User talk:Sitush/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Journal_of_the_Royal_Asiatic_Society.
Message added 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

THANKS Sitush for your guidance...Hope you will always be there..and support new reliable editors..Thanks..any suggestion from you is always Welcome.regards n thanx... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, although I doubt very much that you are a new editor. Athelstane Baines was published a century ago, e served mostly in the judicial departments of the British Raj and, if I remember correctly, was involved with the Royal Statistical Society or something similar. None of these things make him a reliable source for the point that you are currently flooding across several articles. Including your own edits, he has around 10 entries on Wikipedia and 27 on Google Scholar (including his own works). - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok....Please always guide us and I will ask if any assistance required from my side..just wanna to CONTRIBUTE reliably n seeks ur guidance..ANY of ur advice is highly welcomed..Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked and he was involved with the RSS (Stats Society, not the political group). He was also one of the many census commissioners, probably because of his statistical background. One or two "big names" cite him, such as Ghurye, but they seem to do so only for minor points. I am no great fan of H. A. Rose and others of that type, but at least they appear quite frequently in the publications of modern academics. Can you not find something more recent than Baines for the point that you wish to make? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir..for ur advice...hope together i can contribute with more reliable sources/books/scholars..thanks..actually wrote n changed d words with.. Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states Gurjars as forefathers of Sisodiyas..as Sir Baines is d particular Scholar..any advice from u is warmly acceptable..thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. Take it to Talk:Chauhan#Rajput.2FGurjar_origins, where the discussion has already begun. It will be of help if you can try to write in more standard English. All this use of "d" for "the", "n" for and etc just makes reading more difficult and it will not win you many friends here. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

hope atleast u will support the reliable books/sources/references..in chauhan and others.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir 4 ur advice once again..in punjabi rajputs u hv reverted the sourced books edit but..it confirms that during british era only rajput word came into existance..Please look... The origin of Rajputs is the subject of debate. According to John Keay, not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular class or tribe. The later rulers during british..(called rajputs)..helped british..dats why british wrote in favour of them.. And if the book/source/references r saying ...Rajas and Kshatriyas,not satisfied with their married wives,had frequently children by their female slaves,who although not legitimate successors to the throne,these illegitimate children were styled Rajpoots,or the children of Rajas"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdars" [Mahajan: 1972: 550 ff.] The conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen......then HOW COULD Chauhans be rajput...it is well written in books/people knows/references says...

PLZ READ FULL::According to a number of scholars, the Chauhans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars)

lots of many Chauhans claim them 2 be Gujjar only in north india...These Rajputs are writing crap, they are including all the Gujjars (Deepe, Dawre and Kalsyane chauhans) villages as Rajput villages in d talk page.. They must realise that there are more than 1200 villages of Gujjar Chauhans with the banks of Yamuna (delhi, Up and MP).....everybody knows Chauhans r gurjars.. PLEASE reinstate d ref/sources in Chauhan article..becoz it is definite Prithiviraj Chauhan was a gujjar of chohan clan of Gurjars..at dat time..d word rajput was not even known Sir.Thanks Please do d needful.Thankyou

No. I have explained what you need to do on your talk page. The fact that you keep deleting those explanations is your problem, not mine. All of the changes that you are making are of issues that have been discussed extensively in the past and you really must start talking on the talk pages of the appropriate articles, not just reinstating content and copying without attribution. I realise that you are a newly registered user but the degree of unwillingness to co-operate here is already becoming a concern. Wikipedia works on consensus. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir 4 unblocking..i will introduce sum more genuine sources/books/references/please guide always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to be learning. I have just removed an 11,000 character message that you posted here. Firstly, that is far too long for most people to be bothered reading; secondly, it should not have been here anyway, as per my numerous previous explanations of etiquette. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ram Prasad Bismil

Hi Sitush, perhaps you might have already noticed that the User:Krantmlverma has again added unnecessary external Google books links to this article on books by a single author. I've reverted them for the time-being. Thought should alert you! Cheers, Lovy Singhal (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your revert. That user is becoming a real problem, both here and at Commons. I have a vague memory that there have also been difficulties at Hindi Wikipedia but I may have got the wrong person for that one. Keep doing what you do: Krant will end up being either bored or blocked. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My dear Sitush Ji! When I started editing this article in the begining I was really not aware of the wikipedia rules. The people from time to time had improved it by providing help to me. Keeping good faith I did not bother what others are doing, I simply went on editing and uploading the available rare photographs on this subject. They were deleted so many times I uploaded them again. It was not my ill intention at all, every thing was done in good faith by me. So far as the contribution of Awadhesh Pandey is concerned he has created an article on me from the help of my blog and user page content. Suppose if you come to me and ask something about me I will naturally tell you in good faith. After all I am a person of 65 years old do you think will I tell a lie. So far as my contributions are concerned I tried my lable best to whatever I could. But now I think I should stop this job and devote rest of my life in writing articles/books for my publishers only who at least pay something to me. Here in wikipedia what I am getting? Only blames, harassments, personal attacks and nothing else. Although I had been a banker but I dont know typing, its a bitter reality. And one thing more, which I would like to share with you is that, I am a man of clear heart. I believe in VASUDHAIV KUTUMKAM (en: whole universe a family). I do not conceal my identity. What I am, I am. I never indulge myself in the edit-wars. This is not my nature. One thing that I would like to request you to please do it on my behalf. I have given here some external links on the bottomline of this article. Please spare some time and improve this article for those who are really in need of good aricles. If something has been uttered here wrong by me I would request you to forgive me for god's sake. With good wishes, I remain, Your's semper fidelis 13:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)}

Quote Farm

Please respond [1]Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

JK Page

I have explained my position on the talk page. The article should not be dumbed down in the interest of brevity. The gutted version that you are promoting represents a diminishment in quality rather than the streamlining of it that you are hoping to achieve. Furthermore no one from your group has made an edit in quite some time, so I do think I am justified in being bold by editing the article to what I feel is a better version which includes substantive critical information for the general reader. My question to you is: are you now overseeing this article in an authoritative capacity, and if so what are your credentials for judging its critical content? Sach.b (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your group"? Nonsense. I'll most likely not be able to respond properly until next week, but it will take most people that long to read the talk page anyway. You were bold, I reverted, and now we will discuss. Please note that being bold against consensus is not really A Good Thing, and it is what you did. You may also want to spend some time reading up on our approach to criticism sections in articles. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no one from your "consensus group" has worked on the criticism section (or on anything else for almost a month, for that matter), I was bold and reverted to a more workable version. Now why not follow your own advice, relax and have a cup of tea? Sach.b (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me. You appear to be a fairly new contributor and so I understand that you may not be entirely familiar with things. However, if an article is stable in content after a long period of talk page discussion that resulted in consensus then it will not usually see much activity. Why should it, given that it reflects the consensus arrived at via discussion?

If you want to say anything more about this then do so at the appropriate talk page, not here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you patronised me in the past with the very same advice about the tea. I find you very difficult to work with, and you still have not addressed the specific content of what was reinstated. I suggest a cooling off period. I will not write anymore on this page per your request. Please don't write on my page either. Thanks. Sach.b (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked you not to comment further about this here because it is not the appropriate venue. I didn't say that you are unwelcome on my talk page. Any concerns that you have regarding the content of an article should usually be addressed at the talk page for that article. It is only by doing thus that other contributors are likely to see your concerns.

Plenty of people find me difficult to work with. I'd wager that most of those people also do not understand policies etc. Certainly, that is the case here and, as I said above, it is understandable because of your relatively new status. I was not aware that I had dealt with you anywhere prior to today: I make thousands of edits each month and I cannot recall every person or every article with which I have had an involvement. That's just the way things are, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Rajus

If you see the people's wiki pages, it says that they are Rajus. Dav subrajathan.357 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We need verification that they self-identify, which is not present in those articles. In any event, we do not rely on other articles and the content was unsourced. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide explanation for your removal of my edits?

My edit had just one change: I added name of 2 singers who have last name DHILLON. Why did u remove those? Clearly you have something against this page. If a well known singer uses DHILLON on his CDs I don't think I need to provide any evidence for that.

You don't own this page. You have removed a lot of facts. Which I will be reverting back. My last edit is a proof that you are removing any edits any one is making without any check. Please provide me an explanation on why did u remove those changes? on What basis? What term was violated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdhillon007 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bearing the last name of Dhillon is not verification that the listed people are of the named Jat clan, Dhillon. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest you

See the bottom of WP:VPP. I'm sure you have plenty of examples. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It sometimes has the appearance of being infinity + 1. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kaul surname!

First post: User_talk:Titodutta#Kaul_Article_in_my_Sandbox
Reply: User_talk:Ambar_wiki#Kaul_article.21
Article draft: User:Ambar wiki/sandbox
If you have some time you can add your suggestions there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robin klein (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I need to tell you that I got very frustrated with no response from anyone after the self revert that I did. I felt cheated because all this problem began after the self evert that I did at your request. In my frustration I put a notice at the administrators noticeboard which I would like to withdraw as I think it is better to solve with discussion. I apologize if you felt that I am harsh at you. But please try to understand me also and how I feel when I do not get any positive help in rewording as promised when I made the self revert at your request, Once again I apologize for so much edit conflicts. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been loads of responses, on the article talk, this page, WP:DRN and other venues. You have also canvassed several people who, when I last looked, had chosen to ignore you. The problem is that you refuse to accept the consensus and continued to instate the same and similar content. When someone continues to edit tendentiously it often will eventually result in them either being ignored or having some sort of administrative action imposed, but you certainly cannot claim that you have been ignored. Perhaps read WP:IDHT. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A new gift

Sovan Sarkar. A post-doc with an impressive record! —SpacemanSpiff 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted. Fast. Spiff, why don't you nominate it for AFD? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would normally, but I'll be offline for a bit this week and therefore can't handle comments at an AfD. I don't know how this one has managed to stay up so long though. —SpacemanSpiff 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

reply

i put many info on talk:lohana for responce and to avoid conflict with other user, now i have add it in the article and creat new also.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd like to discuss Kashmiri Pandit reverts

I saw your message on the reverts done on Kashmiri Pandit Page. Can you clarify which inclusions do you find poorly written. I had already indicated the draft version in my Sandbox. My adoptee (Tito) already reviewed the content before its inclusion. Kindly let me know your specific concerns. -Ambar (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not here. I have previously explained all of this to you. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kaul Article in my Sandbox

I've updated the Kaul Article in my Sandbox, which has been further worked upon by Tito. Can you also take a look and make adjustments &/or provide your comments on my talk page. -Ambar (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been making comments at the sandbox talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help needed

Could you please also take a look at this as well as the Hazara people article? Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I did take a quick look when you posted your note but I then became sidetracked. I think that the issues are now resolved, although perhaps only temporarily? - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging Mannadiyar and Mannadiar

Hi Sitush,

Hope you remember about the proposal of merging 2 mannadiyar article (both are same) to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.246.80 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I had forgotten, sorry. I'll try to take a look at it before I disappear for four days. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your problem is sorted

at least for a while. That wasn't nice but better the way it turned out. Sorry I didn't respond, busy busy busy. Loads of vandalism and blocks today, one really troublesome editor, and a long term vandal who has just driven away a good editor/Admin. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that editor was more troublesome that the one whom I referred to then this place really is reaching some sort of nadir. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhai Rupa or Bhai Roop Chand

I found this interesting link on this charachter, that someone inserted into the Ramgarhia article. What do you think? ThanksSH 16:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the website is a dubious source. It is clearly not independent, appears not to be peer reviewed etc. It is reliable for an article about itself but nothing more, just as applies to caste associations etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only reason why I asked was that the contributor was probably correct, but didn't cite a WP:Reliable source. The reason why I know this is I have visited ancestors of the so called Bhai Rupa, and they tend to be prominenet members amongst the Ramgarhia community. I'll search for a reliable source when I get time. Thanks SH 07:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GS/Caste

FYI. I've informed the four other admins who are active in these sanctions, feel free to log them there. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed and have it watchlisted just in case I come across one that already exists but is not logged. It is a very good idea - thanks for doing it. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bismil Azimabadi

Dear Sitush! Somebody has written this article. Kindly see it whenever you get time. This is for your kind information. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lala Hardayal!

Most probably you were the uploader of this image, I have requested undeletion Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:.E0.A4.B2.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2.E0.A4.BE_.E0.A4.B9.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.A6.E0.A4.AF.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B21299.gif --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

or try this link --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that I was most probably the uploader. Not me, guv. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Rajputs

Hi Sitush! Recently you reverted my edits in List of Rajputs. I think the intro of that article was definitely misleading. It said :"This is a list of notable people who self-identify as members of the Rajput community of India and Pakistan." This was definitely a misleading introduction as the list contains names of historical figures, who haven't self-identified.

If you refer other similar articles like List of Gurjars, List of Jats, List of Maratha people, you will not find anything like 'self-identification'. Freak'n (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct with regard to that sentence. Sorry about that. I will fix it now. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as self-identification in case of caste is concerned, it was proposed here by some members but it was never included in the policy page: [2] So self-identification remained mandatory for religious belief or sexuality, but not for caste, as far as I understand. Freak'n (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

VK Singh : Rajput (source)

Here are references that VK Singh is a Rajput :

1. NDTV article : [3] Cite :"MPs who are Rajputs, like General VK Singh, had approached the PM and urged that the age dispute be settled in his favour. The intervention was heavily criticized as an attempt to use religion or community to bolster the case of an individual officer of the forces. Critics had accused General VK Singh of showing preferential treatment to Rajput officers and overstepping the line with his regimental affinitie."

