User talk:Sitush/Archive 27

Re: FreeBMD

Hi,

Thanks for your message. I agree it should be used with caution, and if theres any ambiguity or I don't have an independent source to support the index entry, I leave the DOB out.

In Burdell's case, we know his place of birth and what age he was when he died, and there is only one "Robert Burdell" in the entire index, which appears to be complete up until the 1960s/70s, so I don't think I am making any assumptions here. I don't doubt there may be errors, but I've been on here long enough to notice that most so-called reliable sources are far from perfect.

I did a search after you reverted to see if there had been any previous discussions on using this a source, but all I could find were concerns about using them in BLPs. Should we really be holdings articles like this to the same standard? J Mo 101 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we shouldn't hold them to the same standard. Here's an extreme hypothetical: Burdell was born to someone else, some time else, and adopted. That sort of thing, particularly at the time in question, would often be hushed up. More prosaically, I don't think precise d.o.b. information adds anything of much use to most readers - it is "nice" but not vital.

I haven't looked at FreeBMD for a few months now but the last time I did there were still huge gaps and, indeed, they had a progress page that showed the extent of completion by decade or something similar. And, FWIW, at least two of my relatives were mistranscribed (verified by reference to the certificate in both cases, and in one case to the GRO index itself). - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• (I'm not really here right now, but I noticed this...). As someone who has done a lot of genealogy research, I have to say finding an entry in the births index is not sufficient to identify a person, not even if there is only one entry for the name. Some possible reasons include 1) As Sitush suggests, born to one person and raised as another person's child, 2) Formal adoption, 3) Current 'known' age is wrong (you need a birth record to be sure, which makes it circular), 4) Current 'known' place of birth is wrong (again, you need the birth record to be sure), 5) Born with a different name - he might have been known as Robert/Bob all his life, but actually born/baptised Arthur. Or he might have been born as "Arthur Robert..." and be on the index as Arthur R Burdell, 6) His birth might not have been registered at all ... All of these possibilities come up regularly in genealogy research, and there are plenty more sources of errors - in genealogy, you should never assumed an index entry is who you are looking for without at least getting a copy of the actual birth record (addition: Even that would not be sufficient for Wikipedia if it was tracked down by an editor's own primary research). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not really here right now, but I noticed this Spooky! Thanks, Boing. I've experienced a lot of the situations you mention and one or two others also (eg: the child of one relative died in infancy and the next male child born to the couple was given a name identical to the one who had died). - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yep, my grandmother had two brothers called Alec for that very reason (I suspect they were too poor to afford new names and had to re-use second hand ones ;-) Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I had a distant cousin called Alec Shatwell. I don't think he ever suffered from constipation. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent name! The best I've found in my ancestry is a Euphemia Smellie (which I think I'd use as my pen name if I ever wrote romantic fiction). Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your example, ahem, trumps mine. It is gems like that which enliven the slog through genealogical cross-referencing etc. BTW, while at Cambridge I was acquaintances with a member of the Pine-Coffin family. His father had translated various books for the Penguin Classics series. For the best example of nominative determinism, I have somewhere a clipping from the Manchester Evening News about the transfer of a speedway biker from a club in Sheffield to Belle Vue Aces - his name was Hugh Skidmore. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad I didn't have to wash his underpants. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Try having 5 generations all called 'Charles' and mostly written on public documents as 'Chas'. Yeah my family tree was FUN to research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's bad. Perhaps nowadays they've gone too far the other way but back then, they weren't exactly imaginative in naming people. Weirdly, the Ford/Kelly (maternal) side of my tree was much easier to sort out than the paternal side which, as Boing knows, is a rather more unusual surname. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• My own surname, as you know, is also unusual - but the earliest one in Liverpool was called John, and there are dozens of possible matches back where the surname originated. My quickest brick wall. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Mine is unusual in that its a common-ish word, in the Tinker/Tailor/Baker tradition. For an uncommon profession. It also helps my family stayed in a relatively small area of London (two boroughs next to each other). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• At one point one of the Chas. has two children, Chas & Charles. Born 1 year apart. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Derryberry. That's my all-time favorite last name in my family research. The favorite first name is "Greenberry" - you'd think it'd be EASY to trace a guy with the given name "Greenberry" but... no, we can't find his parents .... he hatched from an egg is my current theory. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Are you saying you had someone called Greenberry Derryberry? Were they cremated? - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nah... different sides of the family. It was "Greenberry T. Jones" and "Mary Elizabeth Derryberry" (aka Molly). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, if only they'd met! Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom Askin

