RTE is associated with India and education, so obviously wasn't the RTÉ I had in mind; and I *usually* get it right, but as you've observed usually isn't good enough at this scale. CmdrObot (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Message

No, he's not

hey are you mad or something like that . When i am making and edit on Aswal page why are yo deleting it . You dont even belong to aswal family. Please don't make edit it is correct info about aswal which i have listend from my elders in my family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milansinghaswal (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

YOU SAID CONTRIBUTING RIGHT, THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW THEN YOU ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING YOU ARE JUST DELETING IT. WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING SO PLEASE DON'T PUT YOUR HAND IN IT AND YA YOU ALSO SAID ABOUT SHOUT TO BHAI SUN AGAR MAINE SHOUT KARDINA TO BEHRA HO JAEGA . THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milansinghaswal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people have questioned my sanity, sure. Anyone who tries to keep the lid on poor content in India-related articles is going to have that asked of them from time to time ;) The worst aspect of it all, though, is the frustration of dealing with people who have no interest at all in complying with how Wikipedia works, no desire to learn when those workings are explained to them ... and who sock.
You're blocked for two weeks and I think you'd benefit from spending some of that time reading our policies relating to verifiability, reliable sources, neutrality and original research. As much as I appreciate that the elders of your family have their opinions, they count for nothing here. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dont remove history wantedly Mr sitush rao

Dont remove history wantedly Mr sitush rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.118.227 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This would appear to refer to the Raju article, which is one of the more tendentious battlegrounds between what Wikipedia accepts and what caste members believe. I really don't know what the solution may be, but it has little to do with me as an individual. If you don't like the policies and guidelines that underpin this project then you'll either have to promote your opinion elsewhere or argue for change of those policies etc here. I doubt very much that you'll make as big a dent in the policies as you would need, though. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

About Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014 - obviously the wrong article name, but what to change it to?

Oh crumbs: this appears to me a three-way stoush between the BJP, the AAP and Congress. It has been described by some the participants as a Constitutional crisis, but not as this by the reliable sources. Your thoughts? ps: if this was a purported constitutional crisis in Canada Lite™, I could look up the legislation about whether the Legislative Assembly had fixed terms of office in Austlii. Still looking for the sub-continent equivalent. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a great title but it is likely to be the best "holding" one. I've often thought that we should have articles along the lines of Delhi government of Sheils Dikshit, YYYY-YYYY, Delhi government of Arvind Kejriwal, 2013-2014, Delhi government under President's Rule, 2014 etc. It could also help to offload some of the detail from biographical articles, which is often ascribed to the government leader but is in fact a collective decision of cabinet etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, President's rule of Delhi, 2014 it is. PS: Sitush, please eat my fuck. I mean this in the nicest possible way, of course. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
How horribly impolite of me. First of all, I forgot to thank you for the suggestion. Secondly, instead of using base vulgarities, I should have greeted you with the cheery salutation we use here in the eucalyptus mines of Tasmania: good on ya mate, and do not reduce drama god, cobber!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dargahs in Tamil Nadu 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:
  • Shahid | Dawate Islam | Religious Healing | Healing Prayers | Fa...<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Falguni Pathak 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:
  • '''Falguni Pathak''' (born March 12, 1971, is a female singer and [[performing artist]] from [[India]], based in [[Mumbai]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia page Arvind Kejriwal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvind_Kejriwal&diff=next&oldid=601201067

You have reverted my edit as vandalism with this comment: Editor's summary: this particular reaction seems relevant to me & I'm certainly not going to see it removed by someone who refers to "Arvind ji".


Dear Sir, how do I discuss with you what is relevant to you is more/less than someone else's perception? And please do not bring in my edit comment as an argument. We should discuss only about the content. Can the reaction of other parties be added there (of course with valid citation)?

--Jyoti (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete it as vandalism. I just undid one in a series of edits made by you and the edit summary field was lengthy without trying to include the "undo edit xxxxxx made by user yyyyyy at dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm". I wasn't too convinced about some of the others, either, but if you want to discuss the merits of retention, removal or additions then please do so at the article talk page, where it is likely that other people will express an opinion. The article attracts a lot of undue praise and a lot of attempts at denigration, at least in part because it is election season in India. I'm not in India nor indeed connected to the place in any way, so it tends to be people like me who try to clean up the problems introduced by partisan contributors. That doesn't mean we always get it right but it does at least ensure a good-faith intention to achieve neutrality which is often otherwise absent. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I made a new section in the talk page of the article regarding this discussion. My edit was not an 'undo', I had deleted one sentence from the description of the incident which I felt did not belong to the biography of the person and the person/party's stand was cleared without another party's comment on the incident. Your revert did not have "undo edit xxxxxx made by user yyyyyy at dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm". --Jyoti (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that your edit was an "undo". Mine was, but my edit summary was long and including the standard prefix "undo edit blah blah blah" might have exceeded the space available. You might want to review WP:NOTVAND. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that might have been the case. I could see only the comment that I copied here ("this particular reaction..."). I see this merely as difference of opinion. There is no question of vandalism here. What are the guideline to carry out a discussion on the talk page Sitush? --Jyoti (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand. Just discuss it and see what the outcome is per WP:CONSENSUS. You started a thread there and I've replied. I'd be astonished if some other people do not have their say, given a bit of time. The issue would seem to be one of weight rather than of verifiability - I don't think you are questioning that the BJP guy said what he did, are you? I really, really would try to avoid referring to Kejriwal as "ji" because it can rub people up the wrong way, especially in election season: just use his name rather than speckle the page with honorifics. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay Sitush, I will wait for comments for other users. No, no I am not questioning the correctness of the BJP person's statement. Okay, point taken, I will address him as 'Kejriwal'. --Jyoti (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair

Advisor.js is helping you to find unrelaible ref, as you did here? It is totally unfair, in my advisor.js, we don't have these options.
In the previous edit, you changed Category:Indian Hindus. I hate these categories Indian Hindus, Bengali Hindus, I nominated the second one for deletion, it survived. Prone to spam and in 90% articles caste is not sourced. They just see surnames and add categories. Someoday I'll nominate all these categories for deletion. In a 100 crore's countries, a cat like "Indian Hindus" is completely useless, unless we are trying to set a Guinness book record like "A Wikipedia category with 5 million members" Tito☸Dutta 13:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There were ca. 600 members in the category before I began to clean it; there are about 150 less now due to WP:V and WP:BLP! Some articles showed the same person as an atheist & Hindu, some as a Jain and Hindu, one as a Jew and Hindu. The latter, actually might well be a feasible pairing, if only it had been sourced.
As for using Adviser.js to find unreliable refs, I use Advisor Mk I for that: situated either side of the top end of my nose. Used in full mode for the stereoscopic experience or in mono mode when one's attention needs to be split between two tasks, Adviser Mk I comes with a massive amount of memory but very little processor cash cache ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo History Articles on Andhra Pradesh

Hey, I have seen your edits and I keep encountering you in most of the Indian Articles' talk pages. I have come across an article on AP, where the users probably of a certain community are trying to manufacture History with irrelevant books, unreliable sources and unpublished books by questionable authors. I have raised this issue twice on the Wiki Help pages and once on the Indian Wiki Help/Discussion board. The users are trying to mess up other valuable historical articles related to AP and the surrounding History. I have found atleast 4-5 such links where they keep attempting to change information. I would like to request you to have a look at the articles, the questionable references and if possible the talk page. Here are the links

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddy_dynasty (Reddi [Village Head/Cheiftain] is a person who controls portions of lands primarily as a vassal for rulers. A caste has formed over time due to fame of the Telugu Warriors of the Kakatiya dynasty; and the users are assuming that chiefdoms means kingdoms or dynasty; That's how this article started)
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Andhra_Pradesh#Reddy_Dynasty
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_Raya_II#The_Empire

Looking at the talk pages, I see that the users are not ready for a consensus. I have purchased a book on Amazon called "Precolonial India in Practice-Society Religion & Identity in Medieval Andhra - Cynthia Talbot", so that I can read up and even edit the articles that deal with the History of Southern part of India. I need help in cleaning the page and editing it in a neutral tone with valid resources I gathered such as the one mentioned above. - Ajan (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw your note at WT:INB and, yes, I was always aware of those articles. In fact, I've tried to do a bit of cleaning up over the last umpteen months. Talbot is excellent as a source but unfortunately I do not have a copy - I borrowed it from a library maybe 18 months ago. I'll certainly keep an eye on what is going on and try to help out. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding article on Pallavas

Dear friend. Thanks for your suggestion. Actually I have verified that reference and found it was taken from 401th page of it. However nowhere in that page it was mentioned that "However, Telugu did not exist during Pallava rule". For historians and linguists still it is not clear whether Pallavas are Telugu or Tamil origin. Whatever it is, the reign of pallavas is of great pride to both Telugus and Tamils. Personally I feel it is not good to write personal views when citing some valid references. Here is the reference of the book which I have viewed, http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=ERq-OCn2cloC&pg=PA401#v=snippet&q=donde&f=false. Absence of literature doesnt mean that a language is non-existant. Telugu folklore by non-brahmin low castes and tribes is much more ancient. Please have a look at the reference and take necessary action friend. As of now, I have removed that concocted sentence from citation. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian census

I wasn't aware of the AfDs (I've been so busy at AfC I've not been following AfD the way I usually do. I am convinced that these deletions are badly mistaken, and at some point I'm going to take all of them to del rev. They're historical reality. Census summaries are appropriate content, regardless of the accuracy of the census, or the anthropological theories on which the racial classifications were based. I am consequently deprodding each of the ones currently on prod. I imagine you'll take them to AfD, where I will make my argument. If they're kept, I'll ask for reinstatement on that basis; if not, I will argue the del rev on all of them together. I dislike suppressing material because in has racial implications that we would now like to pretend weren't there; Based on the comments, I see that as the underlying basis for the deletions, and intend to say so.