2. Tehelka Magazine article : [4] Cite: "Tejinder — who is believed to have a Bhiwani connection with VK Singh, a Rajput who hails from that small town in Haryana — is also supposed to be close to Kapoor."

3. Rediff article :Page no.3 Cite: "A group of Rajput parliamentarians was dispatched to the prime minister to plead on his behalf. When a proxy was needed to file a Supreme Court writ petition on the general's date of birth, the "Rohtak Grenadiers' Association", packed with the general's fellow-Rajputs, was conveniently at hand." Freak'n (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen them. You have added them at least twice. They are not acceptable. We need verification that he self-identifies as a Rajput and, frankly, there are increasing concerns being expressed regarding most India news sources in any event. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush! Here is the policy page:[5]. What I can't find is the 'self-identification' in case of caste/ethnicity. Freak'n (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed time and again in the India context. For example, see here and here. It is also the spirit of WP:BLPCAT and has been adopted on numerous other lists of alleged caste members. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya it has been discussed multiple times. But self-identification is too much for caste. Policy page still doesn't make it mandatory. Freak'n (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not necessary for a policy page to make something mandatory - a consensus in support of it is sufficient. If you wish to overturn the current consensus, you need to start a new discussion and get a new consensus supporting you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that any kind of consensus was achieved. Here is a poll on the same question :[6] A majority opposed the proposal of making self-identification mandatory for caste.

Religion and caste are two different things. If my full name is XYZ Bhardwaj, then its obvious that I am Brahmin. Still I can be a non-Hindu (atheist or a convert). My surname definitely symbolises my caste, but not religion. So it can be understood why self-identification is mandatory for religious belief. But mandatory self-identification for caste seems completely illogical. Freak'n (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So we should assign a caste identity to Amitabh Bachchan because news sources do so, even though he has denied such an identity himself?. Look, this is the wrong place for this discussion and you are in any event conflating various things. The discussion at WT:INB to which you link is primarily concerned with photo montages, a recent proposal at WP:EGRS was hopelessly phrased, and there is absolutely no way that we are going to allow verification by last name. Honestly, the issues have been picked over for some considerable time now and the chances of you changing consensus are minimal in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush! You can't make any policy of your own. It seems that you are taking it as a policy, despite of its absence on policy page. If any consensus was achieved, then please show it to me. That poll completely opposed the proposal of mandatory self-identification as one can't choose his caste like religion. Caste is by birth, which remains unchanged. Until it doesn't become a policy (I am quite confident that it will never become policy), users should be allowed to use credible news articles as source for caste. Freak'n (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, which is itself a policy. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush! I know the meaning of consensus. But if I am not blind, then I can clearly see that no such consensus was attained that self-identification is to be made mandatory for caste. Here is the policy page again for you: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Read it as many times you want. There is neither such policy or consensus.

That topic was unnecessarily started in that discussion page and ended in nothing.

If self-identification really becomes mandatory, then it becomes almost impossible to mention the caste/ethnicity of a notable person as neither any news reporter will ask about his caste in an interview, nor he will try to self-glorify himself by telling that I am from XYZ caste. Freak'n (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at, say, this recent edit by an experienced admin. I am not arguing with you any further - you are quite simply wrong and if you cannot accept that then it is just your bad luck. If you add such information again then you may well face the consequences of the general sanctions that are in force for such articles as per this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Saini

This is not intended to be a full list, and the Saini issue has been troublesome for a long time.

Sitush! If this is not intended to be a full list, then who will decide which caste is to be included and which not? As fas Saini is concerned, then this list is about those castes which claim their Kshatriya status. If Sainis claim so and the source is credible, then what is the problem in including it? Freak'n (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Kshatriya and we have a lot of problems with varna issues. There is no point in spreading those problems any further than they need to be. No more regarding this on my talk page, please - comment at Talk:Kshatriya, where there is a greater likelihood that others may have an interest. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bikram Singh

Hi, I did not try to fake a reference, I had added the reference from a newssource and named it ibnknow, 1 but someone has changed the link keeping the same name which I did not notice. sarvajna (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, although I am still mystified as to why you did not check. In any event, your edit is still wrong since the correct source does not call him the spokesman but rather notes that he briefed people. The spokesman implies that he was the only one (which is far more than the source says), and I am not even sure that "briefing" is necessarily the same as being a "spokesman". - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You can check the other source, the NDTV otherlink I guess calls him the spokesman (I am on a restricted network now so cannot verify it). If spokesperson is a wrong word, the word can be changed. Do not put it as a Completely wrong edit.sarvajna (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this google (cannot open the links for the reason mentioned above) sarvajna (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NDTV says the same thing. It was "Completely wrong edit": it does not agree with either of the two sources that you now name. In addition, it was ungrammatical and in breach of WP:REFPUNCT. Furthermore, to select that one point from the list of roles presented by the sources smacks of being undue weight. It is concerns me greatly and I may have to check some of your other contributions, especially since you seem not to be understanding & so perhaps should not be relied upon to check them yourself. I am also slightly concerned that we are using two sources that appear largely to be identical, which suggests yet another spate of poor reporting by the Indian media, although probably it is because they were both using an unacknowledged military press release. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your search results, the problem is that they could be using stuff that we have written. In any event, the inconsistencies clearly demonstrate why sources such as NDTV should not be trusted. This is not the first time such issues have arisen, not by a long way. Most of the experienced contributors who haunt WT:INB seem to consider The Hindu to be just about the only reliable Indian news source, so perhaps we should find out what that newspaper says? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can search for what thehindu says also I did not put a fake link, it was a mistake as explained above, few of the media houses called him spokesperson . If you are greatly concerned about my edits please do review them(I don't edit much so it will not be a big task for you) I would be free from the trouble of asking others to review my work.sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Knanaya

If you have any time, could you direct your attention to Knanaya? I plan on doing some work over there when I get a chance; it's yet another area where the notions of Jewish origin have been allowed to take over the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, although I am not massively knowledgeable re: the subject matter. Good work on the STC music rewrite, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanjiv Bhatt

Hi Sitush,
An anon IP 122.169.25.117 (talk · contribs) started reverting all your recent edits here without any summaries to explain. I warned them about 3RR and they stopped. I then reverted back to, I hope, the last 'clean' version by AnomieBOT. Regards --220 of ^Borg 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have now put in a request at WP:RFPP also. Hopefully, I'll get the thing sorted today but it is a real mess. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 month and watched, so take your time with the rework if you need to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

okay my friend. I just gave you some suggessions.I have actually not aware of the talk page.Its your wish to put it or not.Have a nice day...

Anurag Chakraborty 10:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mayasutra's behaviour in the Iyengar:talk page

Sitush, let me first deal with the other user's behaviour, and then i'll go for formal mediation. I guess i've been too patient. First of all, users editing in the "Iyengar page", who repeatedly fail to adhere to any expected standards of behavior are likely to be imposed with sanctions. The general sanctions template is placed on top of the Iyengar talk page by admin:Qwyrxian. Inspite of that, "user:Mayasutra" has been repeatedly using names in talk page discussions, and that too in a way that maligns the other user(s), which is considered very offensive in wiki'. I'm wondering as to why this user is still allowed to edit as he has crossed the line long back and is still continuing to do so. Although i've used his name, i did so, only while replying to his messages so that other users might not take it on themselves. But i've always maintained a civil tone unlike user:mayasutra. Let me list out his behaviour here:

• First of all, he's posting diff of the edits i made 3 years ago, and is pointing out the mistakes, thereby maligning me. At that time(3 yrs back), I was new to wiki' and made some obvious errors. Posting the diff' of those edits, and trying to convince the administrators reg' his stand is extremely cheap on his part. He also posted a link to my editlog here. Diff of his edit:[7]
  
• Attack on communities - Mayasutra said "there are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists. Diff:[8]." Having seen the general sanctions template, placed on top of that talk page, posting such comments should attract a considerably higher penalty than usual.
  

Attacks on other users(attacks on me in this case): Here are some of his(Mayasutra's) comments on me, in the Iyengar talk page:

• He said "...Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him." Diff of edits:[9]
• In another post, Mayasutra said "This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok". Diff:[10]
  
• Again, he insults me by saying - "You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here." Diff of edits:[11]
  
• And finally he made these coments on me - "People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478...". Diff of edits:[12]
  
• Above all, as you can see from the talk page discussions, he has been repeatedly posting the same message under various sections/topics, which is indeed spamming, and has been a prolonged troll.

Inspite of the bashing on me, i've been too patient, trying to concentrate on the contents and not on the other user. But i can't be a saint anymore. Despite knowing about the "general sancitons", and inspite of me requesting him to abstain from such behaviour in talk pages, he has been too offensive. I wonder why no action has been taken. I'll go for formal mediation, once this user gets the deserved judgement for what he did. This has been long due.Hari7478 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin and have no ability to enforce sanctions. Some of the language that you highlight is certainly testing the limits of WP:TPG, WP:CIV, WP:NPA etc. Unfortunately, the both of you are engaging in very long walls of text that are often awkwardly formatted. These make it difficult to judge whether things really are as one-sided, as you claim. TLDR stuff also quite often upsets people because it can be seen as being tendentious editing. However, I'll drop Mayasutra a brief note and I ask you here to accept that you too will ensure that you stay within the bounds of civility etc, regardless of whether or not you have done so in the past. I am, of course, involved in the dispute myself and so I need to tread lightly. Some uninvolved admins stalk my talk page and may decide to take things further, whether in your favour or otherwise, or you could take the matter to WP:WQA.

Requesting some sort of sanction as a condition of becoming involved in mediation seems a little perverse to me, since the entire point of mediation is that people collaborate and agree to its conclusions. Certainly, any incivility etc in the mediation process is likely to result in admin action. I am not in fact sure that mediation is necessary here: if both of you calmed down a bit then it could probably be sorted out on the talk page. There does seem to be a consensus that the article is a mess and needs a lot of work, and there are at least two other contributors involved. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thanks for notifying him on my behalf. However, this is not the first time that someone is bashing me. "Bashing hari7478" has been going on for long, in the iyengar talk page, and i'm losing my patience here. But i've never crossed the bounds of civility and i wont. Thank You.Hari7478 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari and Sitush, not sure if Hari wants to distract from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar If Hari wants me to apologize for lack of civility yes Hari you can have it. I apologise. However, i expect you to sign the party agreement for the Formal Mediation filed against your misquoting. Please agree to Formal Mediation and resolve the problems with your sources and content, as indicated against you here -- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#For_Dispute_Mediation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(edit conflict) While I would not condone "bashing", if you find yourself frequently in a minority of one etc regarding the issues discussed at Iyengar then perhaps it is time to consider whether or not you really are still on safe ground regarding WP:CONSENSUS. Remember, consensus is based on policy and statements in articles are based on what is verifiable, which is not necessarily the same as what you consider to be true. As I said earlier, that article is a mess and it probably needs a complete rewrite, involving people who are not closely connected to the subject matter.

Mayasutra, I have already explained to you that you cannot oblige Hari to sign up for mediation, and that your proposal is malformed. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i have been very civil with Hari7478. There is no need for me to apologize. I did because i know he wanst to distract the issue and somehow get away without signing the Formal Mediation filed against him: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar . Btw, there is no need for WP:CONSENSUS. Its a case of continuously misquoting sources to push certain content. I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

You most definitely have not been civil, although I have indicated that I have not investigated why this might be so. However, "I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation" is unnecessary provocation and you are going to get a warning now. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, i apologize. Now i hope Hari7478 agrees to sign the party agreement. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Vaishya

You reverted my edit to Vaishya, asking that I "read the source." According to inclusion in the source, my edit, which I haev reinstated, states that the Vaishya's were traditionally farmers, soldiers, zamindars, and chieftains (note that I rephrased the text from that of the ref). However, if the current ref is unclear, I'll try and find a better one.Kutupwe (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not on page 46, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't unless something is going dreadfully wrong with my eyesight. And if the source is unclear then you should not have reinstated it. I have reverted you once more. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brain fart. However, I'll try to find a better source. Oh, yes, your eyesight may be failing, but that was my mistake.Kutupwe (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as brain malfunctions go: been there, done that ;) I am really in trouble if my eyesight goes: being deaf is bad enough but deaf/blind is a hell of a life, & I'm a bit too old to be learning Makaton or something similar. I have enough problems transcending Gibberish, after all. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Although this is not as bad, I have constant ups and downs of delirium on a daily basis, and this is a hell of a life for me (understanding how bad your situation is). I also have trimonthly seizures that hit me unexpectedly, but that's a whole different story. Anyways, either you or someone else interrupted me while I was asking you about List of Ror. But here we go: I am considering nominating List of ROr for deletion per AFD, as it has become entirely redundant and useless (referring to the previous BLP violations, failed attempts to harbor sources, vandalism, etc). But I'd like you to tell me your opinion, as you seem experienced in these areas, and I'm not so convinced that this is a good move (As the list is notable).Kutupwe (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I am sorry to read that. Regarding the list, I wouldn't bother with AfD. Experience tells me that it would fail, and that it would do so even though there is a Category:Ror.