FreeBMD is not a primary source, it is a transcription of an index. Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You are the second person in a few days from the rugby league project who has claimed this and who has decided to come here with their comment rather than continuing the thread I opened on their own talk page. That's odd.

Anyway, you're wrong, sorry. See the thread immediately above. There is going to have to be a big clean up and we will in future have to be vigilant that we do not cite other online sources that have mirrored our original research. - Sitush (talk)

• A copy of a primary source in a different medium (which is all the FreeBMD transcripton is) is still a primary source. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (see WP:SECONDARY) - FreeBMD provides none of that. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Now I need an admin. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not one right now, sorry (only have access to my non-admin account here), but I've added a revert to provide some support. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Exactly who the fuck are you?

• (edit conflict) I realised that, thanks, but plenty watch this page. I could take it to RSN but they don't like dealing with generalised points nowadays, and DRN will only do it on a per-article basis. There are hundreds of rugby league articles with the same problem. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps it needs an RFC to address the hundreds of articles - at the very least, I'd take this one to WP:ANEW given the insistence on edit warring and apparent 3RR gaming, below. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Actually, no, I don't think it does need an RFC - it's blatant OR and can be removed on sight, though it might need admin eyes as it appears that our friend below is going to battle over this. Anyway, I'll be back to my admin account next week, so we can talk further then. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, you're wrong, I'm not sorry. The primary source is the certificate of birth/marriage/death, or the registrars entry into the register… NOT a typed transcription of a scan of hard copy index. I'm not warring, I'm reverting your nonsensical edit, an I suggest you desist from reverting my correction. Scant regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"no need to template me, by the way. I am aware that I am at the 3RR limit" see you next Tuesday DynamoDegsy (talk)

If I had my admin access, you would now be blocked for edit warring to re-insert WP:OR from primary sources. The BMD registers (which comprise the indexes and the individual entries) are the primary sources, and FreeBMD is just a copy of the indexes - and that makes it still the same primary source. I've already given you the description of what constitutes a secondary source as required by Wikipedia (and in this case, it might be, for example, a reliable publication by someone who had done the BMD research properly and had published it). As I see it, you have a choice - stop edit warring and seek consensus, or be blocked (as will surely be the result if you are reported to WP:ANEW). Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sent it to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Aww bless… U OK hun

Seems wise - get a consensus asap. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I can't see any message I could send to him that would not be responded with the suggestion that I self-fornicate, so that's the only option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Things escalated very quickly there, I'm afraid. I don't usually report PA stuff to ANI. I'm not going to close the report there myself because I suspect it might irk them further. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; as you probably know I don't normally block, and certainly not for what superficially appears to be a cool down block, but I take your claim that he's trampled over a load of BLPs seriously, and that needs time to look at without him getting in the way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I said they were BLPs. The couple I looked at were dead people but I suppose with 1600 articles using FreeBMD there is a reasonable chance some will be BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A more likely scenario is a relative complains along the lines of "You said my father / grandfather / uncle etc. was born in 'x', he was not he was born in 'y' why can't you get your facts right?" Or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Good point. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party but looking up someone in some genealogical index and assuming that just because of a similar name that they are the person you're looking for is pretty much the definition of WP:Original research. Just because some entity has compiled their own index from other indexes does not make it a secondary source by our definitions. (It wouldn't be a secondary source by historians definitions either...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