I'm not eager for a confrontation on this. If you can think of a compromise way of handling this, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DGG, but your actions and your proposed future reactions do indeed appear to amount to a confrontation, especially your insistence that you will go for a deletion review on things that have not yet even been deleted. How on earth you can even raise the issue of compromise when you've outlined a proposed campaign that is at the other end of the scale is beyond me. I don't see any opening for compromise in what you say.
That load of tripe, spread across several articles, is basically a tabulation of a primary source and has no encyclopaedic value, not because the stuff is based on racist premises but because it is vague and unreliable. The issue of scientific racism and its role in the Raj worldview of caste/Indian history etc can be and to some extent already is covered in related articles, such as H. H. Risley. Yes, there probably is some merit in devising an article that just covers that subject but that is as far as it should go. If someone wants to add transcriptions of the 1891, 1901, 1911 etc censuses onto Wikisource then that's fine but having the content on Wikipedia is so grossly inappropriate that I'm a bit flabbergasted that you - an intelligent man - cannot recognise it to be so.
If these go to deletion review then doubtless there will be a lot of clueless do-goodery but maybe common sense will prevail as it did when Doncram tried something "sort of" similar last year and people from the ARS did not too long before that. That said, far too many people are far too naive when it comes to India-related articles and it is rare to see them actually trying to resolve the issues rather than just refer to truisms such as no deadline and systemic bias. Further. deletion review is, in my opinion, haunted by inclusionists and insufficiently publicised ... but if any of these articles go there then I'll be publicising and won't care less if I am accused of canvassing. I'm completely fed up of the tolerance shown to crap information at this place: I'd rather walk away from the project under a cloud than see these articles reinstated, so don't be surprised if I do canvass on-wiki (I won't do it off-wiki). - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have rather been under the impression that Del Rev is haunted by deletionists, though to a less extent than in the past. I agree that the way to improve it is for more people to take an interest even when they have no investment in the subject--and there seems to be a trend for more participation. I am only a very selective inclusions--I've deleted over ten thousand articles., not even counting the ones where I commented delete, or nominated for deletion.
I agree that many of the article on Indian topics are very poorly written and inadequately sourced, For most aspects of it, it's something for which I cannot even help source, as the coverage in US libraries is outrageously inadequate. I'm also aware of how our articles on Indian historical and cultural subject is often distorted by people of a while range of biases. But I try to avoid compensatory bias, and include even material from outdated POVs. In this particular case, although the racial attitudes of the compliers may be very different from current views, it does not necessarily mean all the data they collected is wrong. If you think their bias is sufficient to make the data worthless, I think you have to show it, and there are probably a number of sources in each direction. And even if it is worthless, the way people thought and acted in the past was based upon it, and we cannot understand history without knowing what sources people in the past relied on. I do have a strong and consistent position of not deleting or minimizing information about subjects I dislike, or views I disagree with. This is so even in those areas i fell most personally important to me. Older encyclopedias are notorious for having only the material that suited their worldview at the time--we should be universal in time, as well as in space.
Let me ask you: is the data in the tables presenting the full census returns, or a summary of them? I obviously would not want to publish the detailed returns for this or any other census, but repeating & discussing the information from summaries is encyclopedic.
I decided when I made my posting above that it was fairer to be open with you about what I thought. I did so in order to have a more useful discussion. Many WPedians would have tried to stretch such things out as long as possible and reveal as little of their intentions as they could manage. In this case, I wanted to make it clear thatI was not challenging over merely technical matters. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) DGG, The main problem with all of the articles you de-prodded is they are using the Census report itself or Gazetteers published based on the Census report, as the sole reference for the summaries, which we can't use as they are primary sources. Articles for individual census summaries are appropriate iff they can be sourced to secondary sources but they can't be. See the #Henry Scholberg section above for example, there are *only two* published bibliography of primary Indian census sources, let alone any secondary source for each census, (which is needed to salvage all those articles). Solomon7968 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the census is the basic source for the data in every census we report. In giving excerpts of a document, the document, at least if published, is more reliable than any secondary source that reprints it. Further, if they are listed in two standard bibliographies, that's sufficient external sourcing by any standard for any work: we reference books to library catalogs consistently, not to articles that say they are in library catalogs. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup

here. As you can tell, I had no clue how to restore the AfD tag with all the intervening edits. I put a note at the AfD but don't remember how to relist, if needed StarM 01:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why I should give up here