What we tend to do is redirect the list to the main article if the list has little or no content. Any content that does exist should be merged into the main article beforehand, and any link from the main article to the list would need to be deleted. You might prefer to make a proposal per the (somewhat tedious) process described at WP:MERGE rather than do it unilaterally. Twinkle makes the process slightly easier, but seems only to do half of the job: you still have to join the two pieces together. If ever the list in the main article should grow in a valid manner, it can always be forked once more. As far as vandalism, BLP issues etc go, well, they will happen whether the list exists separately or not: all that we can do is be vigilant. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected the list in April. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks- I'm not going to propose anywhere.Kutupwe (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Messy Article- Iyengar

Sitush! First of all, i'm not agreeing to Mayasutra's "Formal mediation" report, as I don't see any neutrality in it. It is filed/designed in such a way that it could be easily concluded in his favour. Atleast that's how i feel about it. But i assure you(Sitush) that i'll discuss everything with you & QWYRXIAN, regarding "the current version of the article & future edits", by giving a preview of "a contribution" along with sufficient inline citations, either here or in the iyengar talk page. We can rectify everything, by going through every single line, by thoroughly checking every single inline citation, and make it clean. We could do it together after sufficient/adequate discussions. After being through all these unexpected incidents, i think this would be the safest & most logical approach. I say we even ignore the obvious facts, that are known to us. Let us simply go by what the src's say. Only that could possibly put all conflicts to rest.
By the way, i feel that the section "Language & Dialect" in the Iyengar page should be deleted. The whole section has only one ref' which goes by the name "nilacharal.com"- this src lacks neutrality and contains pro-tamil POVs. In my opinion, the whole section could be deleted, although it's not disputed. Do take a look at it. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss article content is at the article talk page, not here. Regarding the mediation proposal, well, what you do is up to you but please do ensure that you have read the relevant explanatory stuff for the process before making a decision. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification sought

Sitush, forgive me for saying this but i believe if a person lacks understanding of a certain topic, it is better to leave the topic alone. But what happens if a person continues to be involved in the topic? Or keeps misquoting based on his/her own (lack of) understanding? Especially, if he/she keeps reverting others' edits based on such (lack of) understanding, thus contributing to a perennial edit war. In such case, please clarify this for me -- can one request for a topic ban, if a person refuses mediation but involves in an edit war? Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Well, an understanding certainly helps but we all have to start somewhere and one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that because we rely on secondary sources, the primary criteria is one of competence in comprehending those sources and relaying what they say. Knowing nothing about the subject would not bar a good faith contributor from displaying such competence, and indeed this happens a lot. I, for example, knew next to nothing about Indian castes 18 months ago but I contributed then and continue to do so now.

That being the case, the issue becomes one of judging the competence and the good faith. We have policies and guidelines that can also be used - consensus, verifiability, reliable sources, due weight, neutrality, edit warring etc - to address the issues that you mention but if an article has been "flying under the radar" then it can take a while before people become aware of the problems. We also have useful noticeboards, such as WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN to which specific issues can be referred.

Sometimes, you just have to be patient. Believe me, there are plenty of eyes on Iyengar now and things will be resolved. I still think that a major part of the problem is the messy formatting and the overlong posts. As Blade said at ANI, the talk page will make most people's "eyes bleed". Alas, this is quite common on India-related talk pages: they tend to be a bit on the chaotic side and the standard of written English can be quite variable. (Although I have also seen plenty of poor stuff written for non-India articles by people who are native English speakers!) See what happens with the mediation proposal. If it does not develop then the purported issues will still be resolved but using some other method. I strongly suggest that you do not get involved in topic ban proposals etc: the situation is being monitored and there are sanctions available that make it usually unnecessary to approach WP:ANI etc. Since things have been so bad for so long at that article, another few days really makes little difference. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Appreciate the guidance much. Best wishes. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DℬigXray 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing properly cited articles

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Abo (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I now realise that you are User:Akhil.bharathan. I have already explained the problems with your edits. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Read and understand the cited text before putting up biased view

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Abo (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not exceeded WP:3RR, so if you have reported me then that is just wasting everyone's time. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've Started...

....Jassa Singh Ramgarhia so please take a look at what I've done so far. Will add more when I get a chance.Thanks SH 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm the more I'm reading about Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, the more impressed I am by his never say die spirit. I think I may have another Indian hero to add to my others. :) . Thanks for asking me to edit it. More edits coming soon. SH 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - it needed quite a lot of work and I rather thought that it would be to your liking! I find Sikh stuff can be troublesome from a sourcing point of view: a lot of the potentially relevant sources at GBooks seem to be in snippet view here. I will take a look at it myself at some point, but I know that it is in good hands. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Looks like you are busy being crowded by more newbies. Hence a cup of hot tea for a short break. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! They are well-intentioned but, as I've just said above, there is a rather awkward issue going on that needs more of my time at the moment. I'd rate a BLP problem that might involve libel etc as being somewhat more important than the etymology of a caste name. Would you agree? I bet you deal with this sort of thing a lot in your movie stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummm...yeah! BLP should be given more importance than this etymology issue. But i never had to deal much with such issues on films. Wanna take a break and join WP:INCINE? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

consensus building

Hello Sitush,

It is important for me to understand which theories and references are acceptable, which is negotiable and which is unacceptable to you for Nayar etymology. Understanding your precise stand on the following 4 questions is vital for me to draft a skeleton proposal so that it can then also be reviewed by others. Shall i take it that (1) you agree to avoid the controversial Sadasivan theory and citation ? (2) you are negotiable on the Nayak-theory ? (3) you agree that we can also discuss credibility assigned to different theories to acheive NPOV ? (4) KM panickar reference, MLDames reference and Visscher reference are acceptable to you ? Thanks in advance. VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not dealing with this here. The correct place is the article talk page, which I'll get round to looking at in due course. There is far too much other stuff flying around at the moment, including some WP:BLP issues at another article that are really quite serious and need both some detailed research & some thought. My edit count has probably dropped this week, and that is why. Nair can drift for a few hours, or even a few days, without really impacting on the life of anyone. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, i can understand...no probs...i will wait....Take your time and resolve other issues that may be demanding higher priority presently..no hurry... Later it would be great while addressing my queries, if you could make a point wise note on each point as acceptable/negotiable/unacceptable. That way, I will know exactly what phraseology i have to adopt during preparation of the draft...Catch you later on the article talk page....have a nice day...bye....

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo montage

I have reverted your last edit in Saint Thomas Christians, ie reinstated the photo montage. Many a time I tried to explain you that a consensus should be comprehensive and also a formally closed one to apply it against a large number of articles, like those related to Indian caste. Your comments would be appreciated here -AshLey ^Msg 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I had already replied to your message on the talk page. The fact that you consistently fail to appreciate how consensus works is becoming quite a problem. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Page on Rewari

You have once again deleted the four lines about 'Hemu' on Rewari page, under medieval history section saying poor formation and description of 22 battles, despite putting required citations. It would have been better if you had improved the wordings rather than leaving the few lines in shambles as they are now. I fail to understand what you are looking at this page. You have deleted/edited several additions on this page during last several months and page is in very bad shape. The contents/matter/description about the town are of poor quality, but no serious person is trying to improve because of your unnecessary editions. It is a pity that we cannot write about our own city. I wonder how much you know about Rewari ? The page is in a very bad shape. Please suggest how you are going to bring it in a standard format or we leave it in present form which is like a blot on wikipedia.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you once again inserted it. See the talk page and explain why such puffed-up detail about Hemu is relevant to an article that should have its focus on Rewari. The page was already in bad shape: my efforts have improved it, although it remains extremely poor. There is not much that I can do if people do not source stuff etc, but your comment regarding "our own city" is completely irrelevant and I suggest that you take a read of our Five Pillars. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The factual details about Hemu have to be put on Rewari page because Hemu was a 'Rewarite' This last Hindu emperor of India had lived in Rewari for many years and his Haveli still exists in town. His Haveli is a known 'Heritage' in town. Problem on page is not of sourcing the right and relevent stuff, which is available in plenty. Couple of times it was put on the page but deleted. Some do Vandal the page, but sincer wikipedians like you and me should be more considerate on developments on page. I know I should not be subjective when I say 'our own city', but what I mean is that I have all the information about the town which can be put on the page keeping objectives and policies of wikipedia in mind because I have been living in this town for decades. So it should be the residents' prerogative to put info rather than those who do not know about the town. Please suggest a plan how you intend to improve the page ?Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. And wrong argument. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lala Hanumant Sahai

Hellow Sitush!

I had submitted an article in the name of Lala Hanumant Sahai - A revolutionary of Chandni Chowk who died unknown and unnoticed. Kindly help me to make it better. Whether only one web citation would be sufficient to cover the reliable source or not. Although I have given some other sources from Hindi books also. Kindly guide me properly whether I can quote the relevent contents in English (manually translated by myself) or not. Thanks in anticipation for your valuable suggestions and help.Krantmlverma (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOENG explains the procedures for non-English sources. Without intending to give offence, I am not entirely sure that your ability with English, although 100% better than mine with Hindi, is really up to the job of reliably translating sources. Perhaps someone at WT:INB may be able to assist? -

Reply

There is no need for you to blindly oppose me as you said "I will be opposing you, but not until Sunday/Monday as I will be off-wiki). - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)". I asking you to put up reasons for your activities, just dont make statements and go. Please make your arguments clear, so that everyone can understand the reason behind your action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs)

I will, but I am not going to do it while your comment on the talk page is in the wrong place. I have explained on your talk page what it is that you need to do. And I have explained what I will do and when. There is no rush about this and you have to allow a reasonable period of time for discussion. If you rush into it, I will revert you and you could well end up being blocked once more for edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe a page is tagged as POV when there is adequate reason to do so. If that is right you already know why it is a POV. Therefore I fail to understand reasonable period of time for you to provide a response for a simple question regarding your reason for the page being POV. Please engage in discussion as soon as possible for sitush. If the page is actually neutral I don't think it would be fair to the worldwide readers of wikipedia to tag it as a POV. Therefore there is no rush about this. Even though I have created a new section. To say that "comment on the talk page is in the wrong place" is utterly wrong as this so called "wrong place" is a section titled "Why is the neutrality being disputed?" and this is crux of my question too. Be reasonable, when asked to engage in discussion do so. Please don't make Threats reagrding blocking user from the wikipage even before user performs action which violates wikipedia editing policy. Abo (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

good work

Hi Sitush, you have done good work on Sanjiv Bhatt's article. Although we have agreed to disagree on few of the points that would not stop me from appreciating your good work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for the clean up of Sanjiv Bhatt.Keep up the good work sarvajna (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And I apologise for taking so long with it. I am coming round to your opinion regarding the mention of Modi/BJP/RSS but am not quite there yet. As is common with Indian "scandal" articles, there is much to the backstory and determining where the cut-off point should be is a tricky exercise. I do not always get it right. The article is still in pretty poor shape - better, certainly, but nowhere near where it should be & it needs input from you and others. I appreciate your comments on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari Singh Nalwa

It was in refrence to the above said article. You removed all the editing i did. well the source is a publiction from very renowned collage in Punjab. Below is the complete reference file. It is from Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa Published by SIKH MISSIONARY COLLEGE (REGD.) LUDHIANA (Publication No.354) Well Do i have to do all the editing again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marwahasaab (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) --Marwahasaab (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ram Prasad Bismil

Good Morning Sitush! I had started to improve the captioned article which was immediately reverted by you. As suggested by you on your user page I started editing the article and added some of references which were to be used as the citations in this article later. (Please see Bhagat Singh.) In case if I revert your edits you would mind it so I would like to request you to please review it and revert it yourself so that I may proceed further. I do hope a favourable response from you. With thanks in anticipation I remain, Yours semper fidelis Krantmlverma (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)}

Ah. If your intention was to use Harvard or some similar short footnoting method then you should probably have added an {{under construction}} or {{in use}} template to the article when you left it. The appearance was that the sources your added were neither one thing nor another: they were in the References section but not used in footnotes etc.

However, my bigger concern is that you are once again adding images that appear to be inappropriate, For example, this image appears to be incorrectly licensed. It uses this blog as its source, but we cannot determine from that either when the photograph was taken nor by whom. Since we know neither of these details, the uploader is not in a position to assert that 60 or more years have passed since either first publication or author's death. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a sincere advise. I have removed the File of Lala Hardayal from this article and put up the suggested tags on this article. When I uploaded the jpg file on 16 June 2012 there was no tag placed there in wikicommons. Moreover this file was uploaded on wikicommons by some other user, not by me (you can see the File History there). You are requested to please guide me from time to time.-Krantmlverma (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)}

Android editing

Hello Sitush,

I took a bit of a Wikibreak for a while but am back again. Some addictions are worse than others. I will be seeing you around, I guess.

I often edit with Android devices - most recently with a Droid Razr. I can do some things OK but not others. I can edit short blocks of text but not long ones. This encourages me to be among the first to comment in AfDs - a good thing, I think. I use a conventional browser, not an Android app. They don't support editing. Lately, I have been using a lapdock - a dumb screen/keyboard gadget that comes to life when I plug in my Razr. If I have a good WiFi connection, it is almost (but not quite) a laptop, and I can edit pretty much normally using Firefox. My guess is that I have done roughly 5000 edits on Android. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! I did wonder about the absence and, yes, I have those jelly donuts on my shopping list for later this year. Has Mrs C had any further dabbles here?