They haven't even compiled their own index from other indexes - it's just a computer typed-up copy of the original indexes. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• 1600 articles? Ever get that feeling that you're sorry you got involved in something? Actually, I can understand someone's frustration if they've been doing a large amount of FreeBMD research in good faith and they suddenly face the prospect of having it all removed - but the response is not acceptable. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I, too, can appreciate the frustration. What I don't understand is how someone started here in 2008 and was adding this sort of thing many years later. They appear to be very subject-centric so I can only assume that the WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY pages have never been raised in discussions that they have seen. There's another potential issue, too, alas - I've just raised that one at RSN. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• I doubt all 1600+ relate to rugby league but a spot check suggests that a lot do. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've done a quick scan, and I'd estimate around half of them are RL biogs. Boing! on Tour (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I shifted a small number yesterday and then thought better of it, so stopped. I am concerned about piling on the agony but at some point it will have to be cleaned up. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's wise to let things cool down a bit first, but it does indeed need to be cleaned up. The trouble is, I feel sure it's going to be disputed and I wonder if it might help to get a clear community consensus first - but that would generate more drama, and I'm really not in the mood for it right now. The other issue, which you touched on, is that we really could do with getting all this fixed before too many other sites mirror it. Anyway, I'm on a flight back to the UK this weekend, so I'm not going to think too much about it before next week now. Boing! on Tour (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your constant monitoring of activity on Kamma (caste) and many other pages AltruismT a l k - Contris. 16:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Altruism. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Gautama the name

Hi, do you have any opinion on the content at Gautam (given name). Much of it looks like the usual caste shlock but still... – Uanfala 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty awful to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rampa Rebellion of 1922

Nice work on this article.

I was wondering if you know whether the British Army was stationed there well before the 1922 uprising. I discovered British actress Mary Hignett was born in Madras in 1916. Her father, Horace Arthur Du Cane Hignett, was a Captain in the British Army. - NewTestLeper79 talk 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still reading up on it but I haven't seen anything to suggest the army was there in any significant numbers. I'll keep an eye out for you, though. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the source for the Hignett claim is (a) useless and (b) no actually verifying the content. I presume you have seen the info elsewhere? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm in contact with her nephew. Will have more sources forthcoming. - NewTestLeper79 talk 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dudesleeper: if something better doesn't turn up soon, that article is likely to be stubbed. We can't use WikiTree as a source, nor is it likely that anything her nephew supplies could be used unless he is pointing us towards a reliable secondary source. Family documents etc are unlikely to make the grade. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice...

Do you have any idea about whether References 10 to 18 are suitable as things currently stand at Dhananjoy Chatterjee.You may also wish to comment about this revision of mine executed in a set of edits.Cheers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 09:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY. We're not qualified to interpret legal stuff, nor even assess its correctness. The diff for your edit shows a commendable de-cluttering and attempt to produce something that is encyclopaedic in tone - that's got to be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And, so, I am removing the entire data along with the refs.Will try to source some of it to media reports et al!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Balija dynasties

Balija dynasty sources are baseless and not even accepted by Indian government records. Kaifiats are not bases to make a theory. Millikat (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Balija dynasties

Irshick cited Kaifiat as a source which is not accepted anywer. There r many Kaifiats written by fake people. Government of India dismissed kaifiats as sources. How can it be encyclopedic Millikat (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Irschick is a recognised authority. As such, he is deemed to be capable of deciding which sources are suitable for use and which are not. We should generally avoid primary sources but there is no reason why an expert academic should do the same - it is their expertise that we rely on when we use their publications as secondary sources.

If Irschick mentions a primary source and qualifies it in some way then, obviously, we have to reflect Irschick's intrepretation and use of it. For example, if he cited the Mahabharata for something then almost certainly he would note somewhere that the Mahabharata can be a problematic source for fact (indeed, it is mostly fiction) ... and thus so would we. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice on finding sources

Hi, i'm drafting an article here on Singikulam village in Tamil Nadu. I'm finding it difficult to disambiguate 'Singikulam', 'Singikulam (New)' and 'Singikulam (old) however. The village appears to have originally been 'Singikulam' then the population sprawled/migrated and bifurcated. Got any idea how i can find a source for the bifurcation? I have thought about getting a broad idea of when it happened from censuses pre-2001 but i don't know how to access those. Any ideas or help would be appreciated. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Going off the notes at the top of your draft, I think that old/new thing might just be an administrative convenience for the census enumerators etc. No-one else seems to be using it and what's the betting there is a road or something dividing the two parts.