This sort of thing, and DGG's note in a preceding section above about similar PROD removals, make me lose the will to continue here. And don't get me started on the damn Article Rescue Squadron, who have lists like these userfied and then leave it undeveloped while allowing clue-less drive-by IPs to add yet more nonsense to them. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I was going to suggest that you nominate these in an omnibus AfD. I have no firm opinion on these articles, but in particular I was not happy with the close of one of the AfDs, and I also considered that there should be some thought given to transwikiing them. I see from your discussion with DGG above that you have some sympathy with that idea.
I am a little concerned about any editorial position that effectively ascribes inferior morality and capability to previous generations, where there is reliably sourced commentary including this, it is far preferable to use this than either overtly making such statements with editorial voice, or selectively removing items with which we disagree.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
There is no reliably-sourced commentary, that's the point. The census data is unreliable and the census data is the only source. It's nothing to do with morality etc, as I explained to DGG. We do routinely remove material written by Raj authors because it is unreliable and not because of their morality; that said, there is often a congruence between the reliability and the morality, just as with, say, some holocaust deniers.
The problem here is people with little source knowledge etc meddling in the interest of inclusionism and, frankly, I'm getting fed up of having to repeat the same rationales time and again when, inevitably, those that are reasonable end up seeing sense and those that are not end up being blocked. Oddly, I think you're one of the few exceptions to the rule because you've done this type of thing before when you supported doncram's (?) daft list of scheduled/backwards classes.
Do I always get things right? Of course not, but when there have been two AfDs for similarly-based lists and both closed as "delete", this is just IDHT challenging. If you want to stick the stuff as a transcription on Wikisource (something that DGG didn't even suggest in his "no compromise" desire to find a compromise) then by all means do so. That will further add to the argument that the tabulations should not be here - they're crap primary sources.
Anyway, I'm off to calm down. I might well not be back because this really does feel like the last straw. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Leaving might be the last straw perhaps for other editors. I try to use AfDs instead of PRODs because of problems like this. Please don't leave. Maybe cut down your watch list, but leaving would be pretty much a disaster for some areas. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you've put up with working in the area of WP that you work in. You've virtually single-handedly acted as *the* bulwark for keeping out huge swathes of crap that endlessly try to be inserted in an important chunk of WP. WP would be in a bad position if you retired, but it would be entirely understandable. Why not just try a break? DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I think the Rich Farmbrough was the last straw but there's no ignoring all those other straws—the thousands of activist/promotional edits we see in topics related to the Indian subcontinent. You could call it death by a thousand pricks.
I would hate to see Sitush leave Wikipedia. What's more, I would like to see Sitush supported more fully by veteran editors. Without his fingers plugging the holes the encyclopedia's worth will diminish. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I've dabbled at the fringes but this isn't like anti-vandal work, it requires knowledge/expertise on some quite complex issues. Sitush has a lot of that knowledge - it's not that easy for others to do the same thing. But probably what others can do is recognise/support his expertise when need be e.g. these last-straw prods etc. DeCausa (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
There's no point getting upset about removal of a prod. All it means in this case is that someone thinks that AfD is more appropriate. I have no idea whether the consensus will agree with me until there is a fuller discussion of it than in any of the previous AFDs. I certainly do not expect to win every argument. If I got concerned every time someone challenged some of my deletion requests, I'd be perpetually angry. I have sometimes left a particular subject area if I find that my opinion of what should be done is different from everybody else's, and if opinion is overwhelming I may abandon that line of reasoning very quickly. But even when I expect to succeed and do succeed, I rarely get there without argument. I have sometimes given an argument implying expertise in one or another area. It have no right at all to get upset if somebody challenges it. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
To the complaint department: I complain about your retirement, but understand the feeling very well. I was close(d) several times, but then thought that it would be exactly what some would want. Look for "hope" on top of my talk and follow the link, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
ps: I linked you now under "just" there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sitush, I never get involved in Indian caste issues because I have zero clue about them. But even I can see that there is no definition of "encyclopedia" that would include regurgitating large quantities of self-admitted inaccurate census data from 1911. I haven't started an AFD in a very long while, but if someone smarter than me doesn't do it first, I'll dust off the instructions and try to do a mass AFD on this type of article. My tiny part to take some of the load off. But yes, I can understand the frustration. It's not so much that there are mechanisms to overcome such obstacles - I certainly anticipate an AFD resulting in a delete - but that they are so frequent, and so many of them pointless. If I thought you cared about barnstars, you'd get a big fat one from me. Do what you think is best for your own happiness and sanity, but I know what I'm hoping it will be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole caste thing must be such a frustrating area to work in. It's too much. When you started, you dwelled elsewhere and weren't concerned with that. Maybe go back to your beginnings -- so easy, so nice. Like a holiday. Or, better still, like moving out of an area you're sick of living in, and into a nicer neighbourhood. That's what I'd do. Don't move off planet Wikipedia. There'd be a void. ) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just signed in, and for a reason. There are frustrations but I'm particularly pissed off about this latest example. Sometimes I do wander off, also, eg: William Beach Thomas is pretty much a solo effort. I've just dumped some stuff at User:Sitush/sandbox3, which I may or may not expand upon. If I did, it would blow this crap out of the water, like my work on James Tod blew up all the idiots who consider him to be a reliable source, but right now I'm going to the pub. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah Sitush, India-related articles are frustrating! Take a break (couple of months?), size down your watchlist, and do the things which are fun: research on serious topics. Hope to see you back, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Situation normal. The community pisses on people who try to defend the encyclopedia. The never-ending stream of SPAs who want to tell the world about the wonders of their clan and the evils of others must be very frustrating for Sitush (is there anyone else working against that tide?), but the final straw always comes from passers-by. There is no remedy, but take a break to look after yourself, and let the mythical inexhaustible pool of good editors handle articles on Indian castes and politicians. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm dismayed to hear this. Please take some well deserved time off, but please come back soon. Meanwhile, I've edited the articles, Jat Sikh clans of Jalandhar Division, Muslim Jat clans of Jalandhar Division, Jat Sikh clans of the Lahore Division, which have nothing but material copied from various district and provincial gazetteers of British India published between 1908 and 1930, but disguised by citing instead a much later (e.g. 1984) reprint by a local publisher in Old Delhi (who in the best tradition of the off-Ansari Road publishers (or is this one off-off-Ansari Road?), usually removes the original copyright from the otherwise faithful facsimile of the 1908 original). The same Wikipedia editor has created a veritable feast of original research and synthesis. I can't say they all have the same problems, but the few I looked at most certainly did. They will need to be removed from Wikipedia ASAP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, what can other veteran editors do to ease your frustration? --NeilN talk to me 00:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What is this? you retired? It is not fair at all. You told me earlier that you will review my AfC draft and now I see you retired. Please come back and review my draft. If you leave then who will work on critical India related cases on WT:INB ??. So, I request you should come back. Jim Carter (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Rich Farmbrough, I was not happy with the close of one of the AfDs, — I agree with you, specially this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Jat clans of Lahore Division — a bit surprising, there were more keep votes (few of those had no rationale, and might be meat-puppetry/editor grouping as well).
    Sitush, as you know I have nothing but respect for you. You are one of the only two users who helped me when my rollback was removed. It is a damn difficult thing to work in Indian castes field. We may not even correctly understand/assess the work you are doing. Do not retire, come back. --Tito☸Dutta 07:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, I hope you will take a "wikibreak" and return to clean up India related articles. I also thank you for all the guidance you extended, when I started contributing to Wikipedia. Please come back. - Rayabhari (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:, I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about it. We're losing the few sensible people who had an interest/were prepared to support policy-compliant material - Qwyrxian, Boing! said Zebedee, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff etc - and yet the WMF policy in India seems to be actually causing an increase in the number of problematic contributors, perhaps most notably through a commercial tie-in with a mobile phone operator.
That said, it doesn't help when people like @Rich Farmbrough: come back from blocks and jump in with just as crazy contributions to something they clearly know nothing about as they were making at the time of their block. Their pre-block efforts on ambiguous/unreliable primary-sourced lists of castes have since gone but now they're objecting to removal of these ambiguous/unreliable primary-sourced lists and are doing so without acknowledging consensus or the fact that the AfDs included comments by an incredibly incompetent sockmaster, Sajjad Altaf. Rich and DGG are experienced contributors and, certainly in Rich's case, they are aware of my activity in this sphere of Wikipedia. They could have come to me first for clarification etc, had they chosen. That's what I tend to do and it is what, for example, @MezzoMezzo: and @Fayenatic london: did recently. But that's water under the bridge now, I guess, because PRODs cannot be reinstated. This stuff is going to end up at AfD, whether Floquenbeam nominates it or someone else does. My efforts at User:Sitush/sandbox3 can be referred to in such discussions.
They rest of you, I don't think that taking a break is the solution but I'm liable to come out with some very nasty criticisms at the moment and that wouldn't do anyone much good. Rightly or wrongly, the actions of DGG and Rich have tipped me over the edge and the sandbox may be my swansong here. I won't be moving it into article space but if someone wants to fettle it and do so in the future then that would be fine by me. A similar article about the Raj Gazetteers wouldn't go amiss: they, too, are about as useful to Wikipedia as a chocolate teapot.
And, @Rayabhari:, I hope that you can do to others as I did to you. If Indic-related stuff is even to have a chance of not getting worse here, we need at least a couple of hundred like you. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to put my opinion at this space/juncture, which please pardon, if found inappropriate. - New sizable contributions should be restricted to such editors who have (1) been users for at least one year or so (2) IP editors/newly registered users should be allowed to edit only spelling mistakes (e) new editors may edit only some 100 words per month,(or similar) so that only after getting experience and get a fair idea what Wikipedia is, they would contribute more (4) Only such editors who have successfully edited, say, some 1000 edits can create new articles etc. etc. Such / similar policy by Wikipedia can filter much of garbage being dumped into some of the articles. The open invitation by Wiki - "u can edit - login is not compulsory" is tempting every body (including children) to test their edits, which practice is contributing to addition of unsourced/wrong/puffery/avoidable/garbage to certain articles, particularly caste based.Thank you. - Rayabhari (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I've only just seen this, Rayabhari, minutes after I said to someone that I'm increasingly of the opinion that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark and that whole thing is a waste of time. We're swamped with more and more idiots and with more and more content that is less and less worthy. And the WMF just keep on giving, encouraging the trend from their nicey-nicey ivory tower. Their outlook is more California "let's have a group-hug even though you're going to shoot me" than hard-nosed Bronx realism.
One of the simplest things that they could do would be to ban anon edits. I suspect that a sizeable number of the idiots simply wouldn't bothered even registering if it was forced upon them, and insistence on registration would dramatically reduce the ability to sock, which is a major and depressing issue with South Asian stuff. But WMF won't do this, even though most of the rest of the web insist on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We have policies. The relevant ones here include WP:RS/WP:PRIMARY, WP:CONSENSUS and whatever the shortcut is for deletion review. Reproducing garbage is not encyclopedic and can have the tendency to legitimise said garbage, so stick it in Wikisource and forget about it. @Smsarmad: favoured deletion in the AfDs and, while I've not had a lot of involvement with them, I know them to be experienced in the Pakistan side of these things. It is depressing, it really is. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
True of course. But I wonder if there is something in Tito Dutta's suggestion. Two differences with most other areas of WP (as it seems to me). (1) volume: both in terms of actual/potential articles and interest from new contributors (intesting what you had to say on WMF activity) (2) complexity at a detailed level. If there was a "policy" (aka idiot's guide) on the issues you deal with on a daily basis (eg type of issue covered in your sandbox piece, and there are others) it might prevent the type of issue you encoutered recently via the PRODs - and generally help share the burden. It would make it easier for the rest of us to get it right I.e. help cŕeatè a couple hundred Rayabharis. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant WikiProject India consensus, we had one on using Indic scripts in article lead. If that's not possible, at least essays highlighting problematic issues, my/our latest effort were WP:INDAFD Tito☸Dutta 19:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: That is a very good idea. A consensus on Caste and Ethnicity related articles along the lines of WP:INDICSCRIPT. We'll need to think carefully about the wording, but I believe it can be done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the short version would be: "Do not use British Raj-era sources for statements of fact and try to avoid using them for statements of opinion except when discussing the sources themselves. Similarly, avoid the "states series" of The People of India (ie: the volumes not published by Oxford University Press): that series plagiarised and gave poor attribution to the Raj sources that it almost invariably relied on. If a statement in the PoI clearly post-dates the Raj - for example, a statement that community X has a caste association that was founded in 1960 - and is appropriately sourced, then that would be acceptable. The websites and publications of caste associations are also not reliable sources, except for statements about themselves (that is, about the association, not the caste)."
But the chances of getting such a thing through as anything more than an unenforceable essay are zero, and we've already discovered that consensus at project level counts for nothing: projects cannot influence the community and are held to be special interest groups that, almost be definition, have a conflict of interest when it comes to policy. I find this hard to stomach, given the proliferation of project-derived notability policies, such as for schools/movies/books/cricket, but it was discussed last year in relation to WPIndia and geographic naming or something like that & we were told in no uncertain terms that projects cannot form a meaningful consensus. You'd have to do it as a widely-publicised RfC or something like that. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think something like that could be part of an unenforceable guideline perhaps (as are all guidelines). Sounds a good idea even if it is in project space as it would give needed guidance to editors like me. Like Fowler, I think it can be done. It can't be policy. The notablity stuff isn't policy either. It's all guidelines, none of it is policy. Yes, projects can't override policy but I think that's a different issue than this. All we need here is agreed guidelines.
On another issue I'm concerned about the elections. I'd think we'd need everyone we can get to keep Wikipedia from being exploited. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There is also some boilerplate-type stuff at User:Sitush/Common, notably regarding Gyan sources. Re: the elections, I raised the issue at WP:AN recently but I'm not sure that it will make any difference. Like I said earlier, I'm not in a good place at the moment: very despondent about various aspects of Wikipedia, and maybe my pessimism is unjustified. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I took another issue to Village Pump recently — changing of Indian (specially Bollywood actors'/actresses') images from Infobox lead. There are many editors who just upload a new image from Bollywood Hungama, and change infobox image just to have their upload featured at Wikipedia. As a result infobox image gets changed in every few days. Sometimes they provide weird arguments like "I like new image", "the new image is latest", "in the new image actress is smiling beautifully, good for infobox. I asked Village Pump to set some rule for this infobox "muscal chair" image changing,. Most of them discarded the idea, the editors who were aware about supported it, but finally it was suggested to take it to WT:INB and get a project level consensus. I have not taken it there still.
    The reason I told this long story: Not everyone may understand these issues. Top level policy might be difficult. If you/we can have one, that'll be excellent. Even we do not have one, we should go for project level discussion/consensus. You know how many times we referred INDICSCRIPT in discussions. It was not a "complete" failure. --Tito☸Dutta 06:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It is unfortunate that such articles are kept, sourcing was not the only problem with these articles (though it was the main issue). And since I am not convinced by DGG's rationale, they all are going to AfD as soon as I get some more time. And more unfortunate is your decision to retire, I really don't care if they are kept after the AfD but I do about your retirement. I can't and don't want to imagine especially this topic area improving any further without your efforts. And now that some editors are looking for solution/alternates I suggest you take your time but please do reconsider your decision. -- SMS Talk 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You're retired, so stay out of IAC

You're retired, so stay out of IAC. You've owned the article far too long now. I am reverting your edits, because impersonation is a violation of WMF's Terms of Use. TheWikiIndian (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I expected this: as soon as I say I'm going, the socks, meats and POV-pushers return. Now why not piss off again? - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
He's back! Stay here! We want you! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It was serendipity (or calamity, depending on your point of view). I'd logged in to update the sandbox thing & the IAC article just happened to be at the top of the watchlist. I'm off again now but can assure you that the guy is a meatpuppet for the tendentious organisation that has been issuing legal threats etc for months: it doesn't take a genius to work it out, which is probably why I was able to do so. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stay here, Wikipedia needs you. Without people like you it is impossible to handle the critical India related articles and its sock & meats. Jim Carter (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption

Let me see if I have this right, the IP`s/meats/socks are all of the opinion that Anna Hazare/Team Anna were never a part of IAC? Which on the face of it appears to be total bollocks, I just looked at a book from OUP and it says he was? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They say he was never a part of the IAC pressure group that is/was affiliated with the Hindustan Republican Association. The IAC populist movement of 2011/2012 is a different thing. This is not going to go away because they're nutters and seemingly incapable of reading English even though some are using UK-based addresses (probably proxy servers, since they're very secretive organisation who generally operate through riseup). Block on sight is the only remedy that I can see but this inability to handle obvious and tendentiously promoted rubbish is yet another one of the straws that.has broken my back.
Ok, the latest reiteration of it is handled now but it has taken nine months or so of needless hassle to get into a situation where someone will block after only (!) a day or so of disruption. How they can keep getting away with adding "THIS IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT" to obvious chilling comments, as they have done frequently over the months, is simply beyond my understanding. I've got very little good faith left for the WP systems now, let alone specific individuals. Wikipedia is far too lenient or, as I said in a post above yesterday, too "California"/not enough "Bronx". - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
IAC started with a few activists, the name was taken over by another group, and then the original activists took over the new movement.
I remember a saturday in Utrecht: two guys selling communist newspapers. The one was from the Third (Communist) International, pro-Russia; the other one was from the Fourth International, pro-Trotsky. I never knew there were different Internationales, but there were. And both were completely right - they said. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes my head hurt, I think I will stick with the crap I already deal with, and leave this particular crap to you guys. You should get pending changes put on the article, then all the SPAs and IP edits will not show anyway. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Sitush, and I'm sorry that it's taken so long for me to get my act together (if I even have yet). Preventing harassment of editors is (or should be) the primary function of admins, and I (and the rest of the admin corps) has dropped the ball on this one (and others). You and your work are immensely helpful for Wikipedia, and I hope that you don't, but if you really are going to leave, well, I can't blame you or say that it isn't a good idea; dealing with this kind of shit on a daily basis can't be healthy. I'm sorry for my part in letting it continue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper:, it isn't your fault. It isn't the fault of any particular admin or indeed any contributor of good standing. The problems are systemic: anons being allowed to edit articles (rather than limited to talk), too much assumption of good faith for fear of biting newbies, a chronic lack of decent eyes on stuff relating to India/Pakistan etc, the WMF going promotion-crazy in South Asia (as noted by me in an earlier thread here), and so on. More and more users, who are less and less competent, churning out worse and worse material, while a very small number of experienced contributors and talented/willing newbies try to keep the ever-increasing flow in check. People have to have a certain madness about them to last any length of time here & while it is common to see pleas not to bite the newcomers, I wonder how many decent newcomers are lost not because they're bitten by the experienced but because they are dispiriteded by the inept. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Currently I am not posting anywhere, but, I am trying to get into scene to try to share the pressure and troubles you are facing currently. I have finished reading some other threads and your newest ANI thread, The slang User:Dougweller mentioned is a very uncomfortable one, specially for the editors who understands Hindi. I agree that they should create an article India Against Corruption (organisation).
    They have told— Accordingly IAC demands that all references in the article titled "India Against Corruption" to Anna HAzare / "Team Anna" are deleted within 36 hours 36 hours' is a dream, I think it will never be done unless they can produce some really good WP:RS in support of their claim. Please see this page (direct link may not work only in Internet Explorer). The first result's first line states India Against Corruption (IAC) founder Anna Hazare. So it is complicated. --Tito☸Dutta 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The English translation would probably be, excuse me, cunt - ironic that someone complaining about racism can be so sexist. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kashi Math Edits

Regarding Shri Kashi Math Samsthan edits, I would like to know why you are removing the valuable Encyclopedic information I have added in the article. Eg. Guruparampara of Kashi math is not a Directory Information. It is an Encyclopedic information, as anyone can search in that, who all were the founders. Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR and WP:NLIST. It has been done before on that article. I also reverted your page move because you didn't explain it and I'm fairly sure that "Kashi Math" is the common name. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added New Sources for whatever you have done before on the article. Still you have reverted. I agree on :WP:NOTDIR But WP:NLIST i cannot agree. I can add Guruparampara of Kashi Math as it is not stand alone list & it is originally associated with Kashi Math. Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page and try to gain consensus there. I'm fed up of people promoting their churches/temples/maths/dogras here (not to mention obscure religious sects whose articles often take the appearance of walled gardens). - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sri Aurobindo 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:
  • later increasingly in a bid to establish resistance groups across Bengal. But he formally moved to[Calcutta only in 1906 after the announcement of [[Partition of Bengal (1905)|Partition of Bengal]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo

Hi, Sitush, I was really concerned with your comment over GA of the article , had asked for a peer review too, can you let me know why did you find the article in bad shape ? . would highly apperciate your comment Shrikanthv (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review should pick up the issues. I mentioned CITEVAR on the talk page and also the fact that it is rarely a good idea to rely on sources that are published by named trusts etc in India because they're almost without exception advocacy groups and not independent. They tend to be "on a mission" to promote the memory of the person after whom they are named. They would be ok for the occasional basic statement, if nothing else could be found. I've never read up in detail on Aurobindo but his name pops up in a lot of sources that I have used for other things, so my bet is that the issues can be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you were right, could see lot of private institutes claiming numerous superanatural develpoment were lurking inside the page, I have removed most of such things, I thank you for your help , would really like to see what are the other things in concern , it is just a great thing to learn about editing an article as a novice Shrikanthv (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Scholberg

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

EllenCT & TE

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

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

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

About Yogendra Yadav

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

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

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

About, ahem, that sandbox

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

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

Regarding your censorship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.Perhaps you would like to explain

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

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

Shvrs' talkpage

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

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

Locations

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

@Auric:, no, it isn't. See Template:Cite_news#Publisher. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't say that. It says "Geographical place of publication". The dateline is the location from which the article was submitted or "published". --Auric talk 16:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've raised this at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Exact use for place/location?.--Auric talk 16:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If it were that then "location" for a book would be, for exmaple, the house where the author wrote the book but in fact it is always the location of the publisher. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
For a book, yes, but not a newspaper article.--Auric talk 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've commented in the discussion that you've linked above. Maybe it is the old accountant's training in me, but consistency seems an entirely reasonable goal. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As have I.--Auric talk 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

One for the complaint generator

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

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

Kachhwaha page

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Kachwaha is sometimes referred to be Kushwaha."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved your comment

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

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

Kashyap Rajputs

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

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

A little Advice?

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

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

Copyvio for symbol aap

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

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


Talkback

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

DBigXray 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

citation fixation

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

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

Sri Aurobindo and PR

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

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

Talk:Kachwaha (clan)

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

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

you made it to the newspaper

hey... your name featured in today's newspaper in India :) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Election-war-rooms-now-target-Wikipedia/articleshow/33841408.cms

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

  • As I've said in a couple of threads above, the WMF have a lot to answer for when it comes to India-related stuff. Anyways, I've just emailed Jay @ ToI to point out the error. Sometimes they correct the online editions.
I think there may be another published interview with me in ToI before too long, so if any of you have any hobbyhorses perhaps now is the time to raise them. I might then mention the things, given the opportunity ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Modi

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

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

Hold on

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

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

Ahir page

Sitush i removed some material from the page AHir because discussing about Gavli, Gaddi muslims and Ahir brahmin community has nothing to do with the Ahir Caste. Why dont you add something constructive and informative about this page. I doubt your biased research and useless edits that is not at all informative about ahir community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalji8331 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo

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

"The Life Divine" has over 1100 pages, and does not contain the word "spiritualism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
So it needs a new title or a redirect. Right now it's simply regurgitating a tiny part of the book. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Merge Integral psychology (Sri Aurobindo), Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo and Integral yoga into Aurobindo's philosophy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Breach of topic ban by SHVRs

Hi. See [1] and [2]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Naveen Jaihind Page Deletion

Hi Sitush, May i know how do you calculate popularity if any new politician? Naveen Jaihind didn't win any election as he is fighting election first time from Aam Aadmi Party in Haryana. If you need news or other coverage about Naveen Jaihind, We can provide you easily.

Please let us know next step from our side to restore this page.

Thanks Naveen Jaihind — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenJaihind (talk • contribs) 11:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox for the current general election campaign. You would need to assert notability, bearing in mind that you do not meet the requirements of WP:NPOL per the deletion discussion. However, you should not create an autobiographical article anyway, nor use proxies to do so (known as meatpuppets).
Basically, I think you're out of luck unless you are elected and/or someone else happens to come along. And if someone came along right now, I'd almost certainly consider them a meatpuppet. There is no rush - Wikipedia will still be around when the election end in a few weeks time. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

How are you doing?

Remember me? We used to edit on caste related articles, in fact we had also established that we should not use material from sources such as ambedkar.org, gyan publishing, etc.

Anyways, I've been away from wikipedia for about 1 month or more. I see that many articles have became better by the time. However, some pages may have been massively edited or conflicted by a number of new users. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

About Ayar, it was V. Kanakasabhai who thought that Ayar are Ahirs, Ahirs are mentioned in Purana. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The problems never go away! I just removed a load of junk from the Ayar article. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with each of those removal, but I will replace "Yadava people mentioned in the Puranas" with "According to V. Kanakasabhai, Ayar are identical with Ahirs, who were mentioned in Purana." There are multiple sources for this information, I will add quote too. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti:, os Kanakasabhai even worth mentioning? It sounds like he was a fringe theorist. On which subject, see the recent goings-on at Bengali Kayastha where I'm having to deal with a WP:SPA yet gaain. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I would've added the opinion of Kanakasabhai right away, but due to his critical theories I had thought of asking you first. So thanks for your opinion. Bengali Kayastha looks like a nice article now, added to watchlist. Many of these articles have been edited by the users who haven't checked out the sources, and in fact most of the information remains unsourced. But it is good that we have got people, who can clean up these articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Bengali Kayastha should not even exist, in my opinion. It is actually pretty much all about Kulin Kayastha. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Modification of Infobox of Raju

Kindly,please see the talk page of Rajus.Thank You.