Can you give me a link to info about your Razr device and perhaps also to the lapdock? The Razr is a Motorola if you are in Europe, but there are several of them. And I've never heard of a lapdock but presume that it is pretty much the same as a laptop docking station, but perhaps smaller. Just curious. And out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting your review of Kaul in my Sandbox

Can you review the Kaul article in my sandbox. Perhaps you could also leave your comments on the Kashmiri Pandit article there. -Ambar (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I had made some initial comments but you have not acted on them or responded. We had this same conversation about a week ago, IIRC. OR do you have two different articles sandboxed? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your comments & have further edited the draft for Kashmiri pandit. (Yes, I have two articles running simultaneously in the sandbox, one is on Kaul & the other on Kashmiri Pandits.)
In the Kashmiri Pandit article, Have also added one lede in the history section. Let me know if it passes the policy guidelines. The author 'Gill' has been the Director General of Police (Punjab) & is a renowed author & a Padma Shri award winner. Even though his 'hand is not always considered to be doing the right thing', his articles generally are. Await your comments. -Ambar wiki (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambar, my apologies. I've not got round to taking another look. I will, I promise. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you could take some time please, I have a few days where I can spend time to further improve this now. So would appreciate if you could prioritise this. Please try and leave as detailed a comments as possible. -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

are you Indian or interested in Indian history? Ive seen you editing articles relating to India. if you dont mind me asking, can you help me with the article on Jawaharlal Nehru (if you are interested that is..) I did some work over it although in some cases I have straight up lifted some passages from enc britannica. I plan on rewriting them but I am not that good in English. are you interested? I think Mr Nehru deserves a top article on wikipedia.. Cliniic (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit overwhelmed with other stuff right now but will certainly take a look. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

cheers. keep up the good work .Cliniic (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that I took a quick look at it. There seem to be a few people active there at the moment, so I'll let you all get on with things and take another look in a week or so. Feel free to remind me. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much. it seems another noted indian editor (fowler&fowler) is working on the article now. also can you look into the rajiv gandhi article? its a mess. I also made suggetions to rewrite the article on the indian national congress and another indian editor lynch7 has agreed to look into it when he has the time. cheers its nice to know there are so many indians on wikipedia. Cliniic (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Check Your inbox

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Read it. Thanks for the offer but I am used to the problems that you note and they will resolve themselves. Nowadays I tend not to spend too long dealing with them because there are plenty of others who are up to speed with the issues etc and they can sort it out from an uninvolved perspective. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Have a nice day. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

citation

What do you think of using this as per WP:LEADCITE ? VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen it used but, yes, it would be ok. Equally, you could just remove the unsourced content. However, in the specific instance of Nair, if the statement is not already sourced then there should be a source for it in the body & the problem is more likely to be that it has got moved around in past edit wars. I will check later today. As I've said before, there are sections of that article where I have contributed very little except grammar and tweaks: etymology, diet/dress/religion, and military being the ones that I can recall. MatthewVanitas did most of those, along with CarTick and a couple of others. IIRC, one of the un-named others got blocked for sockpuppeting & perhaps that also is a part of the problem. Give me a few hours, please: I have been awake for nearly two days now. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OMG..awake for two days !! You better get some rest...surely i have no problem to wait ....VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your notes

Saw your notes, looks like Boing and Salvio got everything under control? I'll be offline for a few more days. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing!, Salvio, Fowler, Qwyrxian, RegentsPark ... it is getting to be a cast of thousands! - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, and btw, I haven't had time to look deeply, but the above section appears to relate to Sinsen (talk · contribs). Sodabottle was cleaning up those pages when the sock farm reared up then. I'll take a look when I get some time, but if one of the others have to take action in the meantime, the sock category for the aforementioned should provide contribution history. —SpacemanSpiff 12:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is something going on - a whole load of SPAs have just set up camp at the Erode article and they are making a mess of things. But you are already aware that I do not consider myself particularly good at matching behavioural traits when users are very new. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Senthilrockz

Dear Sitush - You should first cross check the article i have inserted and the present one reverted by you. Read the whole article clearly and then give me your explanation. Somebody has dleted lots of important informations in this "ERODE" page currently in the past 2 months including the topics of 1) Schools list, 2) Arts and Science Institutions, 3) Engineering and Technology, 4) Livestocks, 5) Print and Electronic Media, 6) Municipalities sorrounding Erode, 7) Retail, 8) Economy, 9) Road. All these topics and their story were completely deleted or partly deleted. Being a Citizen of Erode for the past 30 years, i know the whole History of Erode. Thatswhy i rerverted back all those unnecessary deletions and modifications. Now i am going to attach all the references and citing sources and then revert it back to get all those deleted details. Nothing is poorly sourced in this article, actually i am trying to make this article fully rich with true sources. EXAMPLE - I have written a list of 18 schools which are situated in erode city. You kept only 5 schools in that topic. Explain me why did you removed other 13 schools. What do you know about ERODE. You should refer this website - http://www.tamilnaduschools.co.in/erode/schools-list-1.html and learn how many schools are there in ERODE. Note - Im trying to insert the references and sources for all the details one by one. So don't revert back my changes immediately without knowing anything. And i am trying to put my efforts honestly, so don't test my patience. The moment you entered this page "Erode" on 6th June 2012, you deleted all the valuable informations about Erode.

Senthilrockz (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained in the edit summaries when I originally removed this content, and again at your talk page today. I also asked you to continue the discussion at Talk:Erode, should you have any desire to do so. Please note that Wikipedia is not a "social website". I am hoping that is just something that has gone astray in translation or whatever. The community expects collaborative editing within the bounds of its policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ham House

I have been reading for pleasure and ran into the reference to Ham House, of which I am very fond. Since the article contains almost nothing about the history of the house, I thought this little anecdote might amuse the reader.

As to Macaulay, surely you don't fancy that he got the facts about this very public transaction wrong. That said, the question of whether Macaulay is considered up-to-date by current standards is a pedantic quibble.

My opinion of your prose is even lower than yours of mine. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Image in the Govind Kumar Singh article

I have opened discussion about the image used in this article at Talk:Govind Kumar Singh#Image. As one of the parties involved in the addition or removal of the image, I am notifying you of the thread directly and inviting you to participate. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was replying as you wrote ^this^. I have re-opened the Vermapriya1986 SPI case page, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hii

Let the other editors complete their edits first, dont make edit conflicts, then send messages give time okayPaansing (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

hii

revert only what is not needed, stop reverting references and give time, got it give time to editPaansing (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Give time and brains

give time, you got it??? give time for the other editors to edit, give time give time and revert, show respectPaansing (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, although not for the WP:BLP violations. I'll give you an hour. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

hii

thanx, kindly dont repeat this again with me Paansing (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on you to ensure that your contributions comply with our policies, including those relating to verifiability and biographies of living people. The latter is a particularly important policy because it has legal implications for Wikipedia. It was for the latter reason - and the fact that the people whom you added had previously been deleted for the same - that caused me to step in sharply. Probably too sharply, I admit, but you really do not get very long to fix such problems and so I will be taking another look. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

hii

will try to include page numbers, but if I couldn't find, I cant do anything Paansing (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kallar (caste)

Dear Sitush, The contents of Kallar (caste) which is hurting the kalar people and which is not the truth.so we would like request you to revert the old content which was present before this.

Thanks, Jayanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthskr (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not work like that, I am afraid. Wikipedia's policies require that all statements are verifiable using reliable sources, and those sources must be cited. We are not censored and we also do not accept hearsay etc. Unless you or someone else can find some reliable sources to support whatever it is that you feel is wrong, the article will stay as it is. And even if you do find some, the chances are quite high that we would simply show all the various opinions because another of our policies is that we should maintain a neutral point of view. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

my edit has been removed under article 'Theyyam"

Hi Sitush, I found my edit or rather addition of subcontent has been removed under "Theyyam" stating that there is no reliable citation. You won't be able to find the reference I stated on the web because it was part of a festival at a temple in the northern districts of kerala, India. That reference is a printed souvenir published as a souvenir of that festival. And it is only published in hard copy. So would you mind accepting that as a reference? Arun Shankar (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are referring to this edit. Don't worry yourself about the thing not being available on the web because we have no requirement saying that it must be. My main concern is the quality of the source: I am just not very happy about using souvenir books/pamphlets etc. Who wrote it? Where did they get their information from? Are they connected with the festival? Is the source promoting the festival? That sort of thing, as discussed at WP:RS.

Is there no other likely source for the information? Sometimes big festivals, rituals etc form part of studies by people such as anthropologists and, of course, such academics are usually reliable. I may have been a bit harsh in removing it because the reliability of a source also depends on the context in which it is used, but there have been lots of studies of Hindu deities etc and I really would be happier if we could use one of those.

I will do some searching here, and perhaps one of my talk page stalkers will butt in and tell me that I really have been silly (or, at least, unreasonable) on this occasion. You could also take the issue to our reliable sources noticeboard for review ... but please give me a few hours to see if I can find anything better. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If the pamphlet is published my a major devotional association (temple, cult, religious organisation, etc.) that is relatively mainstream; and, if the pamphlet concerns that group's devotional practice; and, if the pamphlet is permanently available from the organisation (ie: not just a one off ephemeral item), it should be fine. However that group's devotional practice should be otherwise otherwise noteworthy (for example, the festival is mentioned in a local, state or national newspaper), the pamphlet doesn't go to notability, but it should be fine for facts about contemporary practices ("The Newcastle Show is an Agricultural Show held yearly at the Newcastle showground, where animals are exhibited, performances occur, and carnival rides are available." but not "The Newcastle Show is Australia's largest show with the best rides and the biggest performances with the most importance wool fleece competition in the country."). If you have particular doubts, take a full citation to the reliable sources noticeboard Fifelfoo (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo. I was hoping that someone like you might spot this. The other problem that I raised in my removal was that it lacked what I would consider to be a full citation :( It said Reference: 'Kanyaavu', Souvenir of Kalyal Muchilot Perumkaliyattam 2012 Jan30 - Feb 5, which has no publisher, no location, no page number, no author etc. Again, perhaps I am being overly picky - it is 2000-3000 edits ago for me and I am usually pretty good on sourcing stuff, but I have off days and of course I am not infallible!

There are, of course, thousands of devotional associations in India and most of them are not what people in the west would consider to be mainstream: one of the fascinating aspects of Hinduism is just how many deities exist and how localised many of the devotional customs are. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, one aspect of being mainstream is having sufficient local adherents of a local practice to bother putting publication details on your pamphlets :). For a pamphlet we'd like to see Author (Date) "Title" Location: Publisher. We'd also like to see any other relevant information, such as the price. For the Author, if it isn't individual, the Author is the association publishing the pamphlet. Of course, knowing the total number of pages, and the page on which the particular fact in question comes from are also vital. Other details could include the address of the publisher, allowing people to write to them to purchase a copy. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, well, I'd trust the Parish Newsletter for "We carry Mary around the Church to venerate her sacred nature" or "Mr. Dinwimple was the Pastor from 1970 to 1972." It depends on how small scale. But I wouldn't trust the Shire Priest to give an opinion on the sacred nature of the mother of Christ etc. So it depends on how controversial the devotional fact is. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat controversial, I guess. The statement made it clear that it is not the only myth of origin but there appears to be no elaboration on that and there also seems to be a lot of "scholars say", which is the type of wording that really, really causes my antennae to twitch. No idea if this is an issue with the source or with the depiction of that source. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. The localism of devotional practices means that they're bound up with local politics; and, British and comprador bourgeois' role in exploiting fractured politics for the last 200+ years or so doesn't help. This is dodgy territory like local congregations in the West making extraordinary claims about their local devotional objects and saints, without their broader community backing them up. Small, unexceptional claims, or claims about "own practice and belief" that are clearly phrased as such is the way to go. In articles about that group's practices, not at higher level articles about general practices, beliefs or objects/persons of devotion. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So, you would prefer to see some academic source rather than this souvenir? I am happy to take this to WP:RSN but you are one of the regulars there and so unless Narayaru has any strong objections I rather think that would be unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the example in the article's history, I'd want to see something much better to weight the content on Theyyam; particularly given the politicisation of female death by fire. As an SPS it doesn't produce notability for itself, for a hypothetical article specifically on this topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We agree on this. It is down to the contributor whether they wish to pursue it at RSN etc. Your thoughts and time spent on this are much appreciated by me. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice Job

Dude title

Hey I am happy you did a decent job on the Nair article - it was hopelessly in the hands of some right-wing obscurantists. Thank god some sanity is back. I had written about the problems of Wikipedia in general and the Nair Wiki article specifically in an article in 2009 - I do not know what exactly changed with your intervention. But I'd like your current musings on what I wrote then. Is this okay? The link - http://thefishpond.in/james/2009/wikipedia-as-the-big-other/ Thanks - James. James M (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It just happened, mostly by application of our policies and guidelines. Doubtless, a certain amount of willingness to see things through helps: there have been interminable, repetitive discussions, numerous socks and meats etc ... but if someone has the time and abides by the policies then good will out. The article still needs work and what has been done is by no means entirely due to me. I'll try to take a look at your 2009 piece but, would you believe it!, Nair is once again consuming more of my time than perhaps is reasonable. Do you want me to comment here or on your blog? - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Joke

Your humour in "Is that what "murder" means? (joke)" appreciated earnestly :-) VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I generally have a rather dry sense of humour - a lot of people do not "get it". Regarding the current situation with the 117.* IP on your talkpage, I am in this photograph - it might help disabuse him of the idea that I am some sort of albino Ezhava or whatever. Of course, he may just turn round and say "that photo could be anyone, anywhere", but if he clicks through the links then he will see my name on the list of attendees etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

lol...i cannot believe you have a "dry" sense of humour - the albino joke was absolutely hillarious :-). Whatever opinion others may have of you is something i have no control over, all i can try is not to reaffirm any such without you giving ample reasons for it :-). we may have disagreements on content on some issues but that does not mean i cannot appreciate what you have done - My logic is "we can agree to disagree" :-)) I have gone through many of your contribution in multiple IRTs and i am of the personal opinion that there is no grounds for the accusation that you are a casteist of any kind. However, I am genuinely worried that you may not be successfully balancing what may be "preventing disruptive editing" and "keeping something immutable". I am also worried that "theoretical knowledge" alone may be preventing you from having a holistic view. I am though trying my best to empathize with you on the grounds that you may have seen a lot of extreme editing in the past and the sheer-volume of articles on your watch-list....but i should say you are giving me a tough job to maintain that empathy (joke) :-) VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, sorry. What are IRTs? One of the problems with caste articles is that (hazarding a guess) well over 90% of the contributions are disruptive or just simply do not comply with our policies. Sometimes it is fix-able (eg: copyright violations) but more usually it is not.

