User talk:Sitush/Archive 11

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock?

Following up on the IP that called you and AnomieBOT and Kansas Bear meatpuppets, found this edit. The use of this image as a source is very familiar but I'm not sure who was misusing it. Any suggestions? 07:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I wasn't aware that I had been accused of socking again and the modus operandi is unfamiliar to me. I've seen it used perhaps once or twice in my time here but as really historic edits, so rather that delving to discover who had done it I simply deleted as inappropriate.

Let them accuse away: I really don't care at the moment. I've been getting far more damaging accusations and misrepresentations from someone who really should know better. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

About Bhagat Singh

Sir, I don't think word 'culprit' should be used in reference to Bhagat Singh. It seems derogatory and so we can rather use mild word, such as 'accused' ? Ashishbirajdar (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He was found guilty. I realise that many today consider him to be a martyr but even in the modern day, blowing up trains etc is not usually acceptable behaviour. My guess is that the counter would be that "this was a war of sorts, so blowing up trains is ok" but I'm not convinced that it alters the fact that he was found guilty of doing so. This is the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" conundrum. You might want to raise it at Talk:Bhagat Singh in order to get a wider variety of opinion. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Castes

I know bugger all about them but as you do a great deal of work on them and looking at that talk page discussion you linked to on ANI I found this website[1] perhaps it will be of use to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but umpteen threads at RSN have determined the Joshua Project to be unreliable, for various reasons. We are sleepwalking into a big problem here and someone who thinks they're good at turning a hardcopy list into a Wikipedia list is missing numerous relevant points while playing a very good game of pretending to acknowledge them. This is not the only sphere in which they've done this and their ability to insult without seeming to do so appears to know no bounds. I'll take him on and I know that I'll lose because the policy wonks will be unable to see beyond their beloved rules + he is very, very good with words even if less good with action. I'm past caring when umpteen admins etc are aware that there is an issue but nothing can apparently be done: block me, and let his new Wikipedia friends from India take pleasure in seeing that happen. Frustrated although I am, at least I will have fallen on my sword with honour. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I have topic banned doncram for a year; that said, consider yourself minnowed: when you feel you're getting frustrated, that's a good moment to log off and something else for a bit. No blocks needed at this time, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing this morning for precisely that reason (it is 1530 here now). I plan to do nothing but answer anything here for the remainder of the day, and probably nothing India-related tomorrow. I recognise that this situation regarding D's wikilawyering/mispresentation etc has gotten to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ho-hum, I am now misrepresented again in this edit. The pluralising may be claimed as a typo but this sort of verbal manipulation/planting of seeds is happening a lot and they cannot all be typos etc, surely. Similarly, with the word "truthfully", which seems to imply that perhaps I am not always truthful here and the use of which I've previously raised with doncram in another thread here recently. If this is going to ArbCom then I guess I'll need to compile a list of these things. Right now, I guess I'm best off trying to stay out of it, so I'm not responding at ANI (where the thread was in any case closed prior to doncram's comment) and from now I'll stick to a self-imposed interaction ban for the foreseeable. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Sitush, this is outside your normal purvey, but would you mind sharing your 2 cents regarding the small discussion at Talk:Management of baldness when you have a moment? If you are too busy, I understand, but you have shown insight in similar matters in the past, and I wanted to make sure I was following etiquette properly. Ramwithaxe 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Which discussion, specifically? There are loads of them. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Sitush: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Tito Dutta (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks very much, Tito. The same to you: peace,health and happiness. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sitush and Tito. IP is being a bit irritating, perhaps its time he was reported. Its a Manchester IP address, maybe somebody you or Malleus knows.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Anon Ip adding images of idols to the Iyengar pg and other related wiki pages

"User 111.91.95.40" has been adding images of "idols" to the Iyengar wiki pg and other vaishnavism related pages. However, i'm not sure about their relevance to the correponding sections under which they are put up. Can you check if they are relevant? Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it going on and indeed did revert one such addition. However, I am not particularly good when it comes to articles that specifically relate to Hinduisn as a religion. I think that you might be better asking Redtigerxyz. Sorry that I cannot be more helpful: my suspicion is that some of these additions are ok and others are more dubious. - Sitush (talk)

Hi! Sitush

Ok. Thanks sir for ur kind advice.I realy respect you. Sir kindly tel me how can i write or add something to improve the Article Gheba.And why are you saying that the references i hav quoted are poor.All caste related articles have the same references. So what about all these caste related articles. ?? And sir why You deleted my contributions in Gheba Article.? Thanks (Gsksari (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC))

During the British Raj period there were many amateur and amateurish publications which are nowadays rarely if ever cited by academics because their value is so low. Examples of such writers include James Tod, H. A. Rose, H. H. Risley, and J. M. Wikeley. Indeed, with the possible exception of James Hastings, it is difficult to find any Raj period source that has much merit except as a statement of the writer's own opinion, and those opinions are generally of little use because there were often so misinformed.

There are thousands of articles concerning Indian castes on Wikipedia and it is common to find that when an attempt at cleaning them up begins, well, people are determined to challenge removals of unreliable sources etc, which slows down the process and leads to repeated explanations similar to this one. If you can find modern sources that discuss the Gheba then that would be great. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pls Consider it :Sir Sitush

Ok. But one thing i would like to tell you and that is absolutley 100%right. is as May be The Gheba tribes origions is the same as you have writen in the article. But the Ghebas families as mentioned in these books which you have sourced,are all Claiming Mughals ,like the best known Sardar of Kot Fateh khan,Lund,Malal, Dhurnal, Majhia, Dhari Rai Ditta, And shah Rai saadulah, so I think no one can never ever deny this fact that These Gheba Sardars are Mughals.And one thing more i would like to clear you that, the british raj Writers like JM wikeley wrote obviously right about Ghebas. He wrote acording to the true practicle fact history. Now at that time before 1900, and till now all the Ghebas are Claiming Mughal ancestory/ geenology.And one question in my mind that why all the Gheba families claiming Mughal and why no one claim Rajput??? (If there Origin is Rajput). Actually the true history books are those which are based on practicle facts as the british writers are practicaly visited the Places, areas,countries and met with people and seen their culture. And then they write these books in british raj.So i cannot say that these writers are poorly written books.Sir please ,please Consider it and Add it In Gheba Article .The 'Gheba' are a tribe from the Punjab, mostly located in the Fateh Jang Tehsil of Attock District of Pakistan. As per their Origion they are generally classified as Rajput or Jatt. But many of them claim that they are Barlas Mughals in Census Report 1901. They were at one time spread out over a broader area, in both Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa areas of what is now Pakistan but over time, their main population came to live in Attock and Rawalpindi districts of northern Punjab. They were most probably descended from one Raja Dayanand, a Chauhan Rajput, through Rai Shankar, whose off spring 'Rai Gheba' converted to Islam and was given the title of 'Gheba Khan' and Married to Foster Sister of Mughal Emporer Akbar. They have been Muslims since then and sizable landowners in the districts they live in. This view is often believed by some of the more prominent Gheba families, that they are not really Rajputs or Jatts but are Barlas Mughals Whatever their origins, the Ghebas continue to be among the biggest landowners of northern Punjab, in present-day Pakistan. Their biggest and most important village in Attock area is Kot Fateh Khan, which is part of the Jagir estate of the Sardar of Kot Other major villages owned by Ghebas include Malal, Lund, Dhurnal, Shah Rai Saidullah and Dhari Rai Ditta,etc. i cannot write well as other wikipedia editors.Therefor i have a request to You Sir kindly add it in Gheba Article, not the same as i wrote in ur talk page but In Your Own Words ,because i am not as fluent/skilled in English as you. Hoping for Your kind consideration . Thanks Regards

(Gsksari (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC))

It may well be 100% true but, alas, that is not how Wikipedia works. The sources that you cite above are not reliable for the reasons that I have already given. Wikipedia relies on verifiability using reliable sources and sometimes this does unfortunately impact on "truth". - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When did you get your peerage sit? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add "Pray, all bow before the Lord of BS" to my sig. ;) - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Article MINHAS

Hi Sitush I am trying to reinstate the old page of the Article Minhas, because It is absolutely true and correct as best of my knowledge. I my self is a Minhas by cast, and i know our ancestor history. http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Minhas, please have a look at this page and you will find the details as you required. Forget about my grammar mistake, but I really do not understand that why would you delete a page when 100s of other are saying and updating it the way it should be. Please can you get back to me on this..

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeonly2day (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Statements in Wikipedia articles must be capable of verification by reference to reliable sources. Writing what you know to be true is not usually acceptable, other than for such basic things as "water as a liquid is wet". We are not allowed to use our personal knowledge and we also need to take care when editing things where we might have a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has a very open policy with regard to copyright: pretty much anything you find here can be used by anyone else for any purpose, and one outcome of that is we find lots of websites, books etc that use information which was first written here. The source that you link to above is the full wiki. That is not reliable because it simply copies stuff from versions of our articles and presents it in a different way. Our articles are themselves not reliable sources and using one to support another is in any event circular referencing.

You'll need to find decent quality sources to improve the Minhas article. I am sure that there are some out there somewhere but you'll note from my past comments on the article talk page that I've been struggling to find them. That's life, sometimes, and I hope that you can do better than me. I will be looking again, in particular because I have just gained access to JSTOR and there may be stuff there that can be used, bu this does not prevent you from expanding the article provided that you comply with our policies and guidelines. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Government form

Sorry was a bit busy. Will not post any more forms from now.

Sharmapriya5590 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is consensus on Talk:Form 2E that the thing should be merged to either Income tax in India or Indian Revenue Service. However, it is not the clearest consensus I've ever seen and perhaps it needs some more input. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Course abbreviations at B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad

I am copy editing the above article and I was wondering if you knew what the abbreviations for the courses stood for, or could point me in the direction of someone who knows. Much appreciated. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

M.Ch., M.B.B.S. etc - I think you'll find that most of them have articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

You wonder why the date of death was removed. Obviously some people don't think he died in 1945 but more relevantly here it seems to use a wikipedia article as a source. As we cannot use wikipedia as a source for itself you may wish to find a better one to back up this information. Britmax (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nair

Hi! Thanks for adding author credit so quickly, and for being so conscientious about citations and accuracy in this article. It's actually not clear where the quotation comes from without a citation. Every quotation needs a citation. Of the two Gough references cited in the article, is it really a good convention to ask readers to assume that a quotation comes from somewhere in a particular one? And why exclude this reference when others have specific page numbers?

Is the source is a page from Matrilineal Kinship? If so, that should be easy to add with a shortened footnote. What makes the Gough attributions even less clear is that the links refer to a work in the Bibliography section rather than in the References section (cf. General references). Since [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout |References is the place for general references]], the repurposing (if that's what it is) of a Bibliography section here seems unnecessarily ambiguous. Ringbang (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the quotation has a citation, right at the end of the following sentence. Since the following sentence expands on the quotation and is also supported by the same Gough source (right down to the page number), there really doesn't seem to be an issue here. WP:MOSQUOTE covers this. Furthermore, the citation links directly the the 1961 Gough work in the bibliography, which is basically the method used for Harvnb etc. This feels a bit like being taught how to suck eggs but you are obviously unaware of my content work or that of the other major contributors.

Converting the entire article to {{sfn}} or {{r}} etc is neither necessary nor easy to do even if there is consensus for such a change. The only style change that might be beneficial is to turn the bibliography section into a subsection of References as, indeed, it was at one point. If you feel strongly about the cite/quote and sfn issues then I suggest you raise them on the article talk page. The article has been remarkably stable for a long period now, following years of puffery and fighting, and I'm not myself inclined to overhaul it on some massive scale just for some underlying technical purpose. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now "demoted" the Bibliography back to being a subsection, as it once was. No idea when or why that changed. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Virbhadra Singh

Why are you deleting article, and photos on Virbhadra Singh. All the sources and ref are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snjsharma (talk • contribs) 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the sources etc are fake. It is all explained in the article history. As an example, the statement that I removed here is not supported by the cited source, which was this. Either you, Vikramadityabushahr or both have been adding loads of fake stuff in recent days. After trawling through a fair bit of it I gave up. Even if this were not a biography of a living person, such antics would be unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

By doing so you are discouraging people, you are deleting things that is even from reliable sources.Snjsharma (talk

Please read WP:V. Please also explain what it is that I have deleted that came from reliable sources. I am happy to reinstate anything that might have been caught up in the restoration of an earlier version of the article but you must appreciate, surely, that I had made an effort to check what had been going on and found not a single valid edit among those that I checked. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am leaving wikipedia. Happy now :)Snjsharma (talk

No, of course I am not happy. However, it seems from your talk page and from various other contributions that I've had to clean up that perhaps you would benefit from a re-reading of our core policies. I'm happy to help you understand this sort of thing but, really, we cannot accept the sort of stuff that you have been doing: the policies are there for a reason and are particularly important when the subjects are living people. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spurious claims of Arabic origins

Dear sir I would please like to refer you to spurious claims of the above order on the Dhund Abbasi page, I have also left my note there on the talk page (end) and I strongly challenge this spurious history. Your help is needed thanks 39.54.235.50 (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Mansur Abbasi

That was hopeless. I've stubbed the thing for now and will try to do some research to rebuild it. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I appreciate this. 39.54.20.190 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Mansur Abbasi

Cheers!

Hmm, English ale. Never had it before.

This is very tasty. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, that's a strong one. No wonder it made the Atlantic crossing without any, er, hiccups. I notice that you've been fiddling with the (very poor) J.W. Lees Brewery. While this edit did indeed remove promotional blurb, it was not original research: I've seen exactly those phrases used by JWL themselves on the various products that were listed, although I notice that they've revamped their website yet again. Copyvio, then!