Category:Former Telugu Desam Party politicians

Category:Former Telugu Desam Party politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned three similiar categories Category:Former Indian National Congress politicians,Category:Former Bharatiya Janata Party politicians and Category:Former Telangana Rashtra Samithi politicians created by you in the discussion.Just informing. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Shyamsunder: Thanks. I'm really not interested, though. I've long come to the conclusion that the categorisation project is a waste of time and space, inhabited mostly by pedants who can't think of anything better to do and/or lack the ability to do it. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories on Aam Aadmi Party's page

I want to add three new categories on Aam Aadmi Party page. These are -

These three categories are a common categories which are add to all parties main page (especially third one is for regional parties). You have added these categories on only one category named Aam Aadmi Party. So I think that these categories should be on Aam Aadmi Party's main page not in any other category.Prateek Malviyatalk 11:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...! I too get confused as to what should go on the main article and what should go on the category of the same name. Ping me Sitush when you answer this one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: In short I want that the above three categories should be in main article which are now in same named category Aam Aadmi Party.Prateek Malviyatalk 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: does WP:Overcategorisation not explains things sufficiently? If not then you'll need to ask at WP:CFD or somewhere because it looks fine to me. Categories are intended to be a taxonomical system, not a flag. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Am not objecting to it. I was simply confused and luckily happened to see this post. Few days back i cleaned some categories on Indira Gandhi and then thought why those all were not included in Category:Indira Gandhi instead of the article. I didn't hunt for the answer then and hence came here. So, just like AAP's article, IG's article should also have only one category, right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, D, I was pinging you as requested but replying to Prateek. It is my understanding that, yes, all this stuff should be under the subject category - AAP, Indira Gandhi etc. But the way Wikipedia treats categories is a complete disaster in my opinion, with one of its primary goals being to be to keep pedants happy, shuffling things around and making bulk edits etc for no real gain. I've no problem with someone raising the issue at whatever is the correct project tlak page. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Action is better than talk. I will simply ruffle up some highly watched pages and get people talking about it that me searching out a right venue and starting discussions. Many a times, talk pages like these are rarely watched and discussions become stale. This "controversial" editing might be helpful... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that only one category is not good. My objection is to revert this edit by Sitush. These three categories should be on main page, like other parties.Prateek Malviyatalk 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"You think" is not convincing. "You think why" might help here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Prateek, it could be that the categorisation on other articles is incorrect. What I did seemed logical and in accordance with our guidance etc but, like I said, if you can find an appropriate central venue to discuss the general point then I'm more than happy to see whatever clarification emerges from that. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, but all the political parties pages have the same type of categorisation, except AAP. Is it right to only AAP has deprived to it?Prateek Malviyatalk 11:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If I am right then the AAP categorisation is right and the fact that other pages have it wrong is something that would need to be addressed. You'll find that this is not an uncommon situation on Wikipedia: the solution is to fix the wrong ones, not make yet another article wrong. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"Deprived"?! You are saying as if its their birthright to have categories on their page. Now what will they do? Go on Ramlila Maidan yet again? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: If it is wrong I'll not stubborn to you. @Dharmadhyaksha: I hate AAP and it's leader AK-49. I am staunch supporter of BJP. I will vote for BJP in this general election and voting is tomorrow in my constituency.Prateek Malviyatalk 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my involvement but Prateek it is not a good idea to mention which party you support for, atleast on Wikipedia. This must be a private matter of every voter. I suggest you should never edit articles related to BJP since you may never maintain neutral point of view. Jim Carter (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: I am really sorry for expressing my political views. I just wanted to say that I am not supporter of AAP. But I never impose my political views on Wikipedia. Trust me, I maintain neutral point of view on Wikipedia. I never edit pro BJP on BJP related pages. Thanks for your comment.Prateek Malviya•✉•✎ 07:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have forgotten more about topic X than ...

I got a laugh from reading something, long forgotten, on [[3]]. How are things going? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, dear Yogesh and his ganga ;) I've definitely wound down my activity here. I will likely become still less active - I'm finding that my tolerance for fools/POV pushers etc etc is not as great as once it was, and it was never that great in the first place. Endlessly repeating myself becomes tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahir page

@ Sitush: You autocratically decide as to what is a reliable source and what is not. WHo gave you that right? You make changes to edits as per your mood and belief. If this is the case then please take control of wikipedia and make all edit as per your discretion. I strongly object your behaviour. You have reinstated Kajri and Birha now will you take the pain of explaining how it is related to Ahir caste. And why did you delete the subdivision among Ahir. Who are you to decide on this. The source i provided was British Gazetteer. Nothing more reliable than Gazetteer can be provided. Sitush i am fed up with your nonsensical and autocratic behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalji8331 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It has long been the consensus that the British Raj gazetteers are not reliable sources for matters of history, caste etc. Note, that is consensus, not some autocratic decision. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Early Nationalists

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

clean ups

The below articles are full of POVs and unverified sources and need clean up. Please have a look at these pages

Dhobi,

List of Isai Velalar

Nassuvan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangood (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You could always try fixing them yourself. I'm winding-down my involvement with Wikipedia, so the likelihood is that if something is not already on my watchlist then it will not get looked at by me. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). @Maangood:, at least your request re Dhobi led with a few degrees of separation (via this diff) to me usernameblocking this editor. Not much, but something. There are some very cluless IP edits to the article, but I'm hesitant to semiprotect since there are also useful IPs involved. Please let me know if it gets worse. (As for cleanup, I'm not getting involved with any of these articles, I'm far too ignorant of the subjects.) Bishonen | talk 16:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

What is this

What is this ? Jim Carter (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And this Jim Carter (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Old news, I'm afraid. It is bollocks anyway: just about the only things they got right were that I edit India-related articles and my username is Sitush. You'll find more examples but it is probably best not to post links here because it just encourages them. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: btw, that book about the Early Nationalists turned up in my post today. I'll try to read it over the next couple of days. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. :) Jim Carter (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please

Please don't out me again[4] Why the semi-retirement, hope not due to ill-health. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You outed yourself ages ago, Yogesh. I told you that in the thread that you link. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Did I? Will you email me the links please, if you may. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Narendra Modi 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:
  • //www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1821/18210310.htm|title=A pracharak as Chief Minister |work=Frontline] |date=13 October 2001 |accessdate=11 April 2013 |last=Venkatesan |first=V.| location=New Delhi |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucky Luke

You know this comic? "The man who shoots faster than his shadow"? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, but it's a good phrase! Got to go out - all the new article creations should be CSD G5'd, not redirected. They're all POV-y, synthesised coatracks etc, as per usual. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Satya Ndella

If caste is a problem remove caste sir, why ru removing well cited reference and full name? you dont wish fellow editors to edit Mathsraja (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The name was not cited as far as I could see. Unfortunately, you are making a lot of poor contributions at the moment. Have you read WP:RS and WP:V? - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

satya nadella

kindly check what I have edited and the corrections to title less references. Kindly dont undo unless u check my editsMathsraja (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had checked your own edits then you would have seen the problem - for some obscure reason, you changed "cite web" to "cite webz" and made some other inappropriate adjustments. I think I've fixed it all now and, yes, the full name is in there. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

full name of satya nadella

nothing wrong and unfortunate to include full birth name Mathsraja (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ethnicity

thank you for the message. I too know how wikipedia treats caste. On the other hand, I can show you thousands of articles in wikipedia, which includes ethnicity in the infobox. That is not an issue. But I cant waste my time on a Know it all like you. Please go ahead and undo my edits. But, please dont give orders to fellow editors. Mathsraja (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

cite webz

cite webz was a typo mistake by me, I am not a fool to deliberately write it as cite webz. As an experienced editor u can correct it, instead of messaging me Mathsraja (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Practically every edit by you made in the past two days has been deleted, mostly by myself and Material Scientist. You've got a history of making poor edits and it is extremely frustrating having to clean up the mess that you create, especially when it involved violations of our policy concerning living people. I'm not sure how much more of this the project would be willing to tolerate. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mathsraja: here's the problem: you have been inserting numerous claims related to religious belief, ethnicity/caste, native language and nationality across numerous articles. Some of those articles were about living people, some were not. In all cases, we need a reliable source that allows us to verify the statement(s); in the case of living people, we need reliable sources that show they self-identify with the statements (that would usually mean an interview with them or something said on their own website etc).
No-one is saying that your information was actually wrong but in almost all cases it is very personal information. The problem is that you were effectively making statements based on original research and we are not allowed to do that here. In particular, assuming that because someone was born to Brahmin parents then they must themselves be Hindu is a nonsense because religious belief is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Clueless complaint about Sitush

Leave a message; OK; Sitush; Please don't spoil other people's work and hide behind Wiki "guidelines". You obviously do not know the difference between "funny" and "clownish". You uphold the brainless noodlings of "Indian scholars" on vague archeological theories, which can not even claim to add anything to a discussion, in preference to a word perfect recitation of the legitimate itihasa "oral" tradition. When you overhear British students retell mythology of ancient Greeks or Norse would you pop up and ask; "I say old chap, what book did you read that in?" No, I didn't think so. You would certainly know enough to conceal your ignorance in person, but with Wikipedia to hide behind... you let it all hang out. I do not respect or acknowledge your status with Wikipedia. You are just a troublemaker, and a troll as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.74.51 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you ever equate Wikipedia with a conversation between students? I say old chap, better read WP:V. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This Indraprastha article was rubbish only, but to be polite I left all that brainless stuff there. But then you were very scrupulous about swooping in and dealing with the guideline you understand; "citation", but not why we don't look for citations in a genuine oral tradition. If your point was to call me a liar by backhandedly asserting that there is no such thing as an oral tradition, I think you have been put in your place. Now of course no criticism of you can remain in sight for long. Your secret is safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.74.51 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, nonsense. Oral traditions are documented by historians, researchers, and linguists in published sources. --NeilN talk to me 04:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Royal School of Medicine

I'd like to see your draft moved out as an article. I'm quite active in the field of 19th century British biographies, including medical men, and it would be a useful addition. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will do some time today after a read-through for glaring errors. I'm afraid that it is one of several that I intended to expand before moving into mainspace but, being an aside from my normal activities here, the gestation period has been lengthy. I was trying to get hold of a copy of a source but ran out of money! You'll find several other related articles in mainspace that I've created or substantially work upon - Joseph Jordan (doctor), Leo Grindon, Harry Platt (I knew him), John Charnley (ditto), Ancoats Hospital, Dispensary movement in Manchester, Hannah Brackenbury etc. Most of those need a lot more work and I have books for some of them. Manchester Royal Infirmary is another that really, really needs work but I've not had a great deal of involvement in it - got a couple of books for that one, somewhere (my aunt worked there, with Platt and Charnley, for the latter of whom there is one authoritative biography). Plenty to keep people busy! - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I thought I'd also written up Thomas Turner, who was a contemporary of the MRSM and connected to it, but I'm buggered if I can find it. Maybe that one was done using quill and parchment. I'll have to dig deeper. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved it now. There may be a DYK in there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Should I add a infobox? Jim Carter (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather avoid an infobox - don't like the things. The article is a bit of a weird one anyway, being more about the predecessors than the school itself! I've been trying to find images of the place but so far without success. I though Manchester Libraries would have some but it seems not, so I may have to trawl old books for etchings etc from the 19th century. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Use Time machine :p Jim Carter (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've long since downloaded most old books about Manchester that are available there. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Overcat?