There is no doubt that this has the potential to be a soul-destroying situation to deal with, and even more so because of the interminable, often repetitive and frequently chaotically organised rows. It could lead me and others involved in cleaning up the things sometimes to take an entrenched position. I can assure you that it doesn't happen often: the extent to which we develop content often gets lost in the general noise. I should also emphasise that those of us who patrol this sort of stuff do not always agree with each other, and that most of us have been taken to WP:ANI, WP:DRN etc on multiple occasions regarding caste stuff and have on every occasion received the support of the wider community. We may not be perfect, but we are doing something right. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

IRT = India-Related Topics . General noise – I absolutely agree with you there. Going through talk pages of many sensitive and disputed pages , I find discussions taking the nature of random firing –caste feelings, emotional outburst, ego, over-reacting, muscle-games – the purpose often getting lost in between. Patrol …hm… sounds nice…I don’t know if I would ever consider myself a Patrol like you do (joke)…but definitely I do think caste related articles are often difficult to handle and the talk pages are an even bigger chaos due to the general noise u rightly described. I do slowly plan to expand the number of IRT topics I want to handle…but then i have to have a Voranschlag ( I think in English it roughly translates to something in between an estimate and an overview) of how much I am capable of handling. Presently I think I will focus on 2-3 to start with till I get that Voranschlag. I don’t want to end up getting institutionalized due to wikistress and associated psycho-somatic manifestations !!– I am not joking here – I really came across one such example. Although I think that may have been an exception.

Well i do think going to WP:ANI, WP:DRN is an option but whether that is really beneficial or counter-productive for the article in the long run ...i am yet to estimate. I say this because i recently analyzed some sample disputes resolutions and then followed how these users agreed or disagreed subsequently in other overlaping articles. The subsequent spill-over of conflict was often (though not always there). The ego clash between these users then becoming counter-productive to the article itself. So is a victory at WP:ANI, WP:DRN worth it ? That question vexes me....VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

VS

Ah, IRT! I'll remember that one. ANI is often referred to as a "drama board". It does have a valid and very necessary function but, yes, it has its problems. DRN is fairly a new dispute resolution process and I am less convinced of its merits in the context of India stuff, but time will tell. The problem, in my opinion, is basically that too few people have an inkling of the India-related issues but far too many know just enough of the angst that they would prefer to stay away! The same applies at the "meta" level: although things have improved, there are not many administrators who are willing or have the time to get involved in dealing with the often horrendous and persistent abuses that go on. But the situation is improving, and the only downside is that unfortunately those admins then get accused of being in cahoots with me and a few others when in fact they are merely applying policy etc and are studiously maintaining their non-involved status.

I used the word "patrol" in a very general sense: I did not intend to imply that there are a group of people who actively seek out problems with caste articles etc. It is normal here that one thing leads to another, that causes another article to be added to a watchlist, which leads to another article some time later, which is also added ... and so on. If you had asked me 18 months ago whether I would ever have 1100 articles watchlisted, I would have thought the question ridiculous even to posit - "1100? don't be silly! No-one does that!" And, yes, there are big egos on Wikipedia. That is just a mirror of the world. I suspect that you have a distorted view of my ego but I cannot blame you for that. I also cannot answer your final query, mainly because I do not usually view things in terms of "victory"/"loss" at some Great Noticeboard in the Sky. I see it more as a confirmation or rejection that a wider community review has caused this or that to result. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, my "albino Ezhava" comment was an attempt to illustrate a unlikely scenario: that a member of any particular caste that has for centuries been in dispute with Nairs, is involved with articles about both and might attend a Wikimeet in Manchester but not have the slightest appearance of being what most people would stereotype as being of Indian ethnicity ... well, we're are talking some astronomical odds, are we not? On the other hand, there must be albino Ezhavas: albinism is not, as far as I am aware, restricted to any particular ethnic origin. Perhaps my remark says more about the stereotype "Indian" than it does about albinos. No offence was intended. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol… no offence taken :-) . 1100 articles seems to be a large number. I am afraid if it were me, I would not even consider that much because I think it will definitely effect the quality of Patrol. I do agree with the “ego” on Wikipedia. I did find that when I went through user-user disagreements in histories of not only caste related articles but also in others. Well so far, I have not made any assumptions about your “ego”, unless you give me ample reason to do so :-). When we focus on the topic of discussion and not the user, it is very easy to bin the ego, atleast for me its easy to do so. Or may be since I have not been sufficiently primed with “live environment experience” in Wikipedia it may be easier for me to bin it (joke). I think how much we tend to give importance to ego is a personality thing anyways. ANI = Drama board – wow I learned a new one…..lol VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding more Job - Please help review Bhajan Sopori article

Hi Sitush, have just updated some content on the Bhajan Lal Sopori article. Its by no way complete, but since it was in a rather bad shape, needed to initiate the process. It still doesn't have an infobox. I have a picture of Bhajan Sopori & am really not sure how to upload it. Honestly, wiki could be made a little more user friendly. Thanks. -Ambar wiki (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am off out now but will take a look when I get back. Both image uploads and creating tables can be really awkward to do unless you do them regularly. Can you give me some background info regarding the image? For example, where did you get it from, who created the original and if it has previously been published somewhere then when was that. I'll try to guide you through. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a quick look at it and there are some obvious problems. Some are merely formatting issues (for example, there are spaces between the end of a statement and the <ref>); others are more serious, such as the peacock use of "prestigious" (yes, I do realise that was not your contribution). I have not yet checked the sources but I will revisit it tomorrow. The choice is yours: either I can do my usual patient clean up job, involving many edits so that each edit summary explains the point, or you can have a go at cleaning it up and perhaps expanding it etc yourself. Let's put it this way, you know more about the subject than me (and, more importantly, the available sources) but I probably know more about the idiosyncracies that are Wikipedia's policies etc. To be honest, this is a classic example of why the collaborative ethos of Wikipedia is A Good Thing^(TM) - we both have something to offer. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay & I will try to edit the article. I'm not really good at removing content simply because my knowledge of policies (as you correctly mentioned) is not so deep. I will try and make some improvements / adjustments & then possibly ask you to take another look. Kindly intervene if I end up removing some relavant content or making a change which is not inline. Anyways, here goes ... As for the image, it is an unpublished image from my personal resource, obtained first hand from the owner of the pic. Not published anywhere yet. It doesn't show him playing the instrument, but is a clear picture of him in his usual attire. I feel it should do till a better one comes along. -Ambar wiki (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Good - be bold and I will keep an eye on things. Regarding the image, did the owner assign the copyright to you? It doesn't sounds like they did otherwise it is unlikely that you would call them "owner" - it sounds like you have got a copy of an original. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have watchlisted it. If you have any queries then feel free to ask. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks for DYK

Dear Sitush,

Thanks for your message. I wrote a thank you note to Cuchullain. I thank you also for rewriting the article. I realize my mistake. I was wrong and I hope you all would be able to forgive me. I wanted to write this to you earlier but I thought I was not allowed to do so. However your message made me realize that it is probably okay to write a thank you note to you. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. But the credit lies with Cuchullain, not me. I am pleased that you have had a word with them. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Daphine Vadhera

This is regarding my contributions on wedding rituals among the Christian community in India. I felt that the content was ideally suited to that page. Even though I used several references to the article, it was removed. Pls do let me know if the article could be edited and carried in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphinevadhera (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Angela

many are new and learning to contribute and i understand your standing as a firewall to protect infiltration but I'm surprised that your not even bothered to understand the fact that people who create a product can contribute better in its description and since all the web links etc are stating language picked up from the press releases distributed at that time of the event, you are calling the content being uploaded by brand editor who has the AUTHORITY of original press releases as plagiarist ? the iconic show of India has practically no written info on web encyclopedia called the WIKIPEDIA and the correct people from LET'S DESIGN organization are trying to upload for readers to know more about , you are being stubborn !! ask us the right question : where when and from whom we have sourced the material and when our answers pacify your thoughts let the content be ! but baselessly your just misusing your authority ! i don't even know how to use this editing board hence i seemed help from brand editor ! i myself have been a contestant of season two of the show and now work on the show for past two years !!! this is insane ! if such hard act rules and ideas of editing continue there would be many topics left untouched and unread ! so please let us know the correct measure of uploading the information... and by just letting GOVIND KUMAR SINGH be declared as winner it shows your bias nature.. i can very well raise a question is you have some reason of interest with he individual of what ? we want the page to be up with detailed information so that readers have an in depth insight ad knowledge of India's only reality show... i don't know about sachit bhatia profile but i guess the makers have the right to update correct information ! shall await revert ! --Angelaceciliatoppo (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

On what basis are the removals of the edits on LETS DESIGN are being made ? with just 2 winners being named out of 4 seasons run successfully ? doesn't make sense why updates are being not accepted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelaceciliatoppo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above this one, ie: User:Sitush#Brand editor. Please note that this is one of several articles related to Govind Kumar Singh that has been subject to a substantial amount of socking, copyright violations, puffery etc. It is for that reason the thing appears on my radar, and when a group of relatively new contributors descend on it then it can signal another spate of promotion etc is going on. I note that this is your first contribution, although you registered a couple of weeks ago, and I am already slightly concerned regarding the even more recently-registered Brand editor, whom I think may have a conflict of interest with Sachit Bhatia (in turn, involved with Let's Design). I'll raise that issue as and when I have the time. I just hope that this does not indicate another spate of one person using several accounts. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Block user

Can you help blocking and reverting edits of Khatri 0003 ? Even after many reverts and your warning, he's still doing same changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samba1234 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They do not seem to have edited for three days. Please ping me if they return with troublesome contributions. I am not an administrator and so could not block them if I wanted to, but there are ways and means of dealing with disruption etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

And other articles by the same editor. Good faith but having problems understanding our guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravinder Kumar Soni. I deleted his additions at Hindu astrology which were based on Ravinder Kumar Soni. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus a new editor on my talk page basically asking for help (see their user page also). I don't know what to suggest. I guess he'd like some advice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, not more! You mean User:Rayabhari? I'll try to have a word and see if they can be guided. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added identical notes to both user talk pages. I'll try to keep an eye on their edits & I have watchlisted their talk pages in the hope that they will engage. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Vettakkorumakansnehi

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I know this doesn't directly involve you, but you are mentioned. The Discussion is at WP:ANI#User:Vettakkorumakansnehi Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

2002 Gujrat violence

Hi again, I recently edited the the 2002 Gujrat violence page. there seems to have been somebody making dubious use of a sourced article from times of india for ex - this line "According to the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, "most Congress corporators... and some Congress leaders of Gujarat had actively participated in last year's riots". The majority of the media and party remained silent over the issue Congress role in the riot" was in the godhra section when in fact it is talking about alleged involvement of some regional congress workers in the 2002 riots against muslims. i corrected it and using the same source cited to the support the statement i expanded the part and moved it into the role of government and police section. however, somebody has made reverts to my edits accussing me of vandalism (i think). i already left him/her a message on the talk page but i am also confused..the person made other reverts than my own..so i am not sure who he was talking about. also he claims to be reverting vandalism by an anonymous user..which in fact i am not. Also i dont entirely disagree with some of the other reverts he made. - confused what to do. just undo his reverts citing that he removed sourced content? or manually add the parts back in?

can you please take charge of the article? it seems to be well-written and supported with sources although in some places i think its still rough and can be improved. Cliniic (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ok just realized the user was not accusing me of vandalism. but still while (manually) reverting what he cited as vandalism by an anonymous user, he also removed parts that i added in. waiting for your advide sitush! Cliniic (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No-one can "take charge" of an article but I'll certainly take a look at it when I have a moment. I vaguely recall having some involvement with it in the past. For now, just be careful not to get involved in an edit war. Perhaps leave a note on their talk page asking them to join in the discussion on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

re GAN John Horsefield

Hi,

I'm reviewing your article and have left a few comments at Talk:John Horsefield/GA1. Very well done and a pleasure to read!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability

Well, it is a well known fact that most surnames of northern India origin indicate the caste/community. Anyways, if you have a problem with the verifiability of any content, kindly add {{cn}} tag next to the concerned text. It is very annoying when the entire edit is reverted for no apparent reason.