The only post-independence census info that I know of that is online and before 2001 is a set of reports from 1961. I can't usually see them but people in India seem to be able to view them on Google Books. I'm not even sure if it is data as such because they seem to be used to support background information about which castes do what and where they live, usually copied from British Raj ethnographies.

There is someone who does quite a lot of work on places in India, taking articles to GA status etc. However, I'm blowed if I can remember who it is. Their name might come back to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that administrative convenience idea sounds very plausible. I guess i'll do some more work then create the 'Singikulam' article. I'm weary of adding the 2011 census data info as i can't yet prove the provenance of the new/old areas; whether it does indeed derive from the former 'Singikulam' designation or not despite etymological similarity. I'll have a look for that 1961 report. I had luck in the past with 'The Imperial Gazetteer of India' for finding population data on Bellary but i wasn't getting anywhere this time. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Gazetteer isn't good. See Census of India prior to independence. (Caveat: that's basically my work.) - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, i just read the article. I can see how provinces (perhaps rural or in famine) would suffer from coverage issues and that data on personal attributes would be fraught with flaws but would it be fair to say that the population totals for accessible major towns and cities are still usable? Cesdeva (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the boundaries have probably changed and the methodology was inconsistent, so comparatives might be misleading. It's up to you, really. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Urban sprawl as a variable isn't factored in enough in my opinion. There often seems to be bias towards population totals without regard to boundary change, i know i'm guilty. Infoboxes however allow automatic population density calculation so why it's not a default option for wiki tables i don't know. Thanks for the help, i'll give you some peace now! Cesdeva (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nayaks sources

Nayaks were kings belonging to 14th century. Eugene defined caste of Nayaks in 20th century. There are no caste system during Nayaks rule. Eugene defined caste of Nayaks out of imagination. Eugene quoted kelsals ballary district manual as source. Kelsals manual doesn't give clarity about nayaks caste. That is y Indian government records doesn't accept these theories. This must not be encyclopedic. Nayaks doesn't anywer mentioned their caste on their own nor any contemporary sources. Useless baseless source eugene Millikat (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See my reply to you in a section above. If you are still going to persist regarding this, I think you need to raise the issue at the article talk pages and see if you can gain consensus for your removals of what, prima facie, appears to be reliably sourced information. A read of the info at WP:OR might also be useful for you. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mushika Kingdom

Hi, I see that you've had recent dealings with Animech.79. Please cast an eye towards Mushika Kingdom when you get a moment. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Any image experts watching?

File:A._Atkinson_-_Castleford.jpg is used at Arthur Atkinson (rugby league) under the terms of our NFCC. It's a nice, clear, colourful image but it is cartoon-ish. There are black-and-white head-and-shoulder photos of him in contemporary newspapers which are nothing like as good in quality but do have the benefit of actually being the man rather than an artist's impression that borders on caricature. The newspapers are from the 1930s, so ultimately NFCC would apply to them also.

The problem I face in trying to get a discussion going about this is two-fold. Firstly, I'd need to upload one of the photos to demonstrate the point and that would presumably fall foul of some policy because we already have one available for him. Secondly, if I upload the photo then I might be in breach of UK copyright law, even though if someone in the US did so there would not be a problem.

Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You have a hard-copy/scanned copy of an image that is not available on the Internet?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is on the web but behind a subscription site - British Newspaper Archive. I have screencaptured the photo (I just grabbed one from one news story but there are several knocking around). The quality really isn't anything like as good but it is him and not some 1930s equivalent of Photoshopping. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is uploading to imgur (or some other image bucket) and then deleting the image after a couple of days not something that you want (to have) to do? How about the photo here? It is large enough for an infobox.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just done that, thanks, although it potentially lands me in trouble re: copyright. I'm not sure if the link works for public viewing but have asked someone to check. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mattlore (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC on flags at the rls template

Hello there. I seem to recall you being quie au fait with a few procedures here. Specifically with RFC could I ask the best route to go, I know you have given me advice on the binary side, but would it be best as a

• Resolution noticeboard (Request)
• Get a third opinion (Request)
• Request comments (Request)
• Formal mediation (Request)

Having never done it before I would want to bring a swift, and rounded result, as I've committed to setting something up, but that doesn't good enough for everyone. Just looking for a little assistance to bring a proper resolution to the flags question. Warm regards.Fleets (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Correctly formatted RfCs posted on project talk pages are automatically notified to various lists etc, as explained at WP:RFC. There is certainly no need to approach the mediation or 3O people (in fact, 3O wouldn't touch it because the "dispute" involves more than two people). The issue you have is that there you can publicise the RfC more widely than the default lists by adding a neutral note to other relevant talk pages, as is also mentioned at WP:RFC. Eg: There is currently a request for comment at XXXX regarding the use of flags in rugby league infoboxes.

One issue is whether to use {{rfc|soc}} or {{rfc|policy}}, and I'm really not sure about that. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter because the centralised lists are watched by a wide range of people anyway. I warn you now: anything to do with infoboxes tends to result in a very high heat-to-light ratio!

At the end of the 30-day period, unless the RfC has been closed early due to WP:SNOW (unlikely in this case, I think), an uninvolved person can close it. That usually happens via the listings at the top of WP:AN but if it looks like no-one is taking it on then there is no harm posting a neutral note there asking for an admin to step forward and do the needful. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Genuinely appreciate you taking the time there, and hopefully a resolution will be found on the flags in a timely manner. Kind regards.Fleets (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no rush about it but, clearly, the issue does need some sort of resolution. FWIW, I can't recall ever opening an RfC myself but I've seen and/or been involved in enough ones that have gone wrong due to poor understanding at the outset, so it's always A Good Thing to try to avoid the pitfalls.

I think I've said this before but, just in case I haven't: it would probably be better to create subsections below the RfC heading, one for extended discussion and one for !votes. As I intimated above, this subject is likely to generate quite a lot of heat. It is also worth bearing in mind that local consensus (eg: consensus determined by a project-specific group) does not over-ride community-wide consensus. The RfC will be community-wide but it is quite possible that the existing consensus re: flags in sports-related boxes has been developed by sports-focussed projects rather than by the community as a whole. IIRc, WP:MOSFLAG is where it all begins. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits made by me

Sitush In the article Kamma in glossary of castes. It is mentioned that Kamma A dominant peasant caste in coastal Andhra I am not finding forward caste statement. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2692.pdf Also in vellalar article many sources state velir only but these have used to add content to the article. is that correct. can you clarify. By clicking the pages I am not seeing anything..Thats what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

H. A. Rose's Glossary of Castes is not a reliable source and is 100 years old anyway, so it would be wrong to use it to support a claim about the present day. Just because you cannot see a source does not mean it is an invalid source. I don't understand your other point, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So in the vellalar article.

1. There is a sentence "Some of them had marital relations; Ilamcetcenni, the king known for his fleet of warships, married a Velir princess, and his son Karikala Chola also married a Velir princess from Nangur". It refers to velir not vellalar. I think many of the books in this article are actually refering to velir and should be included in velir not in vellalar. Sorry is that clear.. I could be confusing sometimes. The article is trying to mix the two together.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

Editing warring in this page, also addition of WP:rs sources, I think you will be able to do better job Shrikanthv (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not very likely, I'm afraid. I am off out within the next hour and won't be back for a week. I might be able to do a bit from where I'm going but it will not be much. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A page without any WP:RS