Hi, how is this overcat? The other category "AAP candidates 2014 election ...", is only a temporary category. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:AAP candidates 2014 election includes Category:Aam Aadmi Party politicians, and that looks right to me because a candidate is de facto a politician. The fact that it may be a temporary cat (which I doubt, because some will still be notable people even if they lose in the election) is a different ballgame and it is one about which I've previously expressed concern. Some people have made a lot of work for themselves and others by creating incomplete "temporary" categories of this nature. But that seems to be the nature of people who spend too much time in the category namespace. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would Category:Aam Aadmi Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 be a temporary one? The winners will move to Category:16th Lok Sabha members and the loosers will just remain there. I agree that someone has surely created new work for maintaining all "candidates" separately from "winners", but as long as someone is doing it, i see no problem. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
But therein lies the problem: unless we then create Category:Aam Aadmi Party members of the 16th Lok Sabha etc, some people would indeed need to be moved back out of the candidates categories and into the party politicians ones. The entire thing is an ephemeral mess and it seems to be down to people not thinking straight. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh right! Who started this crap? Let's block them. I can't find any such categories for American elections. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
See User_talk:DBigXray#Problematic_new_category. I never took it further because it seemed likely to be such a time-sink of a discussion but since then it looks like the time-sink is in leaving the cats around. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to get me blocked however I had checked such categories for other countries before creating ones for India.For example Category:Candidates for the House of Commons of Canada by political party. How I feel it works : there is no need to remove the existing category say Category:Aam Aadmi Party politicians from Arvind Kejariwal. Just add Category:Aam Aadmi Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 to the article. If he wins Category:Aam Aadmi Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 will be removed and Category:16th Lok Sabha members will be added.The unsuccessful candidates will remain in Category:Aam Aadmi Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014.Hope this helps.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I read Dharmadhyaksha's comment about blocking as humourous. Nonetheless, we can't have Kejriwal in both categories and, yes, you've created a lot of seemingly rather ephemeral work. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I thought these cats were to be deleted after elections, and were created only to keep track during the election time. If we keep one cat for each election, we may end up with too many not really required categories. And also if these cats are to be kept, then "Cat:XX party member" is not required.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, it is a complete mess. The more time people spend improving articles and not engaging in the category namespace, the better the project will be. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)- Sitush (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! I forgot to use Comic Sans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Eventhough Milkha Singh himself says he won 77 races...

It is isn't true, even though Singh himself says he won 77 races? Ok then...

@Surge elec: That is an example of precisely why we should not rely on self-published information. I did suggest that you review the talk page - do the math - but it looks like you didn't even read the article, which says

There have been claims that Singh won 77 of his 80 races,[11] but these are spurious. The number of races in which he participated is not verified, nor is the number of victories, but he lost a 400m race at the 1962 National Games in Calcutta to Makhan Singh[19] and he did not finish first in any of his four races at the 1960 Olympic Games[4] or the aforementioned qualification races at the 1956 Olympics.

You might also care to read WP:LEAD since, even it it were true, there was no need for the citation there when it is mentioned in the body. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
#1 Fine then. #2 I hadn't believed the line that he ran four races in the 1960 Olympics. I had known that he ran one race and lost the bronze medal by 1/100th of a second. 12:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but it strikes me that you still have not read the article. Either that or the article is poorly phrased somewhere because you clearly have got the wrong end of this stick. I'll have a think about whether or not it can be made any more clear. It is rare that an event at the Olympics does not have qualifying rounds: in this event there certainly were several and he won in none of them. If Singh wants to twist the language and the facts then that is up to him, but he ain't getting away with it on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Modi II

Yo what was that for? The one content change I made, I did explain on the talk, and nobody responded to it. Most of the rest was grammar and formatting...why would you revert an edit that you thanked me for yourself? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Narendra_Modi#Recent_changes_reverted and note edit summaries from you such as this. You are among those who seem to be playing fast and loose with consensus and engaging in tit-for-tat edits. However, you'll note that I didn't point fingers in my explanation on the talk page: it seems to have invo9lved several people and it really needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear; are you essentially saying WP:BRD does not apply here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am saying what I say on the article talk page. If you cannot understand what I say there then the likelihood is that you should not be editing such a controversial article anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

When I reinstated the grammatical corrections, it was easier to revert your edit, and then remove the content changes, rather than the other way round, because there were 4-5 actual content changes, and ~20 grammar edits. Please look carefully at the diff across both my revisions before reverting me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading the fucking article talk page or not? You have yet again reverted me and by doing so you have removed substantive statements, not merely adjusted grammar. Self-revert now and continue discussion, please otherwise I'll see you at WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you reading the fucking diff? Look at this, which is the revert I just made, and show me ONE FUCKING INSTANCE where I have made a content change. I respect you a lot; I reread the diff six times before reverting. If you show me even one content change in the diff I just provided, then I will self-revert and take a wiki-break. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) Then self revert now. How long a break are you going to take? You removed a link: emergency rule. See you after the break.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That was a duplicate link, removed per WP:OVERLINK, which falls under the category of wikignoming, which Sitush explicitly said was okay. He had problems with my content changes, so I removed those and reinstated the grammar. He then reverted me, so that he essentially reinstated the same effing content changes that he had issues with. Just look at the article history. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That was just one thing. Sitush is correct. You changed "substantive statements, not merely adjusted grammar" you changed the meaning for one on that mention alone from "Emergency rule" to "state of emergency" which is not the same thing and I could go on but wont. You should self revert and you probably do need a wikibreak.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are repeating stuff that was not previously repeated, eg: search for <ref name=Brasted/>. You are ignoring WP:CLAIM. You are screwing up citations, as I've only recently explained on the article talk page - we use "work", not "newspaper", for online news media. Much of what you have done is fine but you've been trying to steamroller stuff on the article from the get-go and it will not work for the reasons I've already stated (and, to some extent, you've already agreed in past discussions about the lead section at the article talk). Finally, bringing your issues here rather than discussing them on the article talk, as I've been trying to do, both disenfranchises people and makes it difficult to keep track. You've inserted yourself into a very controversial article and you need to do things slowly and openly: I don't want to see you commenting here again about changes to the article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post there, but are you at least convinced I'm not barefaced lying? I reinstated only stuff which I saw as gnoming. As for that ref, yes, you're right, although the original change was not me. I will remove those two changes, if that is acceptable to you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never accused you of lying. I've said that you and others had made life difficult and that you (plural) were being reckless and ignoring consensus. You (singular) seem to have accepted at least a part of that. Do what the heck you want - I'm past caring right now and am going back to my Mancunian doctors etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, you implied that I was when you threatened to drag me to ANEW, because you said I had promised to make one edit and made another. Regardless, I'm glad we sorted this out, and thanks for commenting on the proposals. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:List of Kapus

Hello Sitush. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:List of Kapus, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I find this bizarre. Consensus is that we do not categorise people by caste. I emptied the category because, in any event, none of the 40-odd articles had any verification of the caste claim. I then tag it and, right at the death, leave a note and then some idiot adds Pawan Kalyan to the cat even though it breaches WP:V and WP:BLP. Because an idiot does that (and only idiots are interested in pushing caste claims here), the category has to stay and remain a honeypot for further idiotic additions.
I presume the problem was WP:INVOLVED, meaning that you couldn't do the necessary? I've done it myself now and the category is once again empty. I'm now going to ignore the 4-day CSD requirement stipulated as a result of this discussion and try a PROD. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The only problem, as I wrote, was that the category wasn't empty. Now that it's empty I've deleted it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: Sorry, Malik, but that was not the only problem. According to the rationale, the cat must remain empty for four days. It didn't, so you should not have deleted it just now. It's crazy, I think, and I'm in favour of someone deploying IAR, which is effectively what you have done. That is the nonsense - not your actions, but the weird tug-of-war in policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The category was the subject of a CfD discussion whose consensus was delete. I implemented that consensus, which is a WP:G6 speedy deletion. There was never a need for a speedy deletion request under WP:C1 and a four-day wait when a WP:G6 request has no delay. Sorry for any confusion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: Ah, I see. I was just following the instructions on the cat page, which said take it to CSD, by which I assumed C1. A claim of following orders is not always a great defence (vide: Nazi war criminals), so perhaps I should have ignored them ;) In the unlikely event that I come across it again, I'll opt for G6 now that I knnow it exists. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your sock

Hello...you right now labelled my comment on talk page as a Sock. I am not one ..... Premu is different. I don't know him and that's not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.59.165.176 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I already have an account. What do you mean unlikely? I swear I am not premu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.59.165.176 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Umpteen IPs from Delhi, all using Reliance, all supporting Prem, who we know is already socking and has edited while logged out in the past. All of this happening in the space of a few hours. I think that is a WP:DUCK. Register an account and you might get a fairer hearing but good faith here is not intended to be a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to any passing admin: please check my credentials

Please could any passing admin "check my credentials", as requested here. I wouldn't like the contributor to think that their appeal has fallen on deaf ears. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created User:Lalit Jugtawat/Charan history for him, so he can do some homework. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Lok Sabha