Happy editing --King Zebu (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"It is a well known fact" is not a reliable source, and consensus is that caste claims do not get added to Wikipedia articles without sources (just as claims of religion etc do not) - if you find abiding by consensus annoying, then go find reliable sources for any caste claims you wish to add. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact I did add reliable sources but someone with an agenda will always come up with an excuse... isn't it? --King Zebu (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said that you need to add reliable sources that show an individual self-identifies as a member of a caste. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush is correct as this is a BLP issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

KZ, did you read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, as I suggested? - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, and read User_talk:King_Zebu#List_of_Agrawals. Let us assume that this indeed is a violation of BLP policy, then we have to edit all the articles in this category. Point is not a lot of people explicitly mention the community to which they belong, especially if belonging to that community is not directly relevant to their occupation/reason for fame. I'm of the opinion that we should follow the burden of evidence. --King Zebu (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well your opinion is wrong, both per policy and the consensus of numerous discussions. Those discussions include some at WT:INB, as noted on my "help sheet" page. BLP is a real issue with these lists and it has long been the case that the sort of stuff you added shall be removed. Repeated failure to comply with BLP - in letter or in spirit - is a blockable offence. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you hunt through my contribution history then you will see that I have indeed been working on numerous of these lists. Furthermore, your comment that "not a lot of people explicitly mention the community to which they belong, especially if belonging to that community is not directly relevant to their occupation/reason for fame" is something that was specifically addressed in the WT:INB discussions. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't directed me to a specific Wikipedia policy explicitly stating that "living people need to self-identify, not be classified by someone else". The consensus you refer to is about "whether caste should be mentioned in articles for persons when the article gives no indication of how caste has impacted that person's life". Clearly, the concerned article is not a biography of a person, but a list of people belonging to a particular jāti (and not caste; jati is different from varna though closely related). So, kindly direct me to a consensus which specifically states that only those people shall be included in a list of people by jatis who have self-identified themselves as belonging to that jati. Thanks --King Zebu (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try searching the WT:INB archives - as I noted, there is more than one thread. Consensus is a policy, and the discussions regarding the issue have always noted the for the purposes of what was said, caste/jati/community etc all = ethnic group. A little bit of common sense can go a long way sometimes ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Try this. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, since you are one who is claiming that there is a consensus, I believe that the onus lies on you to provide a link to such consensus. Neither do I have the time nor the motivation to search through the entire INB archive for something which I don't believe exists. And as you said, a little bit of commonsense can go a long way sometimes. Yet, it is you who argues that people need to self-identify themselves as belonging to a particular jāti, and only then can we include their names in a list of people by jāti. Irony, isn't it? --King Zebu (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I went through the concerned discussion, and I found this argument highly compelling --

Because caste is not something that a person earns by his wish and will. It is thrust upon him by birth. It is an individual's right to decide whether to associate or disassociate himself from his caste. Mentioning the caste of a person without proper reference damages the reputation of the person--Anbu121 (talk me) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. I cannot argue with that. It would have been better if the link to that discussion was provided earlier... would have saved a lot of our time. Anyways, there nothing much left to discuss here. --King Zebu (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I do my best. This caste etc stuff can be a nightmare and it is sometimes difficult to keep so many balls in the air simultaneously. The consensus was clear in both threads and in others that I did not bother liniking, but I am pleased that you found a specific comment that made sense to you. There have been many others in a similar vein and there have also been additional points, but if that one changed your perspective then that is fine by me. We can now both move on to things that make a better use of our time here. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Consensus is a policy" oh how I wish I could get the variety of jane/johnny come latelies on reliable sourcing matters to realise that a large pool of consensus exists, and has previously existed, prior to their demand that it be demonstrated that on topic that are covered by appropriate scholarly sources, that appropriate scholarly sources are the sources we should be using. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Botanists from Lancashire

Category:Botanists from Lancashire, 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly

Hi Sitush,

Shall we finalize the article name as 'Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly'? PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not have the right to move the article without providing valid reasons. So get ready to face the consequences if you deliberately decide to destroy the srticle.PalakkappillyAchayan 11:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing to destroy nothing. Report me if you wish and watch out for the boomerang. You cannot keep insisting on this page name when others disagree, nor can you keep reverting the page move in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Brand editor

Sitush, the changes that I made on the let's design page were not unsourced and there weren't any copyright violations either! did you even check all the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brand editor (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that I said a bit more than just "unsourced" and possible copyvios. Bharatstudent is not a reliable source; glamgold is quite clearly recycling press releases and thus not independent ec; some was indeed unsourced; and some was most definitely POV-y, eg: "The show has been a great launch pad for some of the brightest fashion design students in the country by giving the contestants and winners hands on experience of having their work sized up by industry veterans". That, by the way, is one of the bits which reads like a copyright violation. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Except for adding Dhruv Singh's name you haven't made any other updates for the page as yet. As I understand you are not aware of the significance the show 'let's design' holds for people who aspire to become a part of the Indian fashion and lifestyle industry. The fundamental idea of having the let's design page or any other wikipedia page for that matter is to help people gain correct knowledge, free of any costs, about their subjects of interests or needs. I believe whatever additions that I had made to the page were needed. None of the information was false and therefore only lack of what you consider to be "reliable" sources cannot be a sufficient justification for removing it all. Instead the decent thing for you to do would have been to provide better citations. Help improve it, don't just keep reverting it to its original skeletal state. Brand editor (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Brand_editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, Brand editor, you have it entirely backwards. On Wikipedia, it is more important that something be verified than that it be "true" (since truth is a matter of opinion, and since there's no way for a reader to know if something is true without verification). Furthermore, you can't add content to an article and then tell another editor they have to find a source for it. If you can find reliable sources for the info, and can make the text neutral, it can be added. Otherwise, it can't, per our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But the information is verifiable Qwyrxian,and adequate sources have been cited for the same. I am well aware of wikipedia policies and therefore trying to help improve the article on Let's design. I reiterate the fact that adequate sources were provided for the verifiability of whatever content was added. If for any particular sentence anyone felt that neutrality was compromised then they could've simply taken out just that particular sentence rather than deleting all the updates. Brand editor (talk) 12:10, 02 July 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha

I have been through the discussion on the talk page and have edited the parts suitably, kindly go through the new references I have introduced, the judgement citations are corroborated with books now. The books that have been cited in the judgements have also been added in the footnotes. -Ruderow —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I asked you to discuss this at Talk:Kulin Kayastha, where it is more likely to attract input from others. My talk page is not an appropriate venue for an article content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Do join in. Can administrators be involved in such discussions? If so, Salvio could as well be requested to chip in with his comments since he has a fair idea of the ongoing dispute. I am informing Calcuttan and Pal Subhojit as well. Regards- Ruderow —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency)

Sitush. You should get your facts clear about Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency). I am a resident of Sheohar and i am a professor of Political Science at The Patna University. I am very well aware about the Geography and Political History of Sheohar Parliamentary constituency, you better dont teach me about my subject. Even if i am blocked on this forum, it hardly matters, as it will be the loss of people like you who have incomplete knowledge about this subject in particular. Sitush there is a saying in English "Empty vessels make more noise." That is exactly the problem with you, whatever i edit you edit it further, either you delete the facts or you twist those facts. My suggestion to you is that you first visit this constituency and research properly. Son i have done feildwork, so i know almost everything about Sheohar. first you open your mind, then you will understand that blocking is not the solution. If you block me you wont get to learn about the politics of Bihar in Particular. My suggestion to you will be that you go to the election commission of India's office and obtain the map of this constituency and analyse what was the earlier name of sheohar and what were the areas it includes. This kind of research will help you in improving your knowledge. My email id is prabhatmishra1985@gmail.com, you are free to contact me on my email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhatmishra1985 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot block you. However, I am surprised that someone else has not yet blocked you again for your persistent disruption and inability to comprehend how Wikipedia operates. You could probably benefit from a short break in order to familiarise yourself with the policies that have been explained to you time and again, including but not limited to those concernings verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit on Chauhan page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

May i know what is the required source you are referring too, in the addition of Notable people done by me in Chauhan article..?Amantalwar88 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. all statements need to be verifiable using reliable sources. So, for the two names that you added to the list you will need to find reliable sources that support your assertion that they are Chauhan. If they are still alive, you really should find a source where they self-identify as being Chauhan because otherwise it is likely to be a breach of our policy concerning biographies of living people - we cannot assume that they want to be associated with this or that ethnicity and, indeed, there are famous cases such as Amitabh Bachchan where the person has explicitly disassociated themselves. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you expecting some news stuff ?? or there hand written college application form signed by them self having there surname as Chauhan and regarding Amitabh bachchan his surname is shrivastava and there is no proof which says he has dissociated himself from being called Shrivastava, just there is change in name.Amantalwar88 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Their last name is insufficient verification. I might be called Nair, for example, but I can assure you that I am not a Nair. There is consensus regarding this: you need proper sources, otherwise by making an assumption based on their name you are conducting original research and this is not permitted. As for Bachchan, he has said himself that he has disassociated ... and that very quote is in the discussions on the talk page for his article. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

May i know what sort of proof you are expecting if not the last name the person is referred to..?? Amantalwar88 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already told you: reliable sources.Anything that complies with WP:RS and verifies the statement is fine. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliability even according to WP:RS is mentioned for the content, i do agree that needs to be substantiated.. but where is the point of being Chauhan as surname in doubt...?? Pradeep Chauhan or Ashish Chauhan has Chauhan as surname, why it is being messed up for no reason..??Amantalwar88 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As Sitush said, just having the surname "Chuahan" doesn't guarantee that the person is Chauhan caste; names can be changed, and some people specifically refuse membership in a caste. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From where the idea of cast comes in..?? It simply shows that lastname/Surname is Chauhan which is synonymous to clan name... The point here is not about that 1st name which may give different perception..Amantalwar88 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me put it in a different way. Please can you find me a reliable source that says the last name - Chauhan - is used only by members of the Chauhan caste and that this is so throughout the world? Good luck with your searching ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that lastname/Surname is Chauhan.. And by lastname/Surname it itself mean that its the family name since it shares the same lastname/Surname as that of father/grandfathter/great gradfather.... This will have no direction the way it is presumed here..Amantalwar88 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't. This is because you are engaging in original research. Sorry, but this is Wikipedia and the community has determined such research to be unacceptable here. It doesn't stop you from compiling a list and posting it on some other website/blog etc, and if you want to assume the risk of being sued for libel when you do so then that is your business. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is getting into research. Lastname/Surname is part of identity which can be supported/referenced) by any PTI(Press trust of India) for notable people i had added . May i know the clause of getting sued for any reason in that matter.??Amantalwar88 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ashish Chauhan, Deputy CEO Bombay Stock Exchange, Founder of NSE is referenced here "http://www.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/Speakers/Ashish%20Kumar%20Chauhan-%20Final.pdf".. Let me know for any objection to use as reference here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amantalwar88 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see nothing in that which says he is of the Chauhan caste, let alone something showing that he self-identifies. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is referenced for the content which comments as "Deputy CEO"... the lastname/Surname is Chauhan which precisely is mentioned time an again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amantalwar88 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You may also refer this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Indian_name to understand better the Indian Naming style which confirms what 1st name or lastname/Surname stands for in the Name of "an Indian"... Now please don't ask me proof ethnicity(for being Indian) of the notable persons i had added.. And please also throw light on the legal clause you had given in the previous statement to put these names...Amantalwar88 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets conclude discussion if any confusion/clarifications/clause/perception/ with genuineness related to identity or Names ( 1st name/last name) with customs/traditions/history if any further.. Amantalwar88 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're not understanding this Amantalwar88, but you simply cannot say "last name = clan", because you have provided no reliable sources to prove that. If you attempt to re-add the names to that article, they will be re-removed under our policy requiring verification of information, which is heightened in the case of information about living people. As Sitush says, you're welcome to compile such a list somewhere else on the internet, but Wikipedia has fairly strict rules about providing sources as evidence of claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Qwyrxian. Amantalwar88, please accept my apologies for not spotting your last message above. I've been dealing with almost exactly the same scenario in a thread below - see User_talk:Sitush#Verifiability - where it now appears that the contributor has accepted the rationale. Your post passed by me among all the orange "you have new messages" stuff. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source and reference of "last name = clan name/Family name" for Indian surnames in the book"Surnames and Genetic Structure"[[13]], and this reference gives the details about Chauhan surname/last name "People Of India: Rajasthan, Part 1"[[14]]. Let me know what are the other verifiability cases needs to be clarified. Amantalwar88 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sources verify nothing that is relevant to the article. They do not verify that anyone called Chauhan is because of that name a member of the Chauhan community, nor have you addressed the issue of self-identification (for which no generalised source would suffice). - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, the sources seems to say exactly the opposite of what you want: it says, "the method of isonymy can only be applied to some and even then requires thoughtful decisions about what constitutes a surname"...and then it spends pages talking about how there is at best only a statistical relationship between clan and name, and the connection is not predictable. So, in essence, even if we assume your reference connects to the Chauhan specifically, it actually supports the idea that we cannot use surnames as a certain identification of clan identity. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Let me rephrase it ? Are you guys expecting to proof that "Chauhan" is a surname/lastname and it is related to caste ??123.237.156.106 (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per individual, preferably by self-identification in a reliable source if they're alive. And only ever in a secondary source if it is of impeccably high quality with the capacity to make such extraordinary claims such as clan, caste, sub-group or ethnic identification. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What the logic...?? If one calls himself as Ashish "Chauhan" where Chauhan is lastname/Surname.. It simply signifies he is from Chauhan cast.. Lastname/Surname means the title used by family as simple as that...Amantalwar88 (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on your personal knowledge. It relies upon what secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking say. This is because I cannot trust you, and you cannot trust me, but we can both trust a journal of ethnography published in the last twenty five years. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can please let me know what is expected to write Ashish Chauhan in notable names... If you ask me to proof him as "a Chauhan" ... Then the subject "ASHISH" has Chauhan as his surname which is the title of family name which clearly represent the fact that he is CHAUHAN(by cast)... let me know the clarification here and doubt that his name if at all is "Ashish CHAUHAN". Amantalwar88 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, using someone's surname to claim their caste is original research and in violation of Wikipedia's sanctions regarding original research, caste and biographies of living people. In relation to dead people, doing do is a violation of our sanctions regarding original research and caste. Only explicit self-identification, or, identification by an expert beyond suspicion in a high quality publication is acceptable to identify people's castes. Wikipedia does not tolerate people who "refuse to listen to advice" as it is disruptive. This is the last time I will talk to you regarding this as you have had this explained to you repeatedly. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This has reached the end of the road and is now clearly an IDHT situation. I did think of saying so a couple of hours ago but I have been away for the weekend and was catching up on other stuff. Amantalwar88, you are seem unwilling to accept the consensus that extends well beyond anything specifically related to Chauhans. I urge you to read the information that has been provided to you here by a range of contributors. This does not mean that you are prevented from making the caste assertion that you desire but it does mean that you can only do so in compliance with our policies. The End. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is said doesn't matter unless it has any legal clause attached and neither bothers unless affirmative. Surname=Caste Name/Family name is beyond proof not just in Indian surname case but even in entire Asian and South Asian trends.. Sources of Last name/Surname=Family Name/Clan name can again be provided, which is already recognized/sourced.. Let us hope to keep this as public's forum being with evidence Thanks :) Amantalwar88 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zarina Sani

• Sitush Ji, Namaskar, I am having a big problem in respect of this article which is in Afd. This article is vital for it is connected with three other articles. Can you and your project group assist? Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that assistance is needed with the articles edited/created by Soni Ruchi. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Full list!