Should you ever fancy trying another in that style then please leave Thomas Hardy's Ale well alone: 11.7 per cent ABV makes it a world-record strength beer, now brewed by several different small outfits since the demise of Eldridge Pope (see Old Ale). If Hardy had imbibed that stuff, Tess etc would never have seen the light of day. I've still got an Eldridge Pope bottle stood on a shelf somewhere. I needed some Thomas Hardy's Paracetamol after drinking the other three in a single session. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Relinked categories

ok I have stopped, Please tell me how we can create and change its colorLegalaidclinicssdlc (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should not be contributing at all because you are a sockpuppet of Austereraj and because your username does not comply with our policies either. I have reported the latter problem and you will shortly find yourself unable to edit from that account. I strongly suggest that you do not set up yet another account, as has been your past habit. Go to User talk:Austereraj, log in as that user and post an unblock request that addresses the issue of sockpuppetry please. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please I will not violate the rules of wikipedia and club my accounts and help me in getting rid of called as sockpuppet, I shall be thankful to you forever, Happy New Year, I only created because you block the and then and I want to become good wikipedian like you. Legalaidclinicssdlc (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The right way to do it is as I described above, using the Austereraj account. You have recently contributed as Rajkumartundak, Rajwikipedian and now as Legalaidclinicssdlc. Are there any other accounts that you have used since your last block? - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked but can find no talkback relating to me? - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And I could not relate me. They promised they'd delete their sock accounts, but I didn't tell them anything about that, so telling me about those accounts is absurd. You have filed an SPI (see Untitled section) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that is weird. I'd already explained what they needed to do on their talk page and in the section above this, here. The SPI is a reference, ie: they've already been blocked ... again. I presume that they saw your name somewhere on this page & clicked through to make an appeal. This guy claims to be a law PhD, practising solicitor and teacher from Rewari: I hope he is better at understanding and applying the law of India than he is at understanding and applying the "law" of Wikipedia :( Sitush (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on caste

Hi! I have raised one question in the discussion. Its not in the flow and i don't think anyone present there pro-exclusion other than you would understand the context of Mumbai and Bihar. Hence leaving a note here. Simply Ctrl+F "Bihar" and you will see my comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful not to get too deep with the specifics, if only because they will indeed go over the heads of many people who contribute there. This is a generalised discussion about a possible policy change and it is going to be messy. (Already is!). FWIW, I am not in agreement with the idea that caste should never be mentioned. I have no problem with it being mentioned for dead people, if appropriately verifiable, and I have no problem with it being mentioned for living people if they self-identify. In the ideal world, sure, I'd prefer that it was only mentioned if actually relevant to their notability etc but I acknowledge that there is a contradiction between adopting such a position and yet allowing mentions of birthplaces etc - if one is ok then so is the other, and we're never going to change the consensus regarding birthplace etc. I am strongly opposed to those people who are basically arguing that caste is some horrible thing and we should not be perpetuating it here - that is a ridiculous western POV that should have no place in this encyclopedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think all you Westerners share that notion of not going deep and turning themselves incomprehensible to us. Or else why would there be discussion on some league of voters or whatever. Anyways.... would you answer the question there or here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to work out why the League of Women Voters was mentioned, either - I'd never heard of them before. I think the point was related to self-identification, ie: just because someone is a member of a caste association/sabha or caste political party may not mean that they are a member of the caste. Presumably, men can be members of the LoWV.

I've not looked at the Bihar bit yet but will do. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, read it now and it seems that I've already addressed it here. It has also been addressed by someone else recently - either at WP:VPP or WT:INB - in much the same vein as I've said. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lost you. What?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opening comment here I say In the ideal world, sure, I'd prefer that it was only mentioned if actually relevant to their notability etc but I acknowledge that there is a contradiction between adopting such a position and yet allowing mentions of birthplaces etc - if one is ok then so is the other, and we're never going to change the consensus regarding birthplace etc.. That covers the Bihar/birthplace thing you mentioned at VPP, doesn't it? Am I misunderstanding something? - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay! So should we not delete such categories, not because of irrelevance but because of "violation of privacy", "might lead to insults", etc.? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation already falls under WP:BLPCAT as far as I am concerned but, in any event, we do not categorise people by caste and there have been dozens of discussions about this in various nominations at WP:CFD - the consensus is well-established for that.

What is more problematic is whether we mention caste at all, either in individual articles or via the "List of X caste" things. Those at the more extreme end of the "anti" tendency argue that it is a complete irrelevance; those who are slightly less extreme realise that there will be exceptions where caste is directly relevant (eg: Ambedkar). Still more liberal are people like me who can live with it if the statement is reliably sourced (for BLPs, self-identified). As we swing further over, we are hitting the other extreme, as expressed by Sreejiraj etc, which is almost verging on the "common knowledge will suffice" argument.

WP:BLP is at the core of AndyTheGrump's point and, yes, privacy is a part of that. Whether it leads to insults or not is of no significance to any of the arguments that I have seen but whether it is right to label someone as being X or Y is. The issue of whether it is an accident of birth versus the right of a living person to identify etc is likely to be the area of most contention because both of those have some validity. In a pure academic sense, caste is a social construct but people tend not to understand this and, among those that do, some will argue the "so what?" point, ie: social construct or not, the thing exists in a pragmatic sense.

You'll gather that while I do have a viewpoint here, it is something that I've spent time thinking about rather than just rushing in there. I'm open to be persuaded also but it will have to be policy-based persuasion, not a personal interpretation of some primary sources from a court case etc. (Real life lawyers spend a lot of time and earn a lot of money coming up with umpteen different ways to interpret legal rulings, so trying to do that job here is rather pointless: we already know that they never agree!). - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the point that "Category:X caste" should not include any biographic articles. Exceptions should be very specific cases like Ambedkar. I would also agree on not having a "List of X caste", independent or within the caste article. If there are any people who are connected with the caste, write their names in prose also mentioning the connection. I would also agree on not mentioning the caste just based on common knowledge, like any Kulkarni is Brahmin. I would also agree that mentioning should only be done when backed by a reliable source. What i object is self-identification.

There is a flaw in your theory that only living people's biographies should have self-identification. I know you wish that it should be applied for all biographies. But that is not practically possible as dead would not now rise to identify themselves under a particular caste. I also know that you are aware of this flaw. Secondly, what about such cases where the subject has not, to our knowledge, self identified with a certain caste but is widely considered to be a member of it? News reports and other articles might clearly consider a certain person as a member of a specific caste. If the subject was against such identification, isn't it safe to assume that the subject sort-of doesn't object it? Isnt this kind of general public identification of any relevance? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no flaw and I have never accepted what you suggest is such a thing. When someone has died then we can use reliable sources without infringing on their privacy etc. Put crudely, we cannot insult the dead etc. While they are living, many cannot afford to sue every newspaper that makes a report etc, even if they wanted to do so. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. So we will be using the same references, to state the caste once the subject is dead, that existed while they were alive. (I must have assumed you are aware of this flaw.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on how good the source is. They have no right to privacy/cannot be hurt etc when dead. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How private is caste anyways? We have been filling that in our admission forms from schools. Government offices have that data. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you been filling admission forms to caste sabhas (sorry)? Last time I checked schools did not ask for your caste/category and colleges/government jobs asked you to choose from one of the following categories: Gen/(NC)OBC/SC/ST/PH/Army. None of those institutions ever intentionally made the category public, except for more affirmative action such as scholarships. I would have been able to comment on the census too if I had actually been counted. I hope they at least infer my existence from my relatives. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 07:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No! I am talking about normal schools and colleges. We did tick one of those boxes and then "specified" what exactly it was. (Also questioned a few of my friends now who answered yes. Some of them clearly remember it as they would always be confused in spelling these Indic words.) I don't know whats the status now. (Haven't filled any forms recently. I suppose you are younger than me.) In either case, whether you specified on the form or not, all non-GEN have to attach a certificate for sure, which in turn mentions the caste. Have the modern institutes stopped doing that too? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, if you'll excuse the pun, whether or not schools etc require the info is academic. I am sure that they have controls in place to ensure that the information is used only in a very limited manner for administrative purposes and that, for example, it is not published for the world to see. Which is precisely what happens if we publish something on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

yes the info is not published anywhere but I see the colleges publishing the list of short-listed canditates from particular category for different purposes like scholarships. --sarvajna (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure they do publish lists of OBC/SC etc, That is not caste. Or are you saying that the lists name the specific castes and, if so, are any of those lists available for notable people who have articles here? - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No! They don't list Category-->Caste-->Name. Its just Category-->Name. There isn't any list available with me that includes any person from here. But the point was for general public. Category is not really private. But then i prefer mentioning the actual name of caste instead of GEN/SC/ST/OBC.

Also, my question of "public identification" has been left behind. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the thought that there was a time and place in India where schools asked children to specify their castes is absolutely repulsive. Yuk! I am glad this doesn't happen anymore. At least not in the six schools I've been to and the two rural ones that my grandfather and friend run. In my experience, colleges/universities usually do well to keep categories private. But there are occasions when they slip up. Displaying candidates who got SC/ST scholarships on public noticeboards is one, preferential treatment in distributing library books publicly is another. Regarding public self identification, membership of state level parties with caste ideologies is not self–identification. Exigencies of Indian politics compel all parties to have a diverse group of candidates. I can't think of any political party that bars candidates on the basis of their caste or which contests with a homogenous group of candidates. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree re: caste parties. I used "possibly" or some similar word when I raised this in the VPP discussion. There may be some cases where it is applicable but thus far I've never come across one. I recall someone once trying to argue that because person X had been honoured with an award by Y Sabha then that amounted to self-identification - it is, of course, nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

By "public identification" i did not mean "publicly self-identification". I meant public widely identifying someone as to belonging to a certain caste, irrespective of subject's self-identification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sengar

hello Sitush, I don understand when you have no knowledge about the content given on the "SENGAR" page then on what basis you are deleting the same. Being regular user of wikipedia doesn't gives you right to delete whatever you feel like. you should be confident and thorough with the article which you are editing...I am Sengar Rajput and i know whatever was there on that page was true so i would suggest you to just correct the page as it was before and in future just for editing sake don't simply delete content from any other pages until or unless you have knowledge about it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.244.200 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

the information which was given on that page is from the book "A Handbook on Rajputs by A H Bingley" page 122-132. so first do some homework before editing any page cause lot of effort goes into it..blindly deleting stuffs is not at all acceptable.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashpal.sengar (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please could you take a read of our policy concerning verifiability and also that relating to reliable sources. In addition, WP:Citing sources should be helpful to you because, even if Bingley was reliable, it is by no means clear that everything is/was sourced to him. As it happens, Bingley is a poor source, as are practically all of those from the British Raj period. In this specific case, he was not a historian, a sociologist, an ethnologist, an Indologist, an anthropologist, an archaeologist or a linguist. In fact, he was a professional soldier and his "Handbook" was a guide intended to help other professional soldiers "understand the natives". Much of what he says was derived from the works of preceding authors and, in particular, from the discredited James Tod. No way is he an acceptable source. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

listen sitush what ever was there on that page earlier was true information and by the way book is not a poor source for information there are many articles in wikipedia which have only book refernces and A.H Bingley was not a soldier he was ranked officer in army as a CAPTAIN...and one should not be historian, a sociologist, an ethnologist, an Indologist, an anthropologist, an archaeologist or a linguist to write a book ...now what ever information you have added on that page is totally wrong and looks like you are playing with "SENGAR" image and it can pull you under "defamation" charges...you don know what trouble you are inviting for yourself and you can land up with a legal notice ...so correct the page that will be good.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.195.151 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to source the thing but am struggling to find any detailed study of the people, hence it is a bit patchy at the moment. You, on the other hand, need to take a read of WP:Identifying reliable sources and our policy concerning legal threats. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

so if you are struggling to find any detail information about it then go do some research and then edit that page and remove that information which is no were true...I am from the same clan and i know what ever was there its true... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.195.151 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Your own knowledge counts for little on Wikipedia. More or less every statement made in an article must be verifiable by use of reliable sources. The burden is on the person who adds the information to ensure that this is so. I really do advise you to read some of these blue-linked terms that I am providing. You are unlikely to make much headway here unless you understand the underlying issues. Wikipedia is not a perfect repository of knowledge. Of course, there is nothing to stop you writing whatever you please at some other place of your choosing. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

but what you have added on the page now is not true "The area of Lateri in present-day Madhya Pradesh was once ruled by the Sengars, whose livelihood was derived primarily from looting and plundering and was reflected in the name of their capital, Looteri. In what is now Uttar Pradesh, the principal town of the Lakhnesar pargana during the medieval period was Rasra. In eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Bundelkhand, an area that is now split between the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the Sengars were among those communities that practised infanticide and, in particular, female infanticide. Sengar were rulers and they have kingdom and they were not dacoits or thieves...either correct the information or remove it ..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.195.151 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Many, if not all, Rajput groups were warrior types. They plundered land etc and then extracted rents, or they fought against other groups and took their wealth. And so on. Whether that is dacoitry or not might be an issue of semantics but the general point made by the source appears to be reasonable based on my background knowledge. Perhaps the Sengar were different from other Rajputs but, for example, I've seen some tantalising bits pointing out that the Brits never really managed to get control of them in the isolated north-eastern Ganges region, which suggests a certain feistiness. I can't actually say that in the article because I do not have access to the sources in full. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think mr.sitush your knowledge base is very narrow ...go learn the difference between ruler and dacoit....ruler take tax the way we pay to our government they din't looted people...so when you don't have any strong source to support the article then remove it from the page and you cannot specify one clan for practicing infanticide when there is nothing to do with clan at all its personal matter....so mind yourself.....the source from which the earlier page was taken might not be from the strong source(from your point of view) but go read it and understand it...122.178.195.151 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, some Rajputs were rulers. However, the vast majority were not and it would make little sense otherwise: can you seriously imagine 25,000 or whatever members of a single clan all' being rulers? Who were they ruling? This is a similar argument to one that has been had across countless caste articles with regard to the kshatriya varna. It is obviously not the case that every single caste was kshatriya, otherwise there would have been no agriculture, no haircutting, no leather manufacture etc - but if you had checked our articles 18 months ago then you could have been forgiven for thinking that in fact everyone was a kshatriya. That is why we have to use reliable sources and not what people tell us. Caste stuff here is incredibly prone to puffery.