I thought this was capitalised - as a proper noun. Am I wrong? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

No mate, you're reading the diff backwards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Yes, indeed - my apologies. I still don't know why you didn't fettle the missing "the"s etc, though. It looks like you were doing a search-and-replace type of job again as it would have added about a minute of your time to fix the other minor issues. India articles often have stilted prose but removing a couple of "lates" and adjusting capitalisation while not fixing the obvious seems odd to me, especially since you must have read the article as you removed those issues. I've done much more to improve it now but if that sort of rather half-cocked fettling is what floats your boat then I guess I'll just have to follow you around a bit: you find 'em, I'll fix 'em properly ;) - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty to go around! I have to leave some stuff unfixed, and preferably add a typo or two to prove it's a manual edit... Actually this trail started with the "state vice president of Haryana" who's article is now (probably correctly) CSD'd - it appears that the words "of the XXX party" were missing. But it sent me on the usual Indian tour of incomplete and strangely worded articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Put to use at last

Finally ! It seems Johnuniq sent them there.[5] Much better than Jimbo's page. Bishonen | talk 05:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

P.S. Shvrs? Are you sure? Isn't the IP's English rather worse? And the sentiments more temperate? Nothing in the WP:AN/S report about how you're a wicked shudra, a paid editor, and the like. Bishonen | talk 05:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Bwahaha! Fantastic. The complaint generator is brilliant. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
[Graciously] Thank you, Binksternet, but I'm only a modest collector of gems which are already there. All I do is pluck them and correct the English (the idea isn't to make fun of non-native speakers) and, well, do some brilliant coding. Er, Mr. Stradivarius does the coding part, if you want to be particular. Anyway, Sitush, Odysseus told me on my page that shvrs and the IP both use wantedly for wantonly, but I can't find where Shvrs does it. I'm sure it's in plain sight somewhere. Can you find me a diff? I don't like to block per WP:DUCK without that. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
I'm just glad that we could turn WP:AN/S into such a success. For this kind of situation it definitely has the edge on our traditional dispute resolution processes. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for your comment on ani page regarding my conduct

Hi Sitush, can you please add your comments in that section. I have put my comments earlier today morning. I would be grateful if you may also look at the article talk page before that. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Namdev

Alot was added to this article recently. Looks to be alot of copied text (not copy-vio) that shouldn't be there, but I haven't a clue. Could you take a look. This past week has been the week from hell around here. This is the first time I really thought about not editing in awhile. Really wish you were closer so I could have a pint(s) and bitch fest with you. Argggh. Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That evil Titodutta took care of it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Thanks for the note. I nipped in to resolve another issue there but, yes, it is all getting a bit too much at the moment. Sadly, I can only see the situation worsening. I feel your pain and, as you may have noticed, I'm not editing as much as once I did.
Beer sounds good, btw, but distance often does get in the way. I thought about going to Wikimani in London this year but (a) I won't hear anything) and (b) knowing my luck, I'll bump into someone who would quite happily hit me, - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I do have that desire to hit you, but that would leave incriminating remarks. Water torture would be much better. Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paramara dynasty 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:
  • I]] - Restored past glory of his kingdom by defeating the Solankis of Gujarat as well as the [[Yadava dynasty]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: did you even read the above template yourself? You are the one who was changing things & I was the one who was reverting back to the long-standing version. I also opened up a discussion at the article talk page. Among the many reasons why WP:DTR exists is because the regulars generally should know what they are doing and thus if it appears that they do not in fact know then it is usually worth querying with them first rather than approaching things like a bull in a china shop.
FWIW, there were many worthwhile aspects to your edit but, for example, we try to avoid the "Some scholars believe" type of construct and being chancellor of a university (an admin role at best) does not trump being a professional anthropologist (a vocational role) when it comes to statements about caste. Nor was removing some stuff apparently because the source was written in French a particularly good idea. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Some more waste of time

I realize the place is a waste of time and full of officious twats, but isn't it odd how we can still become involved in stuff we don't care even a little about? At least I can, like here. I saw you took part in the original discussion. (Let me guess: you didn't care either.) Was WP:INDICSCRIPT being pressed into service rather w r t the Delhi infobox, or did I get that wrong? Bishonen | talk 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Sitush:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you active these days?

Are you active these days? Tito☸Dutta 09:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, Tito. Fed up of dealing with idiots. - 94.118.32.170 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Help please?

[6] Reliable source or not? --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not. The 61 census was full of reprinted garbage from the Raj period. Let the Kamma pov-pushers find something more scholarly - it is not as if the community is poorly researched. - 94.118.25.3 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Very sorry to see you're burned out. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Improve referencing of Gill clan (talkback)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Gill clan.
Message added Joshua Issac (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

--Joshua Issac (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nai (caste)

FYI, although I recently rolled back a bunch of User:FollowTheHindu's edits, I had no objection to them. His edits were caught up in my undoing of another editor's insertion of some very messily-formatted content. I specifically encouraged FollowTheHindu to go back and redo his work. Now for a little disclaimer: I don't have the expertise to judge good content from bad content in that article. However, I do know malformed content when I see it, which is why I undid 180.251.51.162's edit of May 7. Please work with FollowTheHindu so that any good content he has to offer stays in the article. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Dear Friend Sitush, I respectfully request You to comment at Talk:Rajput#Vaidya and Ojha. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 11:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for Your comments ← Abstruce 07:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Jain Brahmin

Hi Sitush, this Jain Brahmin/Sikh Brahmin articles are back. I have reported the user at WP:SPI. Are you interested in taking this article at AfD, so that it can be easily CSDed the next time they are recreated. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Salting might be an option but then it might just cause them to slightly amend article titles when they recreate, making them harder to spot. CSD G5 works for me, usually, and I've tagged these and other recreations as such. Thanks for spotting it. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Deleted, sock blocked. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC).
Oh Yes... Why I didn't think of CSD G5... --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Colonial Period

Sitush, Please advice on including this source describing the ancient Tamil country wrt Agriculture. It says there were 2 classes, the superior Vellalas or land owning class, and the inferior Velallas, that is, the actual people tilling the land (farmers). Additionally, Rajkris deleted this entire section below. Please look into this.

Section deleted by RajKris titled "Colonial Period" (please note description in references / sources stated):

In 1914, Historian Muttusvami Srinivasa Aiyangar found no traces of Tamil kings in the country and considered it highly probable that they merged into the pure Vellala caste.[1]

The Vellalars were categorized as Shudras in the Census of 1871 whilst seeking a Vaishya position.[2] Again in the 1901 census, the Vellalas were ranked as Sat-Sudra; with the Government of Madras recognising that the 4-fold division did not describe the South Indian society adequately.[3]

It was pointed out that land-based communities quite distinct from the Vellala have claimed Vellala status and in course of time have gained acceptance and intermarried with older Vellalar families.[4]

In Post-Independent India too, it was noted that families regarded as pure Vellalar caste were reluctant to question the bona fides of those pretending to be Vellalar, since the line between them was noted to be very thin indeed; with the former occasionally drawing partners for marriage from the ranks of the latter.[5]

Thanks --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Chola/Chera/Pandya

Sitush, some more things on Vellalar:
(1) The sources by Sailendranath Sen and Venkatasubramanian do not mention the Vellalars belonged to ancient Tamil order of Chera/Chola/Pandya/Sangam era. Instead they just say they were "aristocratic classes".
(2) Rajkris in Introduction says "The actual Vellalar caste is made of different sub castes which do not intermarry; many of these sub castes have nothing to do with the original Vellalars" -- This is totally not supported by the citation provided. The reference / source in-fact states the exact opposite.
(3) Paul Hockings says it is Vellalas themselves who say their origin is from the gangetic valley and claim association with Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas - in spite of their ineligibility for kingship. Then goes on to say there is evidence to connect core vellalas to velirs. Unfortunately Hockings does not state what the literary and archaeological evidence is. Am mentioning the source, kindly check inline quote, and advise if this source can be used and how the wording in the article should be.[6].
(4) Please advise if these 2 sources can be used (both are academic sources; and mention creation of military men, Kaikollars, from enslaved women in Velams (a palace institution):
(a) Daud Ali, 2007. 'The Service Retinues of the Chola Court: A Study of the term veḷam in Chola Inscriptions', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 70, 3: 487-509.
(b) Pages 4 to 8 of this book

Thanks --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Mauasutra

Review

Hey saw your name in the reviewers list for article for creation. I have a draft submitted for a review. Draft:2006 ICC Awards. It will be great help if you review it and decide whether it can approved or not. So, if you have free time please consider reviewing it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done. I've approved it and tweaked a couple of bits - no big deal. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bunts

Hey so some of the issues you rolled back were legacy issues not actually changed by me, so I'm going to go ahead and fix the wikilinks again manually. Ogress smash! 00:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't restoring to a prior version specifically because of you. I was restoring because the issues had become mangled and, as is common with Indian caste articles, there were major POV problems etc. If you can resolve them then that is fine by me. The article has been on my watchlist for a long time and could do with some more eyes. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadzai

Mate what i added is just the location which is wrong that is tribal agency in waziristan because that should be pakistan as waziristan is itself a tribal agency. Also in the first it just says its a pashtun tribe but we have to explain where it is.

If had removed any material that would have been wrong but i am trying to fix the errors here. Hope you can revert it back to the version as you can check for yourself what i am suggesting is just correction . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You did much more than that, as shown in my revert. For example, the Sunni Muslim bit. As I said in my edit summary, if there are any issues regarding semantics etc - and I think you may have a point regarding the FATA bit - then you should raise them on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, forget it. I looked at the changes before replying above and have now looked yet again. I've not long since woken up and it is showing! I'll self-revert now. Please accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Thankyou mate,. Have a good day Saladin1987 10:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Vellalar

Hi Sitush, Please can you advise on Pingalanikanthu and Tivakaram. Both are Sangam period Nikanthus (lexicon); which mentions duties of Vellalars. The author, Leslie Quebec, has mentioned the roles of Vellalars as described in both the Nikanthus in her book. However, Rajkris has some objection to it. I don't think it is correct to discard duties of Vellalars and what their social role was, as described in the Nikanthus; since Nikanthus are thesaurus texts which describe social, political and religious conditions which prevailed then. Please advice.