I did not know about Gyan Books. Can you give me full list of publishers which can not be added as source? --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. WP:MIRRORS lists a huge number of dodgy sources, some of which are just a single publication and others that are more broad in scope, as with Gyan. I have started a list that is intended to be relevant to the India sphere and which, if it ever grows, will likely be moved to somewhere within the India Project's pages. As of now, it contains almost nothing because I keep forgetting to add things as I come across them! I need, for example to add, works by Ram Swarup Joon when I find the thread concerning his stuff att WT:INB. IIRC, Bhim Singh Dahiya is another and, of course, anything from jatland.com. I'll try to do some work on the list next week but it will still likely only be scratching at the surface.

Obviously, if you know or come across any then please do pass on the info and I'll update for that also. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The list is at User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

vellalar

There is an user who is trying to add non refed texts, old & not related ref (which i tried to remove). Can you have a look ?Rajkris (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I had noticed some odd goings-on but the server lags were dreadful at the time and I am not massively familiar with the subject. The article was on my watchlist, I did spot that the sources appeared perhaps to be iffy and I'll take a look if they return. The entire Vellalar/Gounder/Kongu Vellalar Gounder etc series of articles has been subject to substantial sockpuppet problems over a prolonged period, in addition to the more usual naivety issues. There are a couple of people who are very familiar with the traits of the sockmaster and if I have any concerns on that score then I'll pass it on to them for advice. They are far better than me in the task of discerning and matching patterns. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the guy only edits Vellalar related pages with that profile. I tried to remove this ref [15] because it is a very old one and does not anything new to what is already written and referenced.Rajkris (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Namasudra /Namassej/Namassut

When there was no Hindu King , the Brahmin pundits Headed by The Chief Pundit , gave "Vyavastha" for social disputes and it was an accepted method .In that regard it is important and The Vyavastha mentione by Rockit Loud is relevant. arnab biswas.117.194.193.238 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please source it and cite it. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkbalk: User:SpacemanSpiff

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Message added 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer)

I'd forgotten about that, sorry for scaring you.

If I remember correctly I'd been trying to get one of Giano's articles, Simon Byrne, back to GA, and another article on a bare-knuckle fighter just jumped out at me. Hopefully we'll get to chat one day. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't scare me. The bloody awful reputation that preceded you did that, courtesy of far too many visits to ANI etc. I was expecting some sort of fight before we even started. It took me all of ten minutes or so of going through your GAN comments for that article to learned that (the negative side of) the reputation was misplaced. I still believe it to be misplaced and, yes, we will get to chat one day. I fancy toasting the memory of John Horsefield and Richard Buxton in a Prestwich graveyard some time this summer, if the rain ever ceases. Be there, provided of course that things are ok with Mrs Malleus. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look through and refreshed my memory of Tom Johnson's GA review. It seems quite tough to me looking back now; I bet the current crop of nominators breathed a sigh of relief when I stopped reviewing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

Hi, I'm pretty new to this and I'm not really in tune with how this is done.I'm a professor of Indian history at a university in Israel, and I'm of both Syrian Christian and Cochin Jewish heritage, so I'm uniquely placed to provide information on this matter. I remember helping to edit the original Syrian Malabar Nasrani page when I was doing my thesis(for which i digged through every source i could find. even one written on leaves), and I was doing a presentation and i just looked up the article and was redirected to the new one. The new article, though I think merging was a great idea, the merging itself was badly done. Much significant information from both pages have been lost. The new article is amateurishly written and rather shabby and meandering. There isn't real focus. I wanted to bring focus to the introduction and then work on cleaning up the language and bring focus to the rest of the article. But because its a hassle I'm just giving up haha I can send you my entire thesis in which I have pretty succinctly written the answers to all those issues raised on that talk page. Thanks. I don't do this much haha. I gave it my best shot to clean up that introduction because that ugly introduction just seemed like such a waste of a great opportunity to provide focus and a quick glance at all the information about this ethnic group that would be important to a lay reader.there's one factoid that you might want to discuss-is it a claim to brahmin heritage if many of the community's ancestors were brahmin? i considered it and called it a 'claim' because the community at the time(9th century) had no real proof that they were of brahmin heritage other than hearsay and their social standing. thus for them it wouldve been a 'claim' though they were later proven to have brahmin heritage.

anyway here you go:

The Saint Thomas Christians, also variously known as Syrian Christians, Malabar Nasrani, or Malankara Christians, are an ethno-religious group from Kerala, India. It refers to those who converted to Christianity in its earliest days from the Jewish diaspora, and other local communities in Southern India. Their numbers were vastly supplemented by Syriac Christian immigrants who migrated in the later centuries. According to tradition, they trace their origins to the evangelical activity of Thomas the Apostle who arrived on the shores of Kerala in 52 AD, established eight churches along the Periyar river, and was later martyred in Mylapore, India in 72 AD.

Their historic relationship with the Church of the East, centered in Sassanid Persia developed from occasional contact to full communion; resulting in the church being organised as the Ecclesiastical Province of India in the 8th century. By the 9th century, with their numerical and financial strength, increasing influence and claims to Brahmin heritage, the community attained upper-caste status and extensive political rights from the local Rajas. The arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century, and their subsequent attempt to bring the community under the Roman Catholic Church, led to internal conflict which resulted in a dramatic decline in influence.

The Saint Thomas Christians are considered a single ethnic group and the largest forward-caste in Kerala by the Indian government, though they belong to multiple Christian denominations. They follow a unique Hebrew-Syriac Christian tradition and culture, with significant Hindu and colonial influences. Their historical and liturgical language is Syriac, though most use Malayalam, the local language of the region. Well known as a prominent business community in Kerala, they were historically associated with spice trade and are now largely plantation and business owners, with a reputation for public service in the bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is best dealt with at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians, where I have already replied. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i have no clue how to reply to you specifically lol. but i replied on the other page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. Discussing something like this on the article talk page is likely to attract the attention of people interested in that article, whereas discussing it here most often will only attract my attention and that of any stalkers. Put it another way (& with my apologies to those stalkers), you will get a better class of audience at the article talk page! - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are these edits about?

See 117.212.27.77 (talk · contribs). I've reverted one. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

They seem to me to be almost random insertion of content relating to a pet subject. They are poorly written, lack context and seem to be slapping a chunk of Indic script in there without explaantion. Is there a way to rollback en bloc across several articles? We could then leave a note the the IP explaining that we were unable to make much sense of things, and asking them to clarify. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have manually reverted them all. The Indic script was their addition at Khadem caste, and the other edits are unattributed copy/pastes from that article. I should leave a note but am in a rush. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Still worse, Khadem caste says that community is also known as Pirzada and the link in there. Duplication? Do we need to propose a merge or can we be bold? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Kwamikagami renamed Khadem Tribe to Khadem caste, and so we have one article on a caste, the other says tribe. Kwamikagami may have a view on this. I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For most of these questions on caste vs tribe, I've relied on what we had in the article itself. If I'm contradicted by the sources (by how they describe it, not the terminology, which frequently gets mixed up), please ignore me. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda page

Hi Sitush - I appreciate your feedback and would like to improve the PY page. I am newer on the scene.

‎Chapter in the book "Hinduism Invades America": -"What is special abt this book/author's opinion?" - I agree an opinion doesn't belong here.

"sourcing is far from good enough" - I agree and am slowly adding better sources and I also have cleaned out a good number of poor sources already and plan to do more. I plan to continue improving this.

Please explain: I am concerned abt weight - when you say weight do you mean too much information or too much verbage? Please make some suggestions so that I understand.

The Noted Disciples section - I know some of them are Noted but not all of them - should I delete some? Noted to me means are strong leaders within his organization. Your thoughts? Do you think the section is important? I don't know of this list of direct disciples being anywhere else.

Thanks for your time. RedRose13 -- Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For weighting issues, a read of WP:DUE might be worthwhile. Regarding the list of "notables", well, if they are indeed notable in the Wikipedia sense and if their status as disciples was a significant factor (and is verifiable) in their lives then I guess that they can appear in an embedded list. I cannot say that I am entirely happy with it, but that is the consensus of the wider community. If the list should become too bulky when viewed as a part of the entire article then it would be ok to propose that it be forked as a separate page. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush - I will continue working on it - Btw, do you know of an editor working on the Portuquese wikipedia? The Autobiography of a Yogi there is truly a mess of opinions and controversy - it needs to be cleaned up like you did with the English one. Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never even looked at the Portuguese Wikipedia, sorry. I am sure that there will be people who work both here and there - they can perhaps be found via Category:Portuguese Wikipedians. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token d07d8a3e847b36af7fa6f29008e3365a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. What a waste of time that was. The thing still refuses to accept my designated TUSC password four days on. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Indic Scripts

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Netha Hussain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Netha Hussain (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Kayastha Surnames

I respectfully urge you to restore the surname section under the page for Kayastha.

I agree that some anonymous users have been adding erroneous and unsourced information, but should that be a reason to remove properly sourced, relevant information? Your vigilance in keeping the site "clean" is appreciated, but it's a disservice to the entire page if a section of facts is removed simply because a handful of people anonymously vandalize the section with untruths... It's better to demand that new information can be added to the section, provided it is properly sourced.

Your reconsideration would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Melotown (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is probably better discussed on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I Don't think.....

Sodhi7 is bothered. He won't engage. Thanks SH 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed. I'll try to have a word with them later: they are becoming swamped with templates but perhaps a more human explanation will do the trick. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary on Parvez Dewan

Hello, I just stopped by to respond to your edit summary comment on Parvez Dewan, as I was the one who accepted the article. According to the AfC guidelines, the following are not acceptable reasons for declining an AfC submission:

• Declining an article because it contains easily solved formatting issues, such as no wikilinks to other articles or no sections, is not acceptable.
• Declining an article because the citations contain bare URLs or other reference formatting problems.

Hope you understand now how all those issues "got through the AfC process".

Thanks,

Gold Standard 05:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am aware, thanks.I still would have tidied it up myself before pushing it through: we have enough India-related articles with basic errors without adding more to them. I may well yet be sending it to AfD anyway because some of the statements are potentially overblown. However, without a detailed knowledge of the IAS ranks etc I can appreciate that a reviewer might not realise this. I'll do some digging. - Sitush (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and there was a whopping big BLP violation in there. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that, I rarely accept articles in AfC because it is so easy to find something in violation of AfC guidelines. Also, I do have some experience with handling India-related articles, like when I completely reorganized, wikified, and copyedited this one here. Gold Standard 05:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice bit of work. WP:BLP is one of the Dewan creator's problematic areas, btw. I suspect that this particular article has been created in order to contend that Dewan is a reliable source for statements relating to Kashmiri history etc but will cross that bridge if/when we come to it. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BLPvio not a part of Parvez Dewan AfC

Hi & thanks both for the improvement in the new article on Parvez Dewan. Much appreciated ! In the edit summary, the BLPCAT is for the removal of category 'Kashmiri People', which was btw, not a part of original draft article that I created on AfC. This was a latter addition by another user & its not fair to site that as a problem with the AfC screening process or a shortcoming in the AfC draft. It clearly appeared after the article was screened & posted. Kindly let me know of any other BLP issues that I might have missed out on & they shall be taken care of in the future. Just to be sure, I did go through the WP:BLP page once again. -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! I missed that. My grovelling apologies to you both. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My past awareness of WP policies (or lack of it) perhaps did the trick ;->!! -Ambar wiki (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ok Sitush, I didn't realize it either. Gold Standard 16:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia

This might prove useful:- http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org

All the links in article space need review. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

RE Dive sites of Timor-Lest and your comment: "no - wikimapia is an open wiki, anyone can stick a place in Russia in the middle of the Pacific if they feel like it", how is Wikipedia different? It is all peer reviewed. --Ahalin (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You would be best asking this at the article talk page, but please note that our policy is not to use any articles here as a source for other articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

MirrorLink - Article for Creation

I have created another AfC MirrorLink. Kindly take some time to review and leave your comments. I am a little surprised that such a widely spoken about technology with numerous google search results is still not up at Wiki. Policies shouldn't become so intricate that they make the system slow & inefficient. Wonder which WP policy did I overlook this time. -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For all your contributions, specially your most recent articles Besses United Reform Church and Besses o' th' Barn Band. Best, Tito Dutta ✉ 02:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tito. Neither of them are up to my usual standards but I'll improve the things. They make a nice break from the angst-ridden caste stuff! - Sitush (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Doon