I've read a lot of Bingley, by the way. I was also the person primarily responsible for writing our featured article on James Tod, whom many Rajputs ludicrously still believe to be a reliable source. This conversation is clearly not going to change your mind or mine, so perhaps it is best to wind it up? - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb Case

You don't appear to have been informed of an Arb case, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Doncram, but seeing as you are one of the people who has allegedly been bullying Doncram (according to Doncram), I think you should have been. (I've offered my take on the caste articles issue). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I had seen it, thanks. There seems little point in me getting involved at present. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC

I notice that it has already become the common TLDR and petty wrangling about procedure. And that Doncram's "DENOS" acronym adds me as a party even though I am not (yet) named as one. Oh, well, if people want to risk hanging themselves before the case has even been opened then that is their choice. I'll wait for the real thing because acceptance of the case was, imo, always beyond doubt without my intervention. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it looks pretty much accepted by now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I named you as an involved party there. Please do comment there and be advised there is Wikipedia:Arbitration guide (which would be included in the standard canned notification message I guess). --doncram 18:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see where you have named me. Among the walls of text that you have added, the best I can find is this, where you muse and then ask a question: Also, I am not sure whether Elkman should be dropped or whether Sitush should be added as Involved parties. I tend to think they both be included, now. I am not sure, process-wise, how their involvement is to be discussed and decided. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you told me here and then named me a few minutes later. I have no intention of commenting at this stage & I have no idea why any comment from me in the current discussion would be beneficial. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several mentions of you in the wall of text - probably best to search for your name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen all the mentions because I've been following this from within minutes of the request opening. Nonetheless, this is a request for a case, it is going to be accepted and I cannot for the life of me see what I could possibly say about anything that has not already been said to encourage or discourage acceptance. And I've no intention of making a fool of myself at this stage. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, keep your powder dry and save making a fool of yourself for when it counts ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna.
Message added 03:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See the last section! Tito Dutta (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which article it is that you are referring to in that section, Tito. I'm likely to be a bit hit-and-miss over the next few days - I've got phase two of my hospitalisation coming up and also seem likely to under the cosh at Wikipedia's highest "court" because of this. Nonetheless, if you let me know what is being referred to then I'll try to take a look. You might have been better putting your proposal on the article talk page and linking to it from the user's talk page. That would enable everyone who might have an interest to see it. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hospitalization for what? The whole article needs copyedit/clean-start which is proposed here. All original research, primary source, spams.. some M.L Verma books, non RS etc should be removed out! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely misread that you were already on the article talk page. Like I said, I'm a bit pre-occupied! I'll take a look during the next few hours. I've got various long-term health problems and also a series of operations underway: heart, joint replacement, proposal to drill some holes in my head, that sort of thing. I'm used to it but it can still be stressful and it takes me away from here. First of the current batch was last month but they're likely to drag on for some time. - Sitush (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Sitush--all the best to you. You'll be as good as new when you come out, though I don't know exactly how good that was to begin with. I'll be thinking of you, mate. If you email me your address in hospital, I'll have the girls send you drawings of fashion queens and kissing machines. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also send my best wishes. Mind your docs and nurses and get well! LadyofShalott 05:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I will be entirely new by the time they've finished with me. Just scan the pics: as much as original Mies artwork may end up being as valuable as the Dutch Masters, trusting the British postal system to deliver & trusting the NHS to keep me in one place are somewhat crazy ideas. I was hoping to imbibe some anaesthetic at the Manchester Wikimeet this Saturday but that is now looking unlikely. However, a kind person did use me as an intermediary for the provision of some beer money - the intended recipient is aware of it and we'll sort something out. Tbh, I could do without the ArbCom stuff at the moment: talk about bad timing. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Best wishes for speedy recovery Sitush. Will watch this space to see how much better Sitush 2.0 is than the previous one. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I've ever attained v. 1.0! I've been in beta-testing for 50 years now! - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this Sitush. Hope you are better soon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought, I'll talk about page on Rewari which you manage and where I live. Get well soon ! Then we communicate.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're in my thoughts, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some fmt changes above, signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks, but I've removed it. I can deal with colourful language but colourful text just screws my eyes up ;) Sitush (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You usually have a rational approach to India :)

Please would you drop by this conversation and consider whether you have input to make? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

NickCT (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @806  ·  18:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Reema Welling/sandbox. Please feel free to drop by and give your thoughts as you are the one targeted by the legal threat. Hasteur (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have deleted that sandbox. Sorry to disagree with you, Hasteur, but thanks for dropping Sitush a line. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts on page Rewari Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If I believe everything I've been told by various IPs/SPAs etc then I'll be arrested as soon as I set foot in India :( More seriously, I am not good on geographic articles because, well, they don't really interest me all that much and I have trouble dealing with the seemingly lower standards required of sources. So, any work I do on places in India etc tends mostly to be of the copyediting and removal of puffery variety, although I'll add stuff etc if I'm sure about it. We have people who really love doing these things and they should be cajoled into assisting encouraged to help out because I am sure that Rewari could be much improved. IIRC, Ssiram is one of those. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What I appreciate is that you maintained the page regularly, otherwise it was free for all, mostly for students who would put the names of their villages, and happenings thereof, prominently on the page. I have not added/edited on the page for several months now, though all the photographs on Rewari page were uploaded/placed by me. Intend to put a gallery of Rewari Heritage Structures. The city was important during Vedic Period (which I consider 10,000 years ago, Rewari being part of Vedic State-'Brahmavarta'), Mahabharata period, Mughal Period and British Period, but page does not show it. I plan to improve it now. I hope you recover soon and will find this page in sobre colours. Regards.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Kaniyar

Hi, 3R is not the problem here. But bullying matters. we are not supposed to put any content which is derogatory to or demeaning any person or category of people really an offense . So I request you to remove the bracketed sentence by yourself. thanks Corindia (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to invoke WP:BLP for a caste community, probably via WP:BLPGROUP. It is certainly a novel approach but it is one that I would contest. If such statements are reliably sourced (and Jack Goody is certainly such a source) then they are valid provided that they do not fall foul of some other policy, such as being undue weight. We are not censored when it comes to stuff like this but, of course, you can always supply a reliably-sourced alternate point of view and that would be a valid addition. You claim that there are such sources, so my suggestion to you is to provide them on the talk page. Which is where this discussion should be. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a field for show off, it is not the medium for attacking the reputation of another person or catogory in the guise of good faith editing.Corindia (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really do not understand this last comment of yours. Could you try again, please? What is the "it" that you refer to, for example? The article? - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

certainly, "it" refers to the article . WP:NOT WP:NOBATTLE Corindia (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:BATTLE. I see it and raise WP:CENSORED, as well as pointing out that I have no vested interest in any Indian community. I really do not see how the article can be considered an attack: it merely states information that is verifiable using very reliable sources. As I said before, if you consider it to be wrong then you need to show this by providing the reliable sources that you claim to exist. Having no vested interest, I am always open to new sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If an author make statement from his or her view point / frame of mind,it is unjustifiable to quote such statements as reliable.( ex: is it acceptable the remark of a person , who claims that the sun rises because of the rooster's crowing ) So certain communities may have had enjoyed the privileges of power for some period of time, by oppressing others, which does not imply that they had the same status ever since and always.

Corindia (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

user reopening settled issues in other pages

Dear Sitush, It seems user hari7478 is reopening settled issues in iyengar page to other pages in Sri Sampradaya and Sri Vaishnava. Please help!! FastnFurios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, i never brought older issues into other iyengar related pages(sri sampradaya). The edit was made simultaneously while making the older revision. Thereafter , either i neglected the sri sampradaya page, or i forgot to make newer revisions. Also, i'm hereby providing the diff of edits that this user made so that you can know his intentions.

Diff 1:[2] - user:fastandsurious's edit comment - "sensitive information should be supported by world renowned authors".

Reply: However, as per WP verifiability sensitive info should be supported by neutral parties. Just because the author is indian doesn't mean her works are insignificant.

Diff 2: [3] - Unnecessary addition of "see also" section in the thenkalai page. The info box and the links in the main article serve the purpose of the "see also" section. Also the user had mischievously added "ahobila mutt" under that section trying to relate the mutt to the thenkalai branch without neutral party sources.

Although these issues have been discussed in the talk page, this user is just being a troll by reopening the same issues that were discussed in full length and settled. Need i say more? Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussions pertaining to other wiki pages discussed in an unrelated talk page??

Sitush, a user has opened a discussion in the Iyengar talk page which seems to be unrelated to the Iyengar wiki page, rather concerning the thenkalai wiki page. The user has been copy pasting the same/spamming across various talk pages. See here - Talk:Iyengar#Ahobila_Mutt_5th_Jeeyar_Thenkalai. Though i've responded with an explanation, the discussion is about another wiki page, and not about the edits in the iyengar page. Don't you think that discussion should be removed right away? Can you do it? Because I don't know if it is right on my part to delete another user's talk page comment(although that discussion is unrelated to the Iyengar page). Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hari7478, Sitush is having a short break for medical reasons, but I'm sure he'll respond when he's recovered and is back here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Was thinking all the while why Sitush is not intervening. Thanks for letting us know this. Good to know Sitush is doing well. Any idea when he is coming back? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

BTW, Fastnfurious is not bringing up unrelated topics. When Sitush returns, we can have a proper discussion on it. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush doing well

Just a quick update for talk page stalkers - I've heard from Sitush, and his recent medical procedure went well, he's been discharged from hospital, and is having a relaxed recovery. He'll be back here when he feels up to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good news! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to Know ← Abstruce ^(Talk) 06:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Boing. It's nice to know Sitush is doing well. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to know of his recovery - Let him be back when he fees great.Rayabhari (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Boing. Good to know! --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wish you a speedy recovery.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lyrics

99% chances are "you" and 1% chance someone else has posted a message as "Sitush" at my talk page. This is the reply: Ah alright! I was waiting for you there and that's why did not say anything "yes" or "no"! Do you think article needs to be fully protected until you come back? --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk but please do use the "Email this user" link on the left here if you want further confirmation - I can understand the concern and AGF is not a suicide pact. Thanks to all those who have left messages above also, but I really need to step away from this for a bit longer. See you soon.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you might want to keep an eye on Barai (caste), where Theoppulent has been having some issues. They've already had numerous warnings and a {{uw-castewarning}} but it seems not to have sunk in. No need for knowledge of the subject matter because the content problems are self-evident. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you admin?

Hello,

Are you admin? --¢ℓαяк (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sitush is on a break at the moment and is not around to answer your questions, but I can answer that one - no, he is not an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are admins here? --¢ℓαяк (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of administrators for a list. But I might be able to help you more if I know why you want to know - is there some specific admin action you want done? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help in removing a topic. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I also regularly work in the topic area of Indian castes, which it seems has been your focus. Sometimes I work as an administrator, and sometimes as an editor (we're not allowed to do the both at the same time). If you'd like, I can help; it may be easier to raise the matter on my talk page rather than bothering Sitush's. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Use steps as instructed in WP:AFD for removing some topic. Or if the article fits one of the criteria, you may also use WP:CSD. And instead of being so secretive about it if you directly tell us which article it is, you might get better help. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's presumably Saini, which ¢ℓαяк tried to speedy delete with the reason "A bogus article". I'm just heading over to User talk:Clarkpoon to try to explain. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Clarkpoon#Saini -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request clarification

Hi Sitush, Hope you are doing well now. Wanted to know why and on what basis did you make changes to the disputed section on "Ethnicity, genes and origin" despite the unresolved discussion on the Iyengar talk page? And that too despite typing out each page of sources (way back in June 2012) as provided by Hari7478 (which he has misquoted to pass off his racist views). Since you did that, Hari7478 now claims "Other users/admin have reviewed & edited the current revision". Am filing for arbitration (on Hari7478) and your explanation (why you edited the disputed section despite the unresolved discussion) will be helpful. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm just not up to dealing with this or anything else involving seasoned debaters of content/behavioural issues at the moment, sorry. The back-and-forth demands more time and concentration than I can give it. I'm also using someone else's PC and am unwilling to sign in because of that, and I think there might be a considerable risk that which ever parties disagreed with me would lay a charge of socking.