This is the paragraph Rajkris has objection to (please advise on changing the wording also if needed):

Tholkappiyam which dates from fifth or sixth century contains a passage which mentions velanmantar; which later commentators and recent scholars equated to vellalas.[7] However, the Velanmantar do not necessarily refer to the Vellala.[7] Some references are found in Niganthas such as the Pingalanikanthu, for Vellalars. Quebec Leslie mentions them as follows:

...the tenth century lexicon Pingalanikanthu does not consistently identify Vellalas as the "fourth caste" but informs us that this term is a synonym of both Vaiciyar (Sanskrit Vaishya) and of cuttirar (Sanskrit Sudra) (Pingalanikanthu 773 and 780). Another lexicon, Tivakaram, which is thought to be of slightly earlier date than Pingalanikanthu, lists the six kinds of works of the Vellalas: agriculture, tending animals, trade, playing on musical instruments, spinning and weaving, and serving the twice-born (MTL 3843-44). The references from these two lexicons suggest that neither a definition based on varna nor one based on occupation had become fixed by the beginning of the Chola period. This should be contrasted with Stein's (1989, 84, 448) characterization of the Vellalas of the early Chola period as being sat (clean) sudras, having a ritual status second only to that of Brahmans, and as firmly connected with cultivating the land, and being, indeed, the dominant peasant group.[7]

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

The underlying problem here appears to be related to semantics and the purported or actual connection between Vellalars and Velirs. I've never had the time really to dig into this stuff and I doubt that I've got it now, sorry. Nor have I got the inclination: I'm temporarily on some additional medication that is giving my very unpleasant psychological (psychiatric?) side-effects and would really rather not get involved until I'm off the stuff - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Like! :-) Jyoti (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Am very sorry to hear this Sitush. Please get well soon. Yes, there is a problem connecting Velirs to Vellalars. This connection is made only in books from colonial period onward. Dug into this quite a bit. Even as a general saying the Sanskritization effect cannot be missed (of Kallar, Maravar, Agamudaiyar landlords claiming to be Vellalars). This is obviously a mixed class of varied origins. When you are okay we can take this forward. Tito, yes am happy to hear from Sitush. There is one thing I owe to him. When I was a casteist, he showed me how not to be one (probably he did not realize it, but he 'induced' in me to reflect upon my attitude and actions). Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Sitush, Reg side-effects caused by the medication, hope you are not ignoring them. Please make sure you get Vit B5, B6 and B12 (pls talk to your physician for dosage amount). Helps with the side effects of water retention and anxiety. Pls ask your physician if shifting to this medication can help (some people say it does, though clinically no proof they may work differently). Please take care. Get well soon.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Thanks, both. @Mayasutra:, the vitamins can't do any harm but the general drug regim is complex - I am on a lot of stuff. Eg: Tramadol, Amitryptiline (sometimes changed to Zopiclone), Betnovate, Betnesol, Uniphyllin. Erythromycin, statins, 8 - 12 paracetamol daily, some zinc-based thing for cramping etc.I'm falling apart and rattling! - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
OMG. What are earth is your primary illness Sitush? Looks like some inflammatory condition. Hope this is temporary. Am not at all OK to see Amitryptiline included in the list. Must be gravely painful. You need plenty of emotional care, physical rest, lots of sound sleep and relaxation preferably outdoors. Please forget this wiki until you are completely fine. Get well soon my friend.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Rubella is the root cause of most of the problems, although not all of them. My mum got it while pregnant with me back in the early 1960s, despite her records saying that she had previously contracted the thing and so should have had the antibodies built-in to her system. Just one of those things. The Uniphyllin, Seretide and Ventolin relate to an industrial accident where I inhaled a vast amount of solvents in a printing ink store and then spent quite a while on a Bipap machine in intensive care/ITU/whatever you may call it. Most of these are not new drugs to me but the Prednisolone had messed me up before and the Tramadol (which has been a feature for many years) do weird things to me. I've never not been editing WP while using Tramadol: if people think the effects are detrimental then I'll stop editing permanently but, frankly, I reckon I handle the stuff pretty well most of the time. These are chronic conditions, so the meds may change slightly but the purpose will remain the same. None of this is any great secret: I've referred to it before. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear its Rubella and an industrial accident involving solvent inhalation. Please don't get me wrong. Am glad bcoz these things can be handled rather well. Otherwise I was thinking something serious like lung C. Very happy to note its not something like that. You sure can get well soon my friend. Though may seem an uphill task for now. The phase will come to pass. Btw, I have taken Prednisolone too (for Sinusitis). While on it, yes it kinda feels odd. But once off the medication, back to normal. So no worries my friend. Part of life. Please take care. Get well soon. And come back soon. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hindu caste system in India

I have any estimate of Hindu caste population. Do you agree with this? Of the 1 billion Hindus in India,it is estimated that Hindu Forward caste comprises 37%,Hindu Other Backward Class comprises 40%,Hindu SCs(Dalits) comprises 16% and Hindu STs(Tribals/Adivasi) comprises 7%.--Populationchecker (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. From where did you derive your estimate? Are all those Hindus actually even within the caste system? Do they accept it? For example, a fair few Dalits are Buddhist, especially since the time of B. R. Ambedkar. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Film help

Do you know anybody that could help figuring out the film Parvathi Pura. I'm helping a user on Parvathy Nair and his understanding of Wikipedia is very low. He kept getting reverted because he couldn't express why he was removing text. He thinks the film should not be mention on the Nair page as Nair was never in it. I've deleted other films from the page as they were never filmed, but Parvathi Pura has me stumped. I find refs that it was filmed, it wasn't filmed, Nair was in it, Nair wasn't or Nair only did a cameo.

Also, what happened to the dedicated Sitush ANI board? I have many more complaints to file. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm useless on films, sorry, but a lot of contributors to Indian topics are pretty hot on the subject, movies being a really significant feature of life in India. It might be worth asking for input at WT:INB.
Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) effectively scuppered the dedicated board. I wasn't happy about it and I'm still not. Hopefully, they'll piss off when ever they see my name in future otherwise I could end up being blocked for incivility etc - I'm pretty sure Obi is of the "civility trumps everything else on this project" camp also. I might calm down about it eventually but don't go holding your breath. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Sitush, that's not what happened. I simply asked to delete a redirect, which could potentially have been used to confuse newcomers as it resembled other official redirects to admin boards. I made no movement to delete the Sitush ANI board itself, that was a decision made by the creator. But keep telling yourself stories about the boogieman kenobi if it helps.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I said "effectively scuppered" not "nominated for deletion" or similar. You seemed happy when it was gone and unhappy when it was there. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't care about the board, only the redirect. Deleting the board was someone else's decision. Go blame them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not the sentiment that I read. As I said at the time, you were being an officious twat. Please go away. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Muttusvami Srinivasa Aiyangar, (1914). Tamil studies: essays on the history of the Tamil people, language, religion and literature. The Guardian Press. Page 63 states: "No traces of the Tamil kings are to be found at present in this country, and it is highly probable that they should have merged in the pure Vellala caste."[7]
  2. ^ Edgar Thurston. Castes and tribes of southern India (Volume 7) online, p.27 states: "At the time of the census, 1871, some Vellalas claimed that they had been seriously injured in reputation, and handled with great injustice, in being classed as Sudras by the Municipal Commissioners of Madras in the classification of Hindus under the four great divisions of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. In their petition it was stated that "we shall first proceed to show that the Vellalas do come exactly within the most authoritative definition given of Vysias, and then point out that they do not come within the like definition of Sudras""
  3. ^ Pamela G. Price, (1996). Kingship and political practice in colonial India, p.61. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521552478. Page 61 states: "The Government of Madras recognised fairly early that the fourfold division did not describe south Indian society adequately, in that in this part of the subcontinent the Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra distinctions never became fully developed......when government census officers placed Vellalar in the Sat-Sudra or Good Sudra category in its 1901 census, Vellalar castemen petitioned this designation, protesting this designation..
  4. ^ Sanjay Paswan and Pramanshi Jaideva (2002). Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India: Emancipation and empowerment, Volume 8, p.31. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 8178350440. Page 31 states: “By this time the Brahmanical theory too had begun to measure the relative purity and rank of a community in terms of the myths of Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages of the original founder couples. Hence, the Vellalas who were land owners and tillers of the soil and held offices pertaining to land, were ranked as sudras but nevertheless a status category at the regional of the sub-regional level. This caste has a very wide geographical spread. It is pointed out that land-based communities quite distinct from the Vellala have claimed Vellala status and in course of time have gained acceptance and intermarried with older Vellalar families”
  5. ^ Thakur.A.P.,(2005). Encyclopaedia of the Theoretical Sociology (3 Vols. Set), p.182. Global Vision Publishing House. ISBN 8182201217. Page 182 states: "Even families who might be regarded as of 'pure' Vellalar caste are reluctant to question the bona fides of the Vellalar 'pretenders' since the line between them is very thin indeed [8]."
  6. ^ Hockings, Paul. Encyclopedia of world cultures: South Asia - Volume 2. p. 304. Since the Vellala are heterogeneous and live in multicaste environments, an estimate of the population is difficult. Current censuses do not provide statistics by caste. In some of the British period census reports, caste figures were given for some districts, and the Vellala constituted about 10 percent of the population. However, the criteria for defining Vellala seems to vary and there is no clear basis for interdistrict comparison. Most Vellala subcastes share broadly similar origin myths that stress their links with the soil as agriculturists (as contrasted with artisans), their origin in the Ganga (Gangetic valley) and migration from northern to southern India during the distant past, and their close relationship with the three ancient Tamil dynasties — Chera, Chola, and Pandya — in spite of the Vellalas' ineligibility for kingship. There is fairly strong literary and archaeological evidence linking core Vellala subcastes with a group of chieftains called velir., the earliest references are found in the sangam literature (first to third century AD).
  7. ^ a b c Quebec Leslie C., (2000). Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God : Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu, p.209-210. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195356721 [9]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush/Archive_17&oldid=1142489249"