I have added all the appropriate references where needed with the reinstatement of Category:The Doon School alumni.--TheKumarAtNo.42 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire manner in which the school is portrayed here is still excessive, in my opinion. I have not actually looked at the category page yet - I used a completely different method to clean up some things. However, if you have used school records as support for your statements then I might just raise the issue. First of all, I am going to check how major US/UK schools and colleges are treated. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite alright. But you removed the category from so many names (even when the references were there, albeit, not exactly in the right place) that I'll have to add those once again. Anyway, I'll only be too happy to help! --TheKumarAtNo.42 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The majority of my removals were unreferenced, some were POV-y and some were undue weight. Believe me, I check. Among the more ridiculous examples were three or four where the citation was to posts made in the comments section below articles published by The Hindu etc. The edits to the WP article came soon after the comments made on the newspaper websites, which to my mind is not merely engagement in unreliable sourcing but also likely to be deliberate manipulation. It is unacceptable behaviour, as is much else that is going on in the Doon sphere at present. I foresee a huge cull of Doon-related content before too long. I am very concerned about the appearance of meatpuppetry also. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you really check? What about Arvind Virmani which had clear references for Doon and Harvard in the lead??? How do you explain that? Anyway, next time, please think about marking the text for citation needed instead of taking down everything. Good luck and arrivederci! --TheKumarAtNo.42 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that I was error-free but rather that I do check. Please read WP:LEAD, WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kerala

Invite your attention to Kerala#Religions -AshLey ^Msg 13:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am tempted to say "oh, god" under my breath ;) Is this going to be another load of religious trouble, most likely swarming with zealots etc? I'll try to take a look but I won't be getting involved if there are any such zealots around: let them fight it out, get the inevitable blocks and then clean it up. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It needs a clean-up. I will attempt to do it; you are invited for a FREE review pls. -AshLey ^Msg 07:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your request

Hi Sitush, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you have seen my comment at Malleus's (apost.?) talk. It wasn't really a request but rather an offhand comment, the idle thoughts of an idle fellow at 0400 or whatever time it was here then. Still, it will minutely reduce the load at NPP, so your initiative gets thanks all round! - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Doti

Hello there. Do you have a sharp eye and a sharp axe? This one is filled with links and parentheses, and I can't make heads or tails of it. I tried to clean it up a bit. It used to look like this, and is now somewhat better. It still needs someone to zap uncited stuff, particularly BLP-related. Many thanks for anything you can do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Doti District Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG - a phrase that I have just learned via the Justin Bieber on Twitter debate ;) - that looks to be a mess. I am not particularly au fait with Nepalese stuff but of course the WP policies transcend personal knowledge. I'll try to take a look but it may not happen before next week. I am still waiting for a controversial marine gastropod article (or similar) in which you need some uninvolved assistance - these heads-ups of Indic articles seems to be one-way traffic to me! I ask you or you ask me, and the gastropods just keep going swimmingly. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Autobiography of a Yogi". Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) ==

About Parvez Dewan

Sitush, I posted the following on the Dougweller (talk) page. Please have a look:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Parvez_Dewan --Zananiri (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. I can see this ending up at WP:AFD (as I was very tempted to do right at the outset) but am still doing some thinking & digging around. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sitush. I have looked at the article again, and it appears, apart from one book he has written and one he has co-authored, the rest are translations. which does not really make him a writer, as the opening sentence of the article suggests, but more a translator and he was definitely not a career diplomat. So, that first sentence is really an exaggeration or hype. He climbed the IAS hierarchical ladder, as all IAS officers do. I can't see how that makes them notable per Wikipedia or otherwise as well. Part of the job, par for the course. But, I think, if we have such articles, it may be opening a can of worms. All mid-ranking or senior civil servants and ambassadors everywhere might become candidates for AfC. However, as you say, this may be heading for AfD anyway.Zananiri (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It isthe can of worms and the normality of career progression that has me concerned. In one part.

The other part is whether notability can be established as an author, rather than in his day job. Like I said, I have considerable doubts but am not yet ready to jump. This does not prevent you from nominating the thing at WP:AFD, of course. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, thanks for your input. It seems the Amazon entry, apparently written by Parvez or his representative, according to the bit at the bottom of the cited Amazon page, was written some time ago, as he is no longer on sabbatical leave. I gather he retires in 2014. I wonder, though, whether the Amazon site should be cited in the article at all, as it appears to be another case of blatant self-publicity!

I have had a look at his Amazon-listed publications and apart from the translations he seems to have concentrated mainly on writing about trekking, tourism and travelling in Kashmir/Ladakh. Have a look at the bestseller statistics at the bottom of his books, if interested. They suggest, he generally has around three to five million plus books ahead of him in Amazon's bestseller lists. I am not joking. Notability is hard to achieve as an author, away from one's day job.

I think I should wait before doing anything, as you are looking into this and might unearth something I may have missed or overlooked, even though I don't see any notability at the moment and remain sceptical about this. But, since you have your own doubts, I think this one should be your call in the first instance, as you have spent so much time reviewing the matter.--Zananiri (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Ahluwalia

Hi Sitush, could you keep an eye on this article. My PC is playing up, and someone keeps readding lots of unreferenced stuff. I am in the process of cleaning it up, but it's not helped by someone who keeps adding back clutter. Thanks SH 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am away over the weekend but will do my best before and after. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kaul Article / sandbox draft

Hi, can I begin the edits on the Kaul article. In case you have some more comments on the draft in my sandbox, please leave them on the talk page. For the list of notable Kauls, in case you feel any specific names needs to be kept out for now till further citations are found, I can remove them from the list. -Ambar wiki (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is this thing, Ambar? Every time I go to User:Ambar wiki/Sandbox the page is uncreated, and when I go to User:Ambar wiki/sandbox then I see a draft relating to the Kashmiri Pandit article. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regret inconvenience. There are two articles running in my sandbox and the most recent 'view history' Kaul article is the one that needs review. I am reinstating it now. Pls support. -Ambar wiki (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, thanks for the review of the Kaul article in my Sandbox. I see that several improvements have been done & that still there are quite a few issues that need to be addressed. However, since you are still in two minds about the quality &/or content of the article, my suggestions would be to try and mention the concerns one by one & I will try and see if I can address them. Would need some more help to put a high quality article for Kauls on the wiki. Dont want it to suffer the fate that some other 'surname' related articles from India have suffered, if you know what I mean. Also, I would really prefer that you are convinced that article represents a NPOV and surely puffery is not the intention here. See you after the weekend. -Ambar wiki (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ambar, you can have multiple sandboxes. Just create a new page, such as User:Ambar wiki/Sandbox1 or even User:Ambar wiki/Kaul. When you are done with the things then you can request deletion by sticking {{db-u1}} at the top of it. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha ... thanks & that sounds like a good idea !!! Let me try that & then you can pay another visit to my sandbox a little later. -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a new page here, but did that by clicking on the link that you provided above. How do I make another sandbox page by myself. Sorry for all the strange questions. -Ambar wiki (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Like many things in life, there is probably more than one way to do it. I go to User:Sitush and then in the address bar of my browser I add /mypagename to the end of the url, eg: User:Sitush/Testingtesting. When I then hit Return/Ener/click it brings up a page saying that User:Sitush/Testingtesting doesn't exist & invites me to create it. Click on the link to create, type a few characters & save it.

I mus say, it is easier to do than to explain and there really, really probably is an even simpler method. (eg:typing User:Sitush/Testingtesting in the search box at top right should have the same general effect of inviting you to create/warning you that it doesn't exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is [| Kaul]. Hope its working. Btw.. while doing my recent edits I have decided to change the way the article looks, its general look & feel. However, would be better if you first have a look and let me know what you think of it in its current state. -Ambar wiki (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Salasar Balaji

Hi Sitush, its me after a long time. I see that you've made some nice copy edits on Salasar Balaji. On that context, I was just curious to know how does the article looks like if I think about it for a GA. I know the one issue can be the lack of many refs and that too the reliable ones. What else do you think is required? ...Msrag ^talk2me 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at TheKumarAtNo.42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Hello, Sitush. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. . Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for the message, have put some other citations instead. Let me know whether or not the same is fine. Fragrantleo (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lal Bahadur Shastri

Hey Sitush I recently rewrote/copy-edited the Lal Bahadur Shastri article. There was a massive section dedicated to a conspiracy theory on his death. I am not sure if that counts as WP:Fringe. anyhow I rewrote that too to be more concise. would you take a look into it and decide if it should just be removed altogether? Cliniic (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Unlike the many other conspiracy theories that surround Indian politics, this one had traction in mainstream coverage (and if I'm not mistaken, even in some scholarly literature, if just to refute it). It's actually fine to cover it in this case, but context for these claims etc ought to be made clear and presented in the same way peer reviewed sources would. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the advice spaceman! do you think I covered it properly then? I emphasized the inquiries into his death but relegated the conspiracy details to "The possible existence of a conspiracy was covered in India by the tabloid Outlook magazine." Cliniic (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Outlook a tabloid (format or content). I haven't read about this in a really long time, so I can't exactly comment on the exact content right now (but I'm sure gnews and gbooks and possible gscholar would through something up). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the advice again. I removed the tabloid part. Cliniic (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh Yogi

I've tried in the past to clean up this article, but it's a terrible mess. On the one side, his hagiographer has an account here and uses his book as the main reference, on the other side, there's a conspiracy theorist who pushes the other extreme POV (right now I think it's the former that's reflected in the article). Along with it, the organization 3HO article as well as other shrubs within the walled garden are also affected. I just remembered about it owing to an edit at Kundalini Yoga. Want to take a look? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, this is another Krant M L Verma type of situation. Obviously, the hagiographer has a COI and should really be constraining themselves to the tlak page. I am still playing catch-up here but will try to take a look. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Another look at my sandbox pls

Hi, have done some new additions to the KP article, specially the following sections:

1. Religion & society: redid the entire text
2. History: added a new subsection 'hindus of ancient kashmir', to give the article a better 'start'
3. Early History section: included text on Lalitaditya (acnient kashmiri king) & Shankaracharya, the sage responsible for revival of hinduism in the country (& in kashmir).
4. Medieval History section: The sentence on Akbar & this being the point in time when the Brahmins of Kashmir actually were given the general title Pandits by Akbar. This would be an important part of the article, as it gives perspective and relavance to the content before this sentence in the article.
5. Family Names: & a few other things here & there.

eagerly await a review of the new content. -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kerala

Please justify your action in Caste system in Kerala. Do you think the current version of its Lead briefs what the system was? I have asked for a review in INB -AshLey ^Msg 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Rahulmothiya's talk page.
Message added 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rahul Mothiya ^{( Talk )} 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-Realization Fellowship

• Thank you Sitush, I always like your edits and I learn a lot. One questions - (1) when you say spamming of Yogananda's picture what do you mean? I only post this picture on pages that relate to him so how am I spamming? Thanks again.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I just realized that you probably missed the part where the photo that Megog found in May (during our discussion remember?) and helped me put up was questioned on 7/8 and deleted about a week later or so. It took me a while to find the editor but mission accomplished - I filled out what was needed and it came back into commons. Then I had to add it back into the websites it was deleted from - perhaps that looked like spam to you? Also I realized I needed to add the picture to SRF because he is the Founder. ThanksRed Rose 13 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibet scripts in caste article

Those are there to ease verification. The dictionary linked uses scripts, and a search by english words goes to complex disamb in the cited source - if I recall why I decided to put in there. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop Edit warring

Stop Edit warring at the page Dara Singh, because the things differ your personal likeness, we are here to contributed together, not for creating conflicts. Clarificationgiven (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. Please see the article talk page, my explanation in the vandalism warning that I gave you, and my edit summaries on the article. Feel free to ask for clarification but not to reinstate this unsourced and faked balderdash. A read of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FAKE might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's the timeline.

• On 13 July, I cleaned up the article soon after the announcement of Singh's death - the edit sequence is here and the process was necessary because, as is common with recent deaths involving Indian people, things were getting very silly
• I went away for a few days, came back and did a lot of stuff elsewhere until ...
• ... at 2:48 today I first revisited the article. I performed a block of successive edits, most of which were for material added since my previous clean up and generally different to that which had been removed then. This block included fixes for issues such as fake references, misrepresentation of sources, addition of unsourced content, undue weight per the talk page etc. All of them were described with edit summaries.
• You reverted me, breaching numerous policies just in that act.
• I reverted you on that basis. In particular, apparently wilful reinstatement of faked refs is vandalism. I warned you of this, using a template with an additional explanation.
• You reverted me again. Instead of perhaps considering WP:BRD, you just said "sourced information" and completely ignored the discussion that had already taken place on the talk page regarding the need for consensus in sorting out how to deal with tributes. A discussion that I had not been involved in, but which involved several others.
• We are now at 1 revert to me, 2 to you + a warning. I reverted again per the talk page discussion and also opened up [own thread] there in order to deal with this specific example
• After all of this had happened and you had removed my warning on your talk page, you accuse me of edit warring above. You would be correct if you think that edit warring does not necessarily mean breaching the three revert rule. However, when you are acting in the face of discussions taking place on the article talk page and are wilfully inserting false statements etc, you do not really have a leg to stand on: in such situations, your editing is disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

Hi Sitush, your expertise is required in a discussion taking place at Talk:Bhagavad Gita#Dating Bhagavad Gita. If you are not busy, would you care to comment there. Thanks. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just one final question, to avoid OR, do the various dates and references the authors have examined need to be mentioned as well or just their conclusions? For instance, Fowler quotes variety of scholarly opinions which date the composition from 5th century BCE to 1st century BCE, but she herself picks 2nd century BCE as the latest date for composition of BG. Do the entire range of dates need to be quoted in the article as well? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Bhagavad Gita talk page. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your help is required again with the decision making stuff on the BG talk page. When you find time, please have a look at it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)