You'll either have to wait or go ahead. Please be careful of WP:BOOMERANG: I hope that you do not mean ArbCom when you refer to "arbitration", especially since throwing around accusations of racism etc is very dodgy territory. Sorry that I cannot be of any more use right now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Both are currently blocked for edit warring on that page Sitush. Hope you're doing well. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And I hope the same thing. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2013 (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 a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Royal College, Colombo".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank you for your efforts and extraordinary patience in making Iyengar article better. Best wishes. Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedians missing u!! Dear Sitush, I hope u r recovering well n' fast. In absence of u, there are several pages started being vandalized like Chamar, Jatav, Mahar n there must be many more. For example in Jatav and Chamar they have added Todd's listing claiming they are part of 36 royal races. It is impossible to deal with them, who edit from new ips or freshly created IDs, w/o a person like u watching over these articles. Wish u a fast n speedy recovery.Jethwarp (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I'll start looking into Chamar. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Qwyrxian, if possible pl also look into Jatav, I had removed the content and has been added back [4] by some fresh Id.Jethwarp (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Sitush, You are being missed :( A cigar for You According to Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, "A smoke in times of rest is a great companion to the solitary soldier." I wish, Your earthly body recovers swiftly :) ← Abstruce 16:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC) !! Hi Sitush I unilaterally disengage from caste articles and any discussions therein with you , for next 2 months . Get well soon : ) Intothefire (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC) There is no need to disengage from anything other than time-consuming collation of perceived inconsistencies. I mean, you might have the time to spare but your success rate is very low and it consumes a vast amount of other people's time that could be better spent improving the project elsewhere. None of us are perfect and if you try to compare, say, something done a couple of years ago with an action from last week then sooner or later you will find an inconsistency: people change, policies and guidelines change, sources change etc. It really is not a terribly productive thing in which to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Hi Sitush I unilaterally disengage from caste articles and any discussions therein with you , for next 2 months . Get well soon : ) Intothefire (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC) There is no need to disengage from anything other than time-consuming collation of perceived inconsistencies. I mean, you might have the time to spare but your success rate is very low and it consumes a vast amount of other people's time that could be better spent improving the project elsewhere. None of us are perfect and if you try to compare, say, something done a couple of years ago with an action from last week then sooner or later you will find an inconsistency: people change, policies and guidelines change, sources change etc. It really is not a terribly productive thing in which to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Welcome .... ... back! --regentspark (comment) 13:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I'll still be on a go-slow for a bit and it'll take me a while to go through my watchlist. Anyone fancy a wager on how long before I'm reported to ANI for something caste-related? - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Not to long, I should think. BTW, Blade is giving a talk on 'editing on caste' at a Wikipedia event today that I was hoping to attend but the spouse has stuck me with child care duties. :( --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Really? Although he's likely got a lot of his experience in the Indic aspect via me, I am not going to admit responsibility for any errors! I wonder if he has a transcript - I'd be interested to see it. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Good point. I'll pop a note on his talk page and ask. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Welcome back! We've kept the cookies warm! Welcome back to Wikipedia, Sitush. I see that you've returned after a period away and wanted to thank you for your contributions. If you haven't seen them before, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:99.22.29.198 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages How to write a great article Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. I hope you enjoy editing here again and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome back! Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Just wanted to give you the links to decrease your chances of getting in trouble for something :). Very glad that you're feeling better. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC) wlcm bck stsh I doubt that those links will prevent me getting into trouble. In fact, it is those links that cause the trouble: if everyone could just write what the heck they know to be true etc ... BTW, I've never yet looked at Wikipedia:Article development, so perhaps now is the time. Anything to prolong a look at the outcome of the ArbCom proceedings, of which I've heard nothing but really, really could do with avoiding until my blood pressure is nearer to where it should be. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I am so happy to see you back! Don't let anything here get your blodd pressure up. It certainly isn't worth it. However, should you ever need assistance with anything, please feel free to ask. I am always willing to help even if we don't often agree. Again, welcome back!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks. As far as I am aware, any differences that we have had relate to a specific issue that has nothing much to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. It was one disagreement and it was the personal aspect that caused the problems. We'll probably never agree on the relevance of that but it really does not stand in the way of what we are here for and I do very much appreciate your thoughts. I will not be up to full speed for a while yet but have done a bit of editing as a 2.* IP over the last few weeks (I tried to declare it as best I could but probably not as well as I should have done). - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Here's to your health, Sitush! (Lifting invisible glass for a toast to you.) --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, you are still with us. That is good news, indeed. I hope that the invisible glass contained actual liquid. Thanks, Orlady! - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Hey Sitush, Greetings from India as well ← Abstruce 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Welcome back! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I'm late to the party, but I'm also glad to see your return!! LadyofShalott 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, all. Given how the "Arbitrary heading" thread below is developing, I may be back on the cardio ward before too long :( - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Arbitrary heading Hello sitush, do you have any recommendation regarding a page that i can go to on how to do categories? Also regarding Raju page, not exactly sure what you mean. I'm pretty well versed on the topic as well as other communities from AP and am working to make it a better page, with citations. Not exactly sure what a sockpuppet is but I have not made any changes that would be regarded as unconstructive or unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Hi, can it wait until tomorrow? I rather thought that you might ask this question about categories and I'm sorry not to have given you some links in the first place. They are complicated beasties and sometimes seem almost to be in a Wikipedia world of their own. I learned what little I know about them the hard way - by looking at what others do and checking the odd guideline or policy - but they are not my strong point. I do know that your attempts are largely (but not completely) the wrong way to deal with things but I need to find some decent explanation, especially for how overcategorisation is frowned upon. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I've found the article: WP:Overcategorization should hopefully go a long way to explaining the issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Would you mind telling me what a "reliable" source is in your expert opion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) One of Wikipedia's major policies is that statements in our articles must be verifiable. Verifiability is ensured by using reliable sources. With some exceptions, there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding what is or is not a reliable source, at least in part because we operate on the basis of consensus and so things can change over time. An example of something that is (and is likely always) going to be considered unreliable would be an open wiki such as jatland.com: anyone can edit that, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia, and thus there are inherent problems regarding the authoritativeness of the content. Similarly, we do not cite our own articles, although that is primarily because it would create a circular reference. More usually, the reliability of a source often depends on the purpose for which it is being cited. For example, a self-published source would be reliable only for basic facts in an article about a living person: we want independent, neutral sources and not ones that are likely to have bias because they are written by the subject but it is usually safe to accept, for example, the subject's disclosure of when and where they were born (although, yes, sometimes they do mess around with their own ages!) On the other hand, a recent book written by an tenured academic and published by a university press is almost without exception going to be considered prima facie reliable for, well, just about anything that it deals with. I am unsure of the context that gives rise to your question but hopefully some of the links in this reply will help. We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard for assistance with any protracted problems but even there you will not get a specific answer to your question because there is no context. RSN is also, in my opinion, something of a last resort: issues should first be raised on article talk pages etc. Feel free to ask a more specific question here. For example, what article are you thinking of, what source and for what statement(s) in the article? I'll try to help you although, as I say above, it is more usual to raise the issue on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your info, Is a court ruling with it's rational for the ruling not considered reliable information. Is the court of public opinion considered more reliable than the court of law? If not by what intellectual logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC) No problem - glad to help. Court rulings and similar legal documents are primary sources. We are not qualified to assess/interpret them and therefore they are unreliable in the Wikipedia sense of the term. This issue has cropped up on several Indian caste articles in my time on Wikipedia and the consensus has always been the same. In particular, the Raj courts were known for weird and contradictory rulings, among a myriad of cases relating to sanskritisation (or "usually puffery", if you want the cynical term). Find a secondary source of good standing that mentions the ruling and you may have a chance, but the primary source itself is a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Please read http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1984271/?type=print. It is the court ruling from the Andhra Pradesh High court. It was brought to contest an election petition by a member of the Raju community. It gives a detailed account of the rational for the ruling. You don't have t interpret it, it tells you excatly why they ruled for it. The candidate who did not want to be designated as a Kshatriya used many of the sources wiki deems as valid to argue his cause, yet the court found they were not legitimate sources. It basically states anyone belonging to the Raju caste has to acknowlege themselves as "Kshatriya" for the purposes of procuring an election seat or a reservatio seat. It makes no sense to argue about a castes varna status without citing this ruling. Basically in real life, if a Raju tries to get a seat in school, or run for an election post, he must apply or run as a kshatriya or they will lose their seat for fraud. Now the only logical way to present this is to have a section stating thier legal status and then a section of how they may have gotten thier status using the existing citations that have been deemed "varifiable" by wiki users. Do you not agree? On a side note, do you seriously feel there is a consistant, understandable flow to the existing article, I personally think it is mess.99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I have already read it and it is not reliable. As for the article, well, it is poor. Most caste articles are so precisely because of people using unreliable sources, no sources at all, poor English and all the usual other issues. Don't blame me - go fix it. Provided you operate within the constratins (sometimes maddening, I admit) of our policies. I must say that I am still very concerned that you may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, however much this may appear to be a lack of assumption of good faith. There are some odd things going on around the Raju topic (not just the main article itself) at present and there is a history involving a proven sock. I realise that you have said you are doing your own thing but even in the last hour there have been some peculiar patterns. I really do think you need to take this to the article talk page and gain consensus because otherwise you could get tarred with an inappropriate brush due to the actions of other IP editors who are currently showing up. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC) From wiki: A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets. How am I in anyway going to fall in this category. Every time I have made edites i have included sources, we may debate how valid their are in your opinion. Is it your opinion that I am trying to make a puff piece out of this? I have made an effort to show all sides to the story, I haven't removed any of the contrary citations, how can that be the actions of a sockpuppet? As far as having a discussion, you have stated that what is deemed varyfiable and not is arbritary, and even your link about primary sources doesn't deem court rulings as not valid. When having these discussions, who is the final arbritator about what is a concensus, you?99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I am not saying any more here. It is the wrong venue and I am fed up of repeating myself when it comes to issues such as this. I hate to say it but I will: these court documents have never been accepted as a reliable source on any caste article or at WP:RSN. Go to Talk:Raju and get more opinions. Then you will discover what consensus is, and it will not be in your favour. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC) So basically you will not allow any information that you don't approve onto this article. Anytime i make an edite you will undo it. Nevermind, this is a waste of time and a joke, but enjoy your wiki.99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC) It is not up to me. I've explained how things work. - Sitush (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Genetics - Iyengar article I can prove that the other user(Mayasutra) is just uncomfortable with the contents of the genetic sources, coz i feel that he is opposed to linking iyengars with europeans. It is a very clear circumstance in this case. Playing down all sources related to genetics just because one user is uncomfortable with it, is sad. I feel that(in my opinion) he may be toying around in the talk page, & i can prove it to you with his varying/self contradictory comments. Anyhow, this one is a clear case. Hari7478 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC) For the last time, don't bring article disputes to user talk pages. Keep them on the article talk page. And just stop the sniping and personal attacks. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Jat people Hi there, Thanks for your message regarding Jat people. You've done great work maintaining the article - but I have a few doubts about the recent addition of the Nijjar source. It seems to me as though the book is attempting to perpetuate the author's own view of Jat origin; asserting a certain origin theory based solely upon the writings of colonial administrators. Now, although the addition is accompanied by valid citations, I'm sure you are aware of how contentious this issue can be, and often filters into other articles related to Jat people on Wikipedia, most often in ways that are unconstructive and reek of WP:OR. I think the article would benefit from the omission of the Indo-Scythian mention, as this often becomes the focus of edit wars and 3RR etc. It is a subject that interests me, however, and I've done a bit of digging around on the genetic basis for such assumptions, which seem to disprove any genetic basis for perceived separateness of Jats from their surrounding populations. I encountered a website yesterday which seems to be dedicated to the genetics of South Asia, by testing the DNA of various South Asian populations to determine genetic affinities. Two infographics I found also include Jat participants and it is clear that the genetic makeup of Jat populations is overwhelmingly similar to their surrounding populations, which disproves any idea of a separate Scythian origin of Jats, speaking of which seems to have arisen as part of 'divide and rule' colonial policy and could therefore be considered as conjecture. I am also not sure how the Nijjar reference complies with WP:PUS, as it appears that his text is merely taking the opinions of colonial administrators as verbatim in order to assert his own view that Jats are Scythians; something that I'm not sure is any better than what the likes of 'jatworld' and their ilk seek to perpetuate. The links that are of interest are here: [5] and [6] and I was wondering if you felt that it would be appropriate for this information to be included on the Jat people page, maybe as part of a statement affirming that there is no genetic basis for the Scythian origin theory of the aforementioned community. I think it would be refreshing to counteract dubious colonial claims with genetic evidence; definitely something of encyclopedic value. I would have liked to have found published journals with genetic information on Indian communities but it seems like the Harappa Ancestry Project is the only source for such information right now. Let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks, TheSuave© I do not care for Nijjar and have said so on the talk page, where I also said that I included him for reasons of neutrality and because he is an modern academic source, however poor I consider his Origins book to be. I also said somewhere (perhaps an edit summary in the last few days) that the Indo-Aryan claim was as unproven as the Scythian one. The bizarre World Jat Aryan Foundation goes so far as to claim that the people of Serbia are in fact migrant Jats from India! Nijjar is not the only modern supporter of the Scythian theory, by the way. I am not keen on including genetics papers in caste articles, period. There has been a row rumbling on for several weeks at Talk:Iyengar concerning just this issue and it has gone on elsewhere in the past. Basically, they are primary sources, they are magnets for POV warriors, their conclusions are often based on very small samples and they make huge assumptions about the static nature of caste identity that simply defy historical evidence. And, after all that, they produce arcane information about "clusters" and similar that simply cannot be related in a meaningful way to any caste article. The outcome has always been the exclude the information when such rows have occurred in the last couple of years, but that might reflect my participation! My own preference would be to remove all such claims of origin from these articles - even Brahmin ones, since some claim that the Brahmins were originally Dravidian while others say Indo-Aryan - but I doubt that can be carried. So, in the pursuit of neutrality, we end up in the unhappy state of either saying that we are all descended from apes or having to include all viable opinions shown in prima facie reliable sources even when some seem likely to not far from WP:FRINGE. I seem to recall that I've raised this issue at WT:INB but if I did then it is some time ago. I certainly queried the reliability of Nijjar there quite recently and was astonished to discover that he was an apparently respected academic. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I understand that you do not care for Nijjar, and I think it is admirable that you are including said source in the article even though you are not convinced of the merits of it, for the sake of neutrality. My issue is this: whenever there is a source mentioning colonial theories of origin on the Jat page, it acts as a wrecking ball that bulldozes through large numbers of articles relating to specific Jat clans, Indo-Scythians, Sakas etc. Suddenly you begin to notice dubious insertions on a large number of pages, as some editors think that they are qualified to link Jats to all sorts of (mainly European) groups since the main article mentions a colonial theory linking Jats to Scythians, which is a dubious theory in itself. My rationale for the possible inclusion of some sort of genetic study would be counteract such nonsense, since I am almost certain that the inclusion of the Nijjar reference will likely lead to a barrage of WP:OR on pages relating to Jat clans at some point in the future. I also understand that the inclusion of genetic information is problematic in itself, so my view right now is that the Nijjar reference and reference to Indo-Scythian origins should be omitted from the Jat people page, since this information always leads to largely negative effects on a large number of pages relating to Jats, and often become a point of contention and edit warring. The colonial theories are largely based on links made between the cognate of the word 'Jats' and other groups, without any substantive scientific evidence for these links. Nijjar may be an academic (even after looking at your query of Nijjars's work I still don't see enough material to refer to him as a 'respected academic') but his work is largely replicating colonial theories without mentioning any recent research that he has carried out on the topic, and it does seem as though the Jat-Scythian linkage theory has been notably absent in a lot of academic work in recent times - possibly a sign of obsoletion? Once again, you do a lot of great academic work on here, and it is refreshing to discuss a situation such as this with a knowledgeable editor. I do think, however, that the Indo-Scythian mentions on the Jat page should be omitted, for the reasons mentioned above. I also agree with your omission of the Indo-Aryan mentions on the page too. Many thanks, TheSuave© User:RTPking Hi Sitush, this user has been here for around three months. I highly suspect that he is a sock of User:Padmalakshmisx who was known for constant POV pushing in Telugu cinema article. While I started a SPI case before a while, the CU closed the case marking that the account is no way connected with the previous socks. While an RFC is going on in the talk page of Telugu cinema article this edit made by them has increased my suspicion. I'm pretty much sure that the user has shifted to some other place or might be using a new hand for editing purposes. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, yeah. That edit alone certainly looks like Padmalakshmisx. However, if a CU turned up nothing then we are going to need a lot more stylistic evidence. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Are there any linguistic tells? Particular words, common errors, sentence patterns, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I am off out for my blood test soon but will try to compile something later if I can concentrate. The stringing of question marks is typical, for sure, but mostly it is gut feeling from having seen so much from them in the past. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You! WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013. Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Radical Changes Please dont hack and slash the memon article until you discuss the changes with people who have worked on the article. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) Not required in situations such as this. The article violated WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and so on - this is a well-known issue with caste articles and while I may have got it wrong in this instance, the chances are unlikely and BLP pretty much trumps your revert until youchallenge it. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Restoration of deleted edits Sitush Ji, You have removed an inline source calling it dubious. These are not dubious entries. The sources were duly mentioned (given in Roman Urdu along with English translation) which you have deleted too. Moreover, this specific information was long ago gathered by Zia Fatehabadi’s main biographers, a) Malik Ram and b) Zarina Sani, and is part of their respective works. a) “Is kii tahqeeq to nahin ho sakii ki yeh khaandaan fatehabad mien kab se aabaad hai, lekin mojoodah muamlaat kii ru se yeh muthaqaq hai ki 1773 mein unke moras-e-aalii lala badal das ke pote llala tansukh rai vahaan maujood the.” (The search as to when this family had come to settle in Fatehabad could not be conducted but on the basis of available information it is evident that Lala Tansukh Rai, grandson of Lala Badal Das, lived there.) - Zia Fatehabadi Shakhs aur Shair (July 1977) by Malik Ram page.9 b) “zia fatehabadi, soni (khatri) khaandaan se ta-aluq rakhte hain… haridwaar ke panditon ke paas jo record mahfooz hai us se pata chaltaa hai ki lala badal das soni ka pota lala tansukh rai 1773 mein fatehabad se haridwaar teerathyatraa kii gharaz se aayaa.” (Zia Fatehabadi belongs to Soni (Khatri) family.. it becomes known from the records with pundits of Haridwar that Lala Tansukh Rai Soni, grandson of Lala Badal Das Soni had come from Fatehabad to Haridwar in 1773 on a pilgrimage trip.”) - Booda Darakhat (1979) by Zarina Sani page.14 Therefore, you are requested to restore the edits that you deleted on 01/03/2013. Thanks. By the way, whereas a full Wikipage on Dora Annie Dickens, the infant daughter of Charles Dickens who lived for a year or so, deemed notable, is acceptable, but not the page on Zarina Sani, the reputed author and poetess, which was deleted on the ground that she lacked notability. You have found mention of Soni Hindu Kapila Gotra Kshatriya in the case of Zia Fatehabadi objectionable but mention of Nambudari parentage as also of gotram and sutram in the case of Adi Shankara, and of Hindu family and Shakya clan in the case of Gautama Buddha, or mention of Saljuq Turk in the case of Ghalib not objectionable. The Indian Govt. seeks info. about caste and religion from its citizens then why this self-imposed restriction via so-called Sanskritisation. Don’t you find this restriction unwarranted? The relied upon page nowhere debars mention or inclusion of such info in the Wikipages created. Regards. Enjoy good health.Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Common_Origins_Section. Message added Hari7478 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Common_Origins_Section. Message added Hari7478 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Use of GENI site as a citation Hi Sitush, while this question may sound pointless, wanted to get your opinion on whether the [[ http://www.geni.com/projects/Kashmiri-Pandits-KP/4154 | following GENI website]] may be used as a citation in the KP & Kaul articles. While it uses content from the Kashmiri news network, it provides an interesting insight into how the various Kashmiri Pandit names originated. -Ambar (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC) The url you give is a redlink - have you mistyped it? - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC) ANI FYI. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Opinion sought I am eager to have your or your project's opinion about the verification of dates (already arrived/now arrived at on the basis of available astronomical data) using Planetarium Software conducted by B.N.Narahari Achar, whereby he has confirmed the Mahabharata War date as 22/11/3067 BCE, date of Nirvana of Gautama Buddha as 27/3/1807 BCE, period of Mauraya rule as 1535-1219 BCE, date of birth of Adi Shankara as 5/4/509 BCE etc. This has reference to his essay - Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata included in the book - Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes (http://indicethes.org/PROC14.PS.pdf). Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC) I am sceptical but for reasons that are difficult to explain and may well be influenced by my preconceptions and also my lack of understanding of astronomy. I am aware that astrology - a different thing - can play quite a significant but generally-considered "hocus pocus" role in matters such as this. I think that your best bet, assuming that you have attempted discussion on the talk pages of relevant articles, would be to refer it to WP:RSN. I am sorry that I cannot really offer any more assistance than this. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Sudhirkbhargava recently tried to use a conference report as a reference for earlier dates of Rig Veda. Among the various studies summarized in this report was a study on astronomical dating based on Planetarium Software. Discussions about the report (not the study individually) took place at my talk page, Talk:Ayurveda and at RSN. Please note the WP:Redflag concerns raised at every forum. Fringe theory concerns will also be raised if a study tries to date the Maurya empire to 1500 BCE when they so obviously had contacts with the Greeks. I wouldn't recommend using B.N.Narahari Achar's essay as a reference for earlier dates of anything. It can of course be taken up at RSN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) You can not add these speculated dates, howsoever precisely they are calculated with help of any world's-best software, as they are certainly a point of debate and need opinions from other experts. Have these dates been accepted, not globally, but at least on a bit wider scale worth of noting? For eg. Shivaji's DOB is accepted as 19th Feb by various experts and the Government and is thus observed also. Even if they are accepted, you may add these dates, not representing them as a fact, but merely speculation. That too, you may add only if they are backed by some expert of the field, other than the main proposer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, CK and D, for commenting. It is slightly off my normal subject area but I have doubts about much of this type of stuff & especially in the Wikipedia context. I am pleased to see at least two other people recognise the latter as a concern. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Neutrality Tags Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove the tags on the Lohara dynasty page and use the talk page! Lets build a better Wikipedia together! (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) Don;'t be so bloody stupid. You have failed to explain what the alleged POV is and are being point-y. Just stop it or engage in proper discussion. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Please go back to discussion board and re put up the neutrality tags. Thank you for helping me make wikipedia a better place! :) I look forward to our discussion. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) I won't (as I've already told you) and I don't look forward to the discussion, sorry. I am expecting another saga demonstrating a poor understanding of our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Arbitrary heading: Koli Hi, sitush, Please let me know, why my comment has been removed from "koli people". I have given a reference also. If I am wrong then please let me know the actual koli people from MUMBAI. I want to know this as my wife is also koli and her village is colaba mumbai. Actually I have been searching for Mumbai koli people book but i hardly find any document for same. -Thanks prashant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, there have been various changes at Koli people recently. I presume that you are referring to this information. The second paragraph of that contribution has been removed on numerous occasions recently and I am not sure if all the additions of it were made by you. That paragraph is complete trivia and has no place in an encyclopedia; worse, it is a copyright violaton. As for the first paragraph of your contribution, well., I can see nothing in the source that supports the statement that most Mumbai Kolis are East Indians and the source is not great even if I could see such a thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Re: Lowkeyvoice [Wearily.] Just leave him be. He'll make whatever decision he makes; he's clearly not going to listen to you, and I've run out of words with which to explain, so I really don't think there's much to do but wait. I know I don't have any right to be weary of this whole situation, considering that you've been in the thick of it the entire time, but still; blocking people like that makes me feel tired. :P If he goes back to his old tricks when the block expires, then the next stop is indef (maybe routed through AN(I), I dunno), but I'm still blindly optimistic that maybe he'll just agree to leave you alone altogether. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I've already decided to ignore him, thanks. However, the problem does not just relate to me - there is all the Saffron Terror stuff, for example, and I've had no involvement in that at all. Can a vanished user return as an IP? - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Technically not. Vanishing = Never returning. But, let's wait 3 days and see if he really vanishes. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC) If he's vanishing, fine. If he comes back a changed person, also fine. If he comes back and is disruptive again...I'll suck it up and compile the diffs for ANI. Thank you for the temporary reprieve, Writ Keeper. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Category:Kallar Hi,I am pointing to the same reference material that was used by Wikipedia.Using it as a reference partially will portray a group of people in a negative connotation and you cannot argue that i am using a weak reference from British raj. That reference was in Wikipedia for more than a year and i got the necessary approval for using that.In fact one of your moderators advised me to use that. Please refer my talk page if you need more information. Thanks -- preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunnattar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 March 2013 UTC template, header added, minor copyedit --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Tito. Arjunnattar is now aware that this issue is being dealt with at Talk:Kallar (caste). - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC) List of Nadars Hi, this is to let you know that the page List of Nadars was..re-edited by you,and had deleted out many reliable links and features..This is to tell you that it was briefely edited by me and my team...the information was properly reliable and if you are not pleased with it , you can do extensive research in the internet and any further deletion would lead to further action by Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr n Mrs (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Please see your talk page and that of the article. Please do not meatpuppet. And please do not violate WP:BLP. Finally, the burden is on you to provide evidence of verifiability, not me. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Rp You reverted a change that I made earlier today on the Jiddu Krishnamurti page in which I used the Template:Rp to tidy up the citations. As far as I'm aware the template:Rp is still current and the reasons for using it remain valid, i.e. "It is a solution for the problem of an article with a source that must be cited many, many times, at numerous different pages". What is your justification for reverting my edit? Vacarme (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CITEVAR, although I did not specifically refer to those in my comment on the article talk page. Jiddu Krishnamurti has been a problematic article since a group of editors based at New York Public Library became involved with it many months ago - you'll spot their work in the 65.88.88.* IP range but they refused to register accounts. There was much discussion on their talk pages and in the (now archived) article talk threads. They went so far as to threaten the likes of myself and Sunray with appeals to WP:ANI, Jimbo etc but never followed through. The article around that time was among the largest on Wikipedia and it was turning into a full-blown academic paper. However, WP is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. The article is still a mess of trivia etc but better than it was. Frankly, it is of peripheral interest to me but one definite improvement among your recent contributions has been the splitting of footnotes from citations. I slightly amended the format of that because {{efn}} has come around and is (I am told by people with far more Featured Article experience) to be preferred. The JK article could and should be featured but it needs a fair amount of work first. You are welcome to continue towards that goal. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. Given that article needs a lot of work (I agree) I'm surprised that 'correcting' a variation in citation method deserved any attention especially when the References are so untidy and the change is, or rather was, for the better. I don't know if a consensus was previously reached on the matter but I doubt it - in my experience most people either don't know that there are alternative methods or if they do, they don't care. I'm aware of the policies you cite, but I've been around long enough to know that there are are times when using good editorial judgement and common-sense overrule other considerations. Vacarme (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) From the very start of CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. It was using a particular style and had been for a long time. There may have been the odd citation that did not conform but you efforts, well-intentioned although they were, introduced dozens of them. FWIW, I like {{r}} but I rarely get to use it. The NYPL people were well aware of the various styles available to them. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) The CITEVAR text to which you refer is actually about (not) varying between different formatting styles such as APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing. So, in the case of the said article, if the style is 'author/date/title/publisher' don't change it to 'title/author/publisher/date', and so on. This is completely different to introducing an (approved) mechanism for dealing with repeated or multiple citations to reduce clutter etc. Also, your pedantic insistence on not changing the "established citation style" doesn't really make sense when there are so many inconsistencies in the references as currently shown. If you prefer {{r}} it's a shame you didn't help me to apply it.Vacarme (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Woah-ho: don't you dare start having a go at me, accusing me of pedantry. Wrong, and it is why I also referred you to WP:CONSENSUS (which does not need to be recorded as it can be de facto). Now let's leave it alone, shall we? I am not in the mood to deal with it here, so find some suitable noticeboard if you wish to pursue this. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Need a review of edits by a possible problem editor Care to touch this one with a ten-foot pole? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) They're mostly removing unsourced content without providing an explanation. Or, least, that is what they did on the articles that had not already been reverted by Dougweller. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Testing Namaste, Sitush. You have received at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there! Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Talkback}} template. No new message there! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Very nice, although I'm not sure how much use it would get. In view of your "No new message there!" note perhaps you could set a trend by designing a template that says "You have no new messages at the Noticeboard for India-related topics"! - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions). The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @277  ·  05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Discuss this Patel Page Hey so what makes someone able to link a caste to a surname on the Patel page? A last name does not determine caste correct? The page is about a caste and the other page is about a surname(not a caste). I remember you taught me that Memon People page the people could not be listed because the last name is not caste unless there is proof. There is no proof that the people listed as Patel on the list are of the caste. This isnt an attack. Just trying to gain better insight what you logic is about this. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) As far as I could see, both the list and the article concern the surname. As far as I can see, neither mention caste. A last name cannot be used as verification of a specific person's caste - there are, for example, plenty of people called Nair who are unrelated to the caste of that name. I think that you are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm a bit busy doing some research relating to another Wikipedia issue but I'll get back to you concerning your earlier message in the section above. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [[7]] --> "This article lists people of the surname Patel, an Indian surname not necessarily tied to a specific caste or class." I think the list might actually be surnames and the article is related to castes. Let me know what you think. If this stands up, can I list all the people with the last name Memon on one page and link it similar to Patel.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) Don't start this palaver again, please. Show me the sentence in Patel that mentions the word "caste". You are way off-course and you are not going to game the system to suit your agenda at Memon people that led to a block. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I am being sincere. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) It would be easier for me to open tor portals and annoy the crap out of you. Seriously, this is a peace offering and I mean it. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) (edit conflict) Fine, if you are being sincere, but you are also wrong and are wrong in ways similar to those that caused issues previously. Show me that sentence containing mention of a specific caste or even the word "caste", please. If you want to open tor portals and annoy the crap out of me then feel free. You will lose eventually, and perhaps much sooner than you think. So I suggest you do not make threats like that, even disguised as comments. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I am trying to work with you. You have seniority and I am trying to take your understanding of the system. I do not view as an enemy but as a filter for how things work. Teach me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) Any chance that you can think before you write? You are drifting into another irritating recent habit of posting multiple messages and changes to messages in quick succession. It is a complete nightmare for others to deal with. And, FWIW, I am not senior to you. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [[8]] <--This is what I think we are. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) I do not do YouTube, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Okay. It is Steve Jobs explaining how a team works. Anyway- It is on the Patel list page the caste and surname quote. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) Huh? You mean the "This article lists people of the surname Patel, an Indian surname not necessarily tied to a specific caste or class." that you quoted earlier. How the heck does that sentence mean that the list concerns people of a specific caste? It actually says the opposite - "not necessarily" - and names no caste. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC) So lists of surnames can be compiled as long as they are not castes because they are self evident? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) If a notable person has the surname Lowkeyvision and an article about them on Wikipedia, and if there are other people with the same circumstances, then in theory they can be grouped as a List of Lowkeyvisions. See Sharma for another example of people sharing the same surname being listed, and note that it does not say they are all (or even mostly) of X caste or Y religion or Z sexual orientation, etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Interesting. Alright, my interests are obviously in the Memon People page because I wish to build it. I have a couple more questions for you. 1) What is the best way to confirm the ancestry of a caste of people. For example, how would you recommend I go about finding a list of people who are of Memon ancestry compiled by a third party. 2) I can get records from WMO and they keep records of who was a Memon or not. However, as you stated consensus is against "self published" resources. To this A) if WMO had a page, can their self published statistics go on that page? B) If "self published" data is not valid, then what makes things like the US census poll believable or statistics by human rights organizations. Aren't they self-published? Don't they also have conflict of interest? Thank you for the earlier clarification. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) I am not trying to solve this thing by tackling the root of this. I don't want to hold a grudge. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) Re: (1), I have no idea other than read WP:RS and take particular note of WP:BLP. I'd much rather such lists did not exist at all here because there is only rarely a connection between a person's caste and the reason for their notability. Regarding [2], the WMO is not independent of the Memon people, whereas the US Census Bureau is independent of them and of the > 99 per cent of the US population who do not work for it. In any event, the WMO census has been shown to be unreliable because you couldn't answer the questions posed of it, and the fact that they put their name to such a load of dodgy data has to raise questions about the reliability of anything they say. Just do not use them, except for statements about their own organisation's structure/history etc (not the Memon people's structure/history). - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC) The majority of Memons are not part of WMO. The mechanism of the census is something I do not know the internal mechanisms of because I am not part of the organization. I am taking this as a challenge to trace/do something that hasn't been done before the Memon People. I look forward to working with you. How does one document court cases? [[9]] "It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. " - Ghandi. Do you think that is true? . (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) I do not know for what you would intend to use that court ruling. However, it appears to be a primary source and such rulings are not usually considered acceptable. If you can find a secondary source that discusses it, preferably in context with any related rulings before and since, then you may be on to a winner. Personally, I avoid even those unless there are literally dozens of the things and they are broadly in agreement: lawyers, after all, generally make a good living out of offering different interpretations of what, to the layman, appears to be a simple case (sic) of the written word. You could try asking at the talk page for our Law Project, however. You really do not want to know what I think about Gandhi or religion: suffice to say that I am not of a religious inclination. In the Wikipedia context, we are all supposed at least to "rub along together" (a British phrase that may not carry well around the world, hence the quote marks) but there are exceptions. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC) A man that can free a billion people from slavery without a sword or a gun is worth merit to study. Humanism is a religion to some. Wikipedia:Randy in Boise are the only people truly worthy of rebuke and your energy would be better spent correcting. ;) Now I gotta start making the list. Thank you for the information. (Lowkeyvision (talk)) Hi there! Would you be so kind as to take look at my talk? And perhaps, a comment will not be too much to ask of you? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) BTW, it's about Rashmi Singh again. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Cyriac Pullapilly Fair enough as per his origin - I didn't read thoroughly enough before adding that category. Sorry. If we can't categorize him by citizenship, can we categorize his work better? Multiple "Historians of X" categories might apply, but that's still better than just "Historians." TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I've replaced it with Category:Historians of religion for now. That reflects the works that are noted. I need to dig through his journal papers etc at some point but it is low on my to-do list. The article was created primarily to assist with a dispute elsewhere regarding merits of various sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Ezhava Sitush, what is the core issue there? That Ezhava and Tiyya (Thiyya) are the same? I might be able to find some contemporary references for you if I know what to look for. --regentspark (comment) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. We have modern sources that say they are the same caste, in the sense that the community is identifiably one but known as Ezhava in one part of Kerala and as Tiyya in another. The different nomenclature has existed for a long time and modern sources acknowledge that the Tiyyas claim to be "ritually superior" to the Ezhava etc. On the other hand, people who are quite obviously from the Tiyya community have been turning up for many months trying to say that the two are distinct castes rather than one caste that uses different names in adjacent regions. This situation has been noticeable since the early part of 2012 when the Tiyya Mahasabha made a legal threat (see the article) & M. Knight Shyalamam's father made a claim that, based on a privately-commissioned study of his own DNA, the Tiyyas owe their origin to the ancient inhabitants of Kyrgyzstan. A lot of it appears to be tied to claims for preferential treatment under the OBC etc system. This latest fracas is not the first, nor has it been limited to the Ezhava article - there have been numerous attempts to create a separate article for Tiyyas, usually in quick succession. I have a strong suspicion that there is socking or meating going on, or at least some organised off-wiki canvassing, but ultimately I do not care. All I've ever asked for is reliable sources and they've never been able to provide anything other than Thurston, reports about Shyalaman and other stuff that emanates directly from the Tiyya community. Any info that you could point out to me would be useful, regardless of the "side" it takes. All I am here to do is reflect RS but it is becoming tedious having to rehash this thing every few months, especially when the "other side" cannot produce decent sources or, indeed, often a logical argument. Where is that man, Fowler?- Sitush (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Wow! I'll see what I can find but it looks like sources are not the issue. Now where did I put that DNA kit :) --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC) As far as I can tell, sources are not the issue except insofar as those making the claims have never produced any that comply with our policies etc. As my penultimate post says, this has been dragging on for years and they always come up with the same unacceptable stuff. There is an off-wiki campaign and if someone wanted to take a dim view of goings-on, the attempts to fork are in order to use WP as a soapbox for that campaign. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Here's what I got:  Tiyyas are the largest subgroup of Hindus in North Kerala. Since the 1940s, they have been able to transcend their low-caste status through educational and occupational achievements, caste reform movements, and through participation in political movements ("SOMEHOW IT HAPPENED": Violence, Culpability, and the Hindu Nationalist Community, RUCHI CHATURVEDI, Cultural Anthropology , Vol. 26, No. 3 (AUGUST 2011), pp. 340-362) Caste, Class and Economic Opportunity in Kerala: An Empirical Analysis, P. Sivanandan, Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 14, No. 7/8,, Annual Number: Class and Caste in India (Feb., 1979), pp. 475-480, Published by: Economic and Political Weekly, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367366. Here, the author doesn't explicitly equate the two but uses them interchangeably. The Relative Autonomy of Party Practices: A Counterfactual Analysis of Left Party Ascendancy in Kerala, India, 1934–1940, Manali Desai, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 108, No. 3 (November 2002), pp. 616-657, Published by: The University of Chicago Press, Article DOI: 10.1086/367919, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/367919. Here the author treats them as different castes with the Ezhavas as "intermediate" while the Tiyyas (or Tien) as "low-caste or polluting". There is a book by Dilip Menon "Caste, nationalism, and communism in South India : Malabar, 1900-1948" published by Cambridge U Press that might have more info. I'll take a look when I get to the library. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) That's great, thanks. The interchangeable usage is common and does not advance the situation we have, although it does not negate using such sources for other points/info. I think Chaturvedi is treating the two as the same but I've not read it for over a year & will have to see if I still have the copy that was sent to me. I have JSTOR access & can look at Desai, who seems to be taking a contrary view in positioning the Tiyya below the Ezhava (whether as one caste or two, Tiyyas seem generally to be regarded as ritually superior etc) - so, this is worth a good read. I've never seen the Menon book before - £25 on Ebay but I think I've spent enough on books for Wikipedia already this month! - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I'll email you a copy of Chaturvedi later today. I don't think she mentions Ezhavas at all but could be wrong. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Emailed! --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC) An FYI that I picked up Menon's book from the library. There is a lot of mention of Tiyyas but no mention at all of Ezhavas. I'm off on travels for a bit and won't be taking the book with me but will take a closer look when I get back. Hope things are well with you. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that. I've read Chaturvedi and, while it has some info that can be used in the article, it doesn't really help with the sticking point. I'll take a look at the JSTOR ones over the weekend. I am getting back up to speed but deliberately limiting my time here (I got a bit carried away last weekend and suffered for it). I hope that the travels are of the pleasant variety. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The P. Sivanandan source (E&PW at JSTOR) is not of much use. It refers to Thiyya in a heading of one table summarising data from the 1921 census but that is it. Every other mention is of the Ezhava. I don't think we can read the author's mind when it comes to citing in an article but, yes, they appear to be treating the two as being one. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Regarding Desai, I am not seeing a distinction. The article talks of the Tiyya of Malabar as being "low caste" and also refers to "low‐caste Ezhavas" in another district. As we already know, various sources have indicated that two names have a regional basis of usage. Since I am currently logged in at JSTOR, I'll dig around there yet again - I find it frustrating because their search mechanism keeps timing out and has done ever since I've had access. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Lets Restart Alright dude, going through your history of editing you are not a bad guy. You are a bit of a ripper of articles but that is understandable with the amount of garbage that can be posted on a free encyclopedia. I think you hit a nerve when you edited the Memon People page because it meant a lot to me, but judging by your history of editing it wasn't personal. I would like to apologize for over reacting. While you are a senior editor, you still need to read WP:BITE. There are some people on wikipedia who appear to have sinister intentions and I don't think you are one of them. I would still appreciate it if you would remove the muslims usurped the hindu ruler on the Loharna dynasty. It is the only edit I am requesting because it is somewhat offensive to those whose ancestry converted from Hinduism and hoping you will do it as gesture of goodwill. Thank you. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) Apology accepted. As for your request, well, we are not censored and if a reliably sourced something should offend one or another group of people then that is just unfortunate. I'm not sure that I understand why events of so long ago should cause such angst as you mention but "replaced" is very different from "usurped" and the latter is the term of choice in sources that I haven't even bothered to cite in the article, such as page 258 of Houtsma, M. Th (1987). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. BRILL. ISBN 9789004082656.. One that I have seen uses "deposed" instead but the point is that it was indeed an overthrow of a ruler. The article needs more sources and I know of some additional information that I've not got round to adding thus far, but it is not in need of censorship. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Do you think the word "usurped" has the same connotation as "replaced" or "overthrown"? What do you think the difference in these words is? Compare the following two sentences: 1)Bill Clinton replaced George Bush Senior as the president of the United States. 2)Bill Clinton usurped electoral power from George Bush Senior I do not think information should be censored. I just think when something as sensitive as religion is involved the word usurped should not be used to describe things. Do you think the phrase "The Christians usurped the pagan Romans" would be something that would be tolerable to many? Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) Clinton replaced Bush as president as a part of a legitimate legal process. Kota's position was usurped. They are not synonyms, as I said in my response above. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC) What does usurped mean? What is the origin of the word? Do you think the origin and the meaning of the word is consistent with Wikipedia:RNPOV? Would you be okay with getting a third opinion on this? I am not a very experienced editor of Wikipedia and unfamiliar with how policy of WP:RNPOV apply. Also there are words with different meanings in different parts of the world and this may be one of those words. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Sheesh, Lowkeyvision, I've conflicted with you yet again. Please, please can you put your brain in gear before writing something. We all mess things up from time to time but you seem to do so consistently and it is a darn nuisance. No, I do not agree with using the WP:3O process at this time. For someone so new to Wikipedia, you seem to know a lot about obscure policy areas etc but clearly you are not following due process here. You should have continued this thread at the article talk page, where it is likely others would see it and offer their opinions. People interested in the subject matter of the article are not necessarily interested in the goings-on here. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Can you please teach me how to go about discussing a change, specifically the process. It is something that is frustrating for new users because they dont know how go about helping imrpove the encyclopedia. At what point does one get WP:3O? At what point does one go to dispute resolution? While I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to think of myself as someone who is not an idiot ;) And I do not like to base things on fluff either because I need to have the ability to absorb large amounts of data and apply it correctly everyday. This includes ethical decisions I make everyday and medical ethics which are based on more Kantian ethics, which is where you will find most of my argument derived from. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) I have no idea what it is that you consider to be "fluff". Kantian ethics are irrelevant here; Wikipedia policies etc are relevant. See WP:TPG for some assistance with how talk pages are used. I've copied the relevant parts of this conversation to Talk:Lohara dynasty and marked it as such - hope this helps. A content dispute that is between two contributors primarily because other contributors do not know that a discussion is continuing to develop does not merit 3O and any sensible person who participates in the provision of 3O would immediately note this. If the dispute does not draw input from other interested contributors within a reasonable time - say, a week - then recourse to WP:3O would be reasonable. I say a week because, for example, that is the amount of time allowed for contest of proposed deletions. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) In that case let us resume: What does usurped mean? What is the origin of the word? Do you think the origin and the meaning of the word is consistent with Wikipedia:RNPOV? Also, I do not see this as a dispute but a discussion.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) You seem not to understand that this is the wrong venue but, for what it is worth, I've provided you with a source that actually uses the word in this context and I've mentioned that on the article talk page. Go there, please, because I am not responding any further here. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC) See talk page :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) March 2013 Your recent editing history at Chamar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Moved this to the end. You have clearly not checked Talk:Chamar - please do. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Muhammad Ilyas Qadri Considering that all sources for Muhammad Ilyas Qadri were self-published or otherwise violated WP:RS, do you think it's a candidate for WP:AfD? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Probably not. He likely has some fanatical supporters and there may be difficulties in finding neutral sources but see, for example, this. Both the man and the organisation that he founded look likely to be notable. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Good call on all points. I'll see what I can do, then. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Response to your comment on my talk page I am editing using my phone and iPad. If you do not want to discuss, then that is your own problem, not mine. But I will not allow you to make disruptive edits to the Chamar page. bal537 21:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) bal537 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) Banda Singh Bahadur Sitush! How are you? I have a question: can you look at the recent edit dispute and figure out who's right? I'm semi-protecting the article from IP edits, which is where most of the caste-warring came from. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC) It will take a while, I think, but I've left a note on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, it may now really kick off because I have removed 90% or so of the text - copyvio since 2006-ish. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Seriously? OK, I'll have a look and delete what needs deleting. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Ha, it was stubbed on 24 May 2006 already as a copyvio. The history got a lot shorter... Drmies (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Max Müller Hi, thank you for your interest in the Müller article. Obviously I have no "ownership" rights over the article, so you may edit it as you think fit. Yes, I have had it on my watchlist for a long time. I added a lot of content years ago, but I must admit I've done very little since. Most of the recent edits have been by Vacarme. I have partial access to Jstor, but only what my institution subscribes to. As for the content of the article, the main body of the article was written in the early days of Wikipedia when footnotes were unrequired and rarely to be found. I gave the article footnotes some years ago when a very very clumsy and primitive system was in operation. I'm sure that the article could be greatly improved with more up to date secondary sources. Unfortunately the only people who are consistently interested in it are Hindu nationalists who have a very distorted and confused understanding of Müller's role in 19th century culture and tend to repeat misconceptions and outright fictions repeated on Hindutva websites. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, dear. They've infiltrated this article also? I probably know less about the subject matter than you but I will keep an eye out. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For spotting the copyvios in Banda Singh Bahadur: thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) No problem, & thanks. For some daft reason, I was not expecting to see a copyvio dating from 2006. I perhaps should know better by now! - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC) thanx i thanks to you that you removed the word "brahman" from brief introduction of Banda Singh Bahadur .it was sure a wrong statement in that section and people who do not know much about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR could accept it as it is. but you forgot to remove the surname "bhardwaj".this is one of a leading surname of brahmins.it must remove immediately. in "early life " section there are diffrent theory of historians available.let the people read them and left the decision on themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramsinghantaal (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC) about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR article hello sitush i am requsting you again to remove the surname 'bhardwaj'joined with the BANDA SINGH BAHADUR,S early name 'laxman dass'.it was good that you removed the word 'brahman' but if you will not remove the 'bhardwaj' then it is useless,because bhardwaj is also a subcaste of brahmins.so to keep the brief introduction completely neutral.this change is required.i am not asking you to mention him rajput there,but to remove any cast identity till we not reach any final conclusion. thanking you. --Paramsinghantaal (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi_Singh Hi Sitush. Can you please check and let me know if the links which I have incorporated are good enough, Waiting Ananyaprasad (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Ananyprasad, I really do think that you need to drop this for now. You have only recently asked for comments here and you got replies from me and from Mrt3366. At that point, little had changed from the version of the article that was deleted some months ago ... and since that request for review all you have done is add a link to an Amazon biography, which is never reliable as a source and in this instance was not even necessary because you already had a source for the statements. Amazon biographies are often created from content submitted by agents, PR people etc or even the author. The idea here is not to amass more and more sources for the same thing, which can in fact lead to a situation known as citekill, but to demonstrate her notability. Neither you nor several experienced editors (including me) managed to do that at the time of the deletion discussion and since that situation still applies, well, if anything the copy that was put in your userspace (so that you could try to improve it) should probably be deleted now also. One day, she may be notable in the Wikipedia sense but that day is not now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Nimbalkar Hi Sitush, Please let me know why are you removed lots of information of Nimbalkar.... As I've seen you removed on dated 16/10/2012, Nimbalkar's clan, symbol like details... Please do needful ASAP Thanks & Regards, Vinod Nimbalkar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.123.235 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, I almost always add an edit summary to give a brief rationale for any addition or deletion. (Very occasionally, I've clicked on a mousebutton sooner than I intended). If you look at the history for Nimbalkar, which you can see here, then hopefully you can work out why I did whatever it was. If you still have queries then the best thing to do would probably be to start a discussion at Talk:Nimbalkar because that page is likely to be seen by more people than this one. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC) correction still awaited hello sutish, the correction about removing surname 'bhardwaj' is still pending.please read my previous post.waiting for ur reply. thnx.--Paramsinghantaal (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC) I replied to your original request on the article talk page some hours ago. There is no need to keep asking here as I have that talk page watched. Please also note that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia - your day-time might be someone else's sleep-time - and also that contributors here have real lives outside of the project. You cannot usually expect to get a rapid response to queries etc, although often you will. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Professionalism is the need of time You just refer to my Talk page and then discuss on commons page develop a consensus before making your self a judge and then a en forcing inspector deleting materials from 30 articles. Take time with professional attitude not an edit war engaging behavior. I well come the improvements you may propose to the map on commons if you are a linguist until then I am reverting your deletions because I inserted them first so you first prove map wrong then you can delete them in that case I will not object THANKS Maria0333 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC) It is very sad to see your persistent edit war engaging attitude. Waiting for valid argument on commons if you have some knowledge of Languages Maria0333 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I am not warring: you were socking by editing while logged out, and at least some of those edits were removed by people other than me. For the last time, Commons is the wrong place for a discussion about synthesis, which is a concern for Wikipedia. What do I have to do to cause you to understand this? - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC) You appear to me an edit warrior. You lack valid argumentation on Wiki commons that may result in a self image destruction as a time pass Wiki editor rather then a genuine professional WP editor. Please dont next time edit my Talk page because I dont want to waste my time on non professionals. I would rather prefer professional linguists to comment on my my class of art map Maria0333 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC) So that a consolidated content discussion related to the Punjabi dialects map can occur in one place on English Wikipedia (instead of many different places), I have created the discussion page File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. Please continue discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Illegitimi non carborundum It's hard to avoid that sort of situation. Hang in there! --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Sikkaligar Take a look, please. It's full of (entirely?) OR. My prod, based on its being OR was contested without comment. LadyofShalott 02:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Look at the accessdates in the Refs section. I am pretty sure that I've seen this article before and suspect that it is recreation of previously deleted content. The demographics stuff, including such sentences as "One family in Krishnapura Colony said they cook at most once a day" look like copyright violations: they are in the style of the People of India tripe published by the Anthropological Survey of India and based on British Raj amateur ethnography. I'll try to dig deeper later today but obviously I cannot see any prior versions, if they ever existed. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Hmmm... good point about the access dates. There are no deleted revisions for this article, only a couple deleted items of the active editor (neither of which would be prior versions of this), and there's no deletion log for Sikaligar. If it was on WP before, it's by some other name/spelling, and not by the account that's actively editing there. I'll have to do some deeper looking to see if I can identify a copyvio. LadyofShalott 00:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I cannot find an online copyvio at my end but it clearly is a copyvio of some sort of report. The KSWS website that is mentioned in the refs is currently awol and the relevant page is not at Wayback. KSWS = Karnataka Sikh Welfare Society and the specific page that is cited looks likely to be their joint project with the Nishkam Sikh Welfare Council. There are some mentions of them in books but many of those sources are unreliable and those which are ok appear as snippet views in GBooks as shown in the UK. I've tried searching some of the alternate names but that is a long job. They appear likely to be formerly classified as a criminal tribe but I'd hesitate to add info of any type without rock-solid sources, especially since there is room for confusion with the Sikligars. Or, rather, so the article claims. I really do not know what would be the best course to adopt here. I mean, the very fact that there is original research in the Names section makes reliable sourcing of all of this well-nigh impossible, other than by using the Nishkam website that may itself be referring to Sikligar. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I see mentions of them in a few things on Google books, but mentions in a list seem to be about all they are. I'll take it to AfD and let discussion decide it. LadyofShalott 19:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikkaligar I left out the copyvio discussion. It looks like OR to me, and that's the route I took; I figured you can add in your thoughts about copyright violations. LadyofShalott 19:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC) what is the matter with you. you have not time to correct a single word,but have enough time to incorrect it again.dont test me bro. you have no right to support wrong facts while you are a admin of a responsible site.do your duty with responsibility or find some another job. Paramsinghantaal (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Sitush isn't an admin and what he chooses to spend his time on here isn't a job. Quite frankly I'm amazed at the rubbish like this he constantly has to put up with. Were it not for him the Indian/caste articles would be in even worse shape than they are now, so rather than coming here with your aggressive bullshit I think you ought to be thanking him. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC) "... would be in even worse shape than they are now" - damned by faint praise or what, Malleus? <g> It seems that my bullshitting "bro" has been blocked. And all the drama happened while I was doing my day job. Yes, I have one, temporarily: fiddling around with lathes and TIG welding kits is, um, an experience for someone more used to working with wood chisels etc. The nearby scrap metal yard is seeing more business of late. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I could have worded that better, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I was talking about the entire corpus of Indian/caste articles, not those those you've worked on. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC) so this was the reason.when you gave such responsibilities to some part timer ,these things happenes.i think my 'bro' should take rest at the night time .you not take sufficient rest,thats why you receive bullshits . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.56.150 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Merging of Ramdasia page with Chamar page What do you think of merging the Ramdasia page with the Chamar page? FYI my old I'd was bal537 but I am no longer using that id because someone was able to find my personal information using that Id. TimesGerman (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) TimesGerman (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I am not familiar with the Ramdasia article but will take a look. There is a process for proposing merges of articles and that needs to be followed in almost all cases - see WP:MERGE. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, I've just redirected it to Chamar after clearing out the rubbish. Its sources were mirrors, Gyan, Global Vision etc as per my edit summaries here. I see that you added some of those sources, so hopefully you will now know to avoid them. See, for example, WP:MIRROR and User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Page on Hemu I appreciate your efforts on page Hemu. You did a great job on 21st Sept. 2012 trimming the page from 30754 bytes to 25770 bytes spending 10-12 hours. Also you had asked for references at 11 places, which I had given promptly. I have always put information on any page which is well supported since 2008. Hemu was the first page I worked on and major contents are uploaded by me. Since your last overhauling of page I am only managing it, not adding much, as page still has about 26000 bytes after adding citations. However, frequent edits continue. Could I request you to allow edits by experienced editors only ? Thanking you once again for taking care of page. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC) this The size of an article is not usually a matter for concern provided that it remains focussed on the subject matter, is reliably sourced and so on. There are occasions when it is desirable to fork articles but this situation is not one of those. The reason why I took things back in time was because there has been a considerable amount of edit warring going on and yet neither "side" has been discussing things. Some intervening contributions may have had merit but it is difficult to tell when so much poor behaviour has been apparent. As I said on your talk page and on that of one other recent contributor, it would be best to discuss any contentious issues at Talk:Hemu. As far as limiting contributions to experienced editors is concerned, well, we have the semi-protection process available for that - see WP:RFPP - but I'm not convinced that it is needed yet. If the warring starts again any time soon then either that will become necessary and/or some people are going to find themselves blocked. I am not an administrator and cannot enforce either of those measures but I am perfectly capable of requesting someone to do so. I really do suggest that you discuss the issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Amitabh Bachchan controversies Hello Satish, I see that the links/description added by me has been removed again. At the outset I would like to mention that the purpose of the content is not to malign but to bring forth to the general public facts which ascribe to the life of Mr. Bachchan. He is on record clarifying his position on the matter said and the information is a very important fact of his personal life. I believe hiding this fact from the general public, ostensibly due to the information "not being new" is not in good taste. His alleged involvement in a matter as serious as instigation of riots deserves mention on his public profile and if subsequently exonerated, can also be mentioned. The general public needs to be informed of all aspects pertaining to Mr Bachchans life. Not just those which sing paeans about his stature. This is a user contributed and moderated community and needs the support of all members.. DeeptiKhosla (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)DeeptiKhosla Hi, you would need to raise this issue at Talk:Amitabh Bachchan. If you have not already seen our policy relating to biographies of living people then I suggest that you read that first - just click |here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Re: Indic name Namaste, Sitush. You have received at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there! Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Talkback}} template. Re: Warangal Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page. Message added 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ANI notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Caste sanctions enforcement request. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) New article Thigala As is often the case, WP:UNCAT is a treasure trove for shoddy India articles. I ran across yet another one where the presence of "Kshatriya" in the first sentence got my spidey-sense tingling. Turns out, surprise of surprises, that it's a caste of flower and vegetable gardeners who around 1900 suddenly started calling themselves Vannia Kula Kshatriya (I made a stub for that term too). Standing by for the backlash when the original editor notes the clearly cited fact that in 1994 the Karnatak gov't declared the Thigala a Backwards Class... MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar You're fighting the food fight in a thankless and hostile area of the project, and fighting it well. Keep up the good work. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 01:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Basalisk. I'm well-known for my accurate throwing of eggs during food fights ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Horsefield I was confused by that edit too so I googled it and it seems to be sometimes with an e and sometimes not. this website says the e was lost when it was Latinized but then they also say he was a Scottish shoemaker :( I've emailed them pointing out the mistake. Richerman (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I've no idea what counts as the official register but I'd be happy with the edit if it was cited; as things stand, I'm just going off what is written elsewhere. Scottish?! Are you sure that website would be a reliable source for, well, anything? Although perhaps he made horse-shoes? Or even hors-shoes, although in the French version of that it might mean spats or, at best, anything but slippers. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Well they are American (bless!). Scotland, England it's all the same to them. Still they do have a nice photo of Horsefieldii :) Richerman (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I just got a reply to my email thanking me for pointing out the error. Hopefully it will be corrected soon. Richerman (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) They may even link to our article. Was that a pig I just saw fly past my window? - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC) No, I think it was a flurry of piggin' snow! Richerman (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) We Brits and our weather chat! I gather that the inclement weather affects the more posh suburbs also. There is indeed a god ;) I've been helping a mate out of a tight spot with a contract for Salford Sewage Treatment Plant that has also been affected by undesirable weather since before Christmas. It is crpa work - boom-boom - but thankfully I am not on site. Having said which, I am working in his "factory" where temperatures have rarely got beyond 1 or 2 C during the last couple of weeks & I am wearing about seven layers (but no gloves, since that would offend 'elf and safety). The arthritis is playing merry hell and I think that being inside has actually been colder than outside for much of the time, at least in the case of his premises. One thing is for sure from this: he can claim not to operate a sweatshop. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I see that website has changed 'Scottish shoemaker' to 'Lancashire weaver' now - a small victory for our local hero! Incidentally, you asked if there was an official register of daffodils. Well, right at the end of the article you have a link to The RHS's International Daffodil Register & Classified List. That sounds about as official as it gets to me and they spell it without the e :-) Richerman (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC) And I see that you have amended the article content accordingly. Thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Yep, the owner of the company emailed me to say that after doing some research on google books he'd found we were right. He said he would change it in their printed catalogue too and he also pointed out that since the 1930's the typography for cultivars had changed so that it was now Narcissus 'Horsfieldii' rather than Narcissus horsfieldii - which would be the correct form for a wild plant. I'm surpised someone from the Botany wikiproject hadn't noticed that! I do wonder why the other one is Watkinsoni and not Watkinsonii though. I did take my camera down to Horsefield's grave today when I was walking the dog and took some more photos that show the table tomb. I'll put the best one onto commons today and see how it looks in the article. Richerman (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Punjab,_India#Drug_Problems Hi. Sitush.. can you have a look at it. A user has added a new section to article Punjab,_India about Drug_Problems in Punjab. I am with an opinion that it should not be added into this article, but the other editor insists. Can you give your opinion. --Vigyani (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Will do. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Urgent Attention towards unprecedented bias The article Jagannath Mishra contains unprecedented unsourced data that has been fabricated without authentic citations and amounts of excessive bias and blatant promotion of an individual by overexaltment.Kindly review the same and take bonafide measures to ensure this 'self publicised' work is backed by facts not 'promotional content' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.121.44 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC) I don't understand This edit...the source and page etc are all there?SH 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC) No worries read the Gyan thing. 100% correct. SH 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Please carry on your edits. They are clearing up the article. I'm just reading through some more books at home. Thanks SH 21:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Take a look at the history of Agamudayar...I always feel foolish when I do this. I reverted one set of edits, but didn't actually look at the article, thus missing the obviously massive, problematic content. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, I noticed almost as soon as you removed the additional 5k. I should have spotted it but, as your ES surmised, I only looked at the diff. - Sitush (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Summarized_point_wise. Message added Hari7478 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Information on "Iyengar community prior to Srivaishnavism". By the way, please include Thenkalai in your watchlist. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC) I will try to look later today (0230 here in the UK). I have seen some stuff going on but have hung back while trying to find sources relating to the Iyengar origins. Alas, there seems to be nothing, let alone something that is accessible to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Really? This is how you want to do it? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)) Yes, exactly per policy. This is not an ignore all rules situation. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Once again, if you think something lacks citation put citation needed signs. Give people a chance to give the information. You are just bullying due to your seniority and try to again abuse your chumminess with admins to intimidate other users (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)) Once again, please read WP:BURDEN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and, well, just about every other content policy I can think of. You've had an extended period of grace to fix your disruptive tendencies and there seems to be no improvement yet. There have been numerous lengthy talk page discussions involving numerous experienced contributors and there have been two flouncings-off by yourself. Going away for a few days to calm down or to read up on stuff etc is no bad thing, of course, but to return with exactly the same attitude is, well, disappointing to see. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Lowkeyvision, there is now a warning on your talk page for that personal attack - it is the only warning I will give you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Ramdasia Hi Sitush, I've reverted your edits because I think someone is trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia. I've been reading my books on Indian castes and Ramdasia, Ravidasia and Chamar are different. I'm going to add verifiable quotes, and not the gibberish someone added there. Watch this space. Thanks SH 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC) OK but I wouldn't leave it too long because the content that I removed was hopeless - see the thread above. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Sitush, can review the Ramdasia edits that were made. The source that was added by the editor is the old 100 year old books that are not reliable. TimesGerman (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Will do, although the sources that TimesGerman added were nothing like 100 y.o., so I am not sure what has gone on yet. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Sitush, I am not understanding what the editor Sikh History is trying to say in his edits. His own source, which was published in1892' , shows that the Ramdasia are Chamars on page 307. The book can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Th3Mu-_RwjQC&pg=PA307&dq=A+Glossary+Of+The+Tribes+and+Castes+of+The+Punjab+and+the+Frontier+Province+Ramdasia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zfNQUZSnEMy60QGm2IHwDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=A%20Glossary%20Of%20The%20Tribes%20and%20Castes%20of%20The%20Punjab%20and%20the%20Frontier%20Province%20Ramdasia&f=false TimesGerman (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I've added some more modern sources. Take a look at page 149 of Sewa Singh Kalsi's Thesis here. We can get rid of Rose if you wish, as I think we're gathering enough good source material. My adivice to TimesGerman is do not fall for the classic google research trap i.e.simply typing in Chamar and Ramdasia in google.. The picture that is emerging is, the original Ramdasia's were weavers and leather workers, and Chamars who have adopted weaving. Ramdasia's are definitely a distinct and seperate group from Chamars. Thanks SH 13:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC) the picture that has emerged that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars and you just refuse to acknowledge it because of your own agenda. TimesGerman (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm try and not be so rude. Second warning for Not WP:AGF. SH 20:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Take a look here. This article is really getting messed up. I haven't got time till tommorow. Cheers SH 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Narendra Modi I have removed your edits from the page as it was obvious POV pushing (positive discrimination, until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so) also it was not even in context. --sarvajna (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Your usual Hindutva bollocks, then. I reverted you: the content was originally added by someone else and did not put the issue into context. You know as well as I do that the Modi article is full of right-wing crap. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC) No originally there was no such thing as India's system for achieving positive discrimination and there is no such mention in the source as well, the section is about his personal life not about what and how Modi tried to portray himself during election. Also stop using sentences like Your usual Hindutva bollocks, there was nothing even remotely related to Hindutva in my edit.Should I call your edits as anti-Hindutva bollocks ?--sarvajna (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Also this source has nothing to do with Modi, it says what BJP is planning.--sarvajna (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no need to source the positive discrimination of the Indian reservation system, although I will do if you insist by use of WP:SUMMARY. The OBC thing fits with his claimed family background. And if you want to call me anti-Hindutva then I wouldn't massively object - I'm not, but I'd rather be considered anti- anything that favours racist policies etc than pro- it. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Of course it relates to Modi, eg: A Congress functionary from the central party office who had handled Gujarat for many years argued that Modi, who belongs to an OBC social segment — he is of the ‘teli’ or oil-miller caste — did not build his base in the state among fellow OBCs like his counterparts in Hindi heartland, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar, but he aligned himself with the upper-castes and the upper-class business circles in the state. If the BJP does adopt the strategy, it will be an interesting turn-around in the party’s ideological stance. It was the boast of senior party leader LK Advani in the 1990s that he saved the Hindu society from division on the basis of the Mandal commission recommendations by taking up the ‘rath yatra’ from Somnath to Ayodhya. It seems that 20 years later, the BJP wants to redefine Hindutva in terms of Mandal rather than in terms of Ram mandir. I realise that in this particular section it is a Congress claim but the article says more and the ToI article is pretty damn specific. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well I thought we need to be neutral here not anti- or pro something, glad that accepted that you are not neutral also I am not sure what you are referring to when you say racist policies. Also the second source has much of what congress thinks and what that journalist thinks. Like I said before, the section is about Personal Life not what Modi did during elections --sarvajna (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC) No, I didn't say that I was not neutral. I said that if you want to label me one way or the other then I'd prefer the other. You know perfectly well what I mean by racist policies. If you cannot see that this concerns his origins then you are as bad as Yogesh, who of course is/was another of the Hindutva fraternity (as agreed by various people at ANI in the past). If you want to move the content to some other place in the article then feel free to do so, but it stays because it is very relevant to the man. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, thinking about it, you are right. "Fascist" would be perhaps a better term than "racist". - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Look Sitush, I do not understand why you are doing it, first this is a biography. If you want what OBC or reservation system in India is all about then go and do it in that page, what is the need to write He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination (emphasis mine). About the second sentence he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do (emphasis mine) this sentence doesn't belong in the personal life section. Unlike you I do not have the bad habit of labeling someone, also I do not have any comments about another editor. Coming to Modi, spare yourself from the burden of judging this man (please do not consider us a White Man's burden), there are courts in India. I am also thinking that your personal opinion about Modi/BJP/RSS is influencing your edits --sarvajna (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Most people will not know what OBC means and the explanation is both valid and frequently used in our articles for that reason. You may be just touchy about the whole idea: I know that stuff to do with caste is a touchy subject for Hindutva ideology and perhaps for you also. As I said earlier, if you want to put the expediency bit somewhere else in the article then feel free to do so ... but it does stay in the article somewhere. I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at when you ask me not to "consider us a White Man's burden" - I know the Kipling quote but who is "us" and what is the "burden" you think I am trying to shoulder? I also have no idea what your mention of the Indian courts may relate to but I note that I am outside their jurisdiction. If you think I am displaying a tendency to inappropriate POV at Modi, BJP, RSS or wherever then take me to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC) If people do not know what OBC means they will look into it we need not stuff everything in this article, the expediency bit doesn't belong to personal life section then I am removing it. Wikipedia is not a repository to have every information. It would not stay in the article just because you think it should. Coming to that burden thing, I misread your earlier comment so please disregard my white man's burden comment. I am striking it out. --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC) He is a politician, so political tactics are relevant to the article. If you remove it then your inability to comprehend the obvious will be clear. Like I said, if you can think of a better place to put it then please do so. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC) If there is any other section in the article where we can add that is 2012 Elections. Also do not threaten me that I will have problems, do whatever you want to. --sarvajna (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC) What I said was "your inability to comprehend the obvious will be clear" - no threat. Now please reinstate the material in what ever section you feel is most appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC) I have started a sperate section on the talk page. --sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)