Hi Sitush, please take a look at the page titled "Karnataka (Nepal)". The contribution history of the creater of the page is reminding me of Admirenepal sockfarm. Thanks —Ind akash (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think this is Admirenepal, this is Merosoft, Rabinssharma. Don't know if there are others, but I remember deleting something related to this topic a while back, can't seem to find it or who the editor was. —SpacemanSpiff 09:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: Maybe, I can help, the page you deleted was Karnatas of Mithila and the editor was Damien2016 alias Burbak, am I right? Ind akash (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's right Damien and another Burbak sock had edited it. If you think this could be linked to Burbak then I'd suggest SPI as I don't have much on-wiki time for the next few more days to do any research. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• SpacemanSpiff Actually, I don't think both the accounts are linked. Karnata (or Karnataka) was a dynasty which ruled Mithila region, a region now divided between India and Nepal. The editor who created the page titled "Karnataka (Nepal)" have seems to be pushing his own POV while the POV of Damien2016 was quite opposite. Both the editors acting against Wiki policy. Ind akash (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: I have opened an SPI against the suspected sock master Robbinssharma and his suspected socks here. Thanks for all your help. — Ind akash (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

September 2017

Hi, This is WikiCone!. Hope you are well. You recently removed my edits from Kumar Vishwas while there was nothing like you wrote in description that it was a fan made stuff. As i checked you are reverting all edits on this page and the page has been still same since a long time. Feel free if you think that you did any mistake, i will manage the page. Mr Sitush, i hope you will not act like it again. Thanks. WikiCone! (talk) 21:18 12 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and the various other pages I mentioned at Talk:Kumar Vishwas. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your vigilance. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 and User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

User Sitush has a reputation as a rock-solid defender and invaluable resource of all "pages India". Praised by many as "....one of those rare editors that, in spite of conflict, is determined to keep the place clean from corruption, spam, misinformation, ethnic propaganda, political rhetoric". He uses the edit summary 99% of the time and 76% of his extensive input is to article space. He is a vigilant and active monitor and adviser, guiding editors toward workable solutions. Sitush is actively watchful for "clutter" at articles about India, demanding reliably sourced information and dissuading original research. His patience combined with his insistence on maintaining Wikipedia standards are remarkable.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

University of Cambridge coat of arms

Sitush

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 10, 2017

A defender and resource of all "pages India". Keeps the place clean from all sorts of corruption, etc. A vigilant, active and patient monitor and adviser.

Recognized for

maintaining Wikipedia standards

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Buster7 and User:MelanieN. I recognise that quote from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. You are very much deserving of this award. I have often admired your grace under fire (you get a lot of "fire", the articles you deal with). Keep up the good work! --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Sitush! You are the editor of the decade as far as I am concerned :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Like (and I've never 'liked' anything ever before!)--regentspark (comment) 20:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we're probably of the same generation, RP! Kautilya, much appreciated but, just in the India sphere, think of people such as Fowler&fowler. I'm a nobody in comparison. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Sitush, but NPOV on Wikipedia is a many-authored process. It requires in equal measure the addition of knowledge and the subtraction of opinions that masquerade as knowledge. That you have made prolific contributions to both is beyond doubt for me. That you have accomplished both with a matter-of-fact, undramatic, resilience is also beyond doubt for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I remember seeing a post from an editor (who I think you've been in dispute with) that could be paraphrased as "Sitush is trusted because almost everyone dislikes him equally -- Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and people of every caste, so he must be doing things in a way that no single group thinks of him as an ally"; I think the sentiment can be clarified such that you take the side of policies and guidelines instead of blind faith or opinion, and coming from a detractor speaks volumes. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations! A well deserved award for your brilliant tireless efforts at controlling and phenomenally improving the quality of numerous WP articles despite the controversial nature of the topics-you profess on!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Belated congratulations from me too. You've been active on the pages I've been involved in since I first started editing, and always helped straighten things out. "Everyone dislikes him equally"; in the indic sphere, that's almost a compliment, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Heh, a backhanded compliment for sure! - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Sitush! To say well-deserved is something of an understatement..Simon Irondome (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, wow, that's nice :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So very well deserved, the enyclopedia needs a lot more editors of your calibre. J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, Onwards and, well, onwards. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Assamese Brahmins

Thanks for your note. I understand the rationale behind the revert and it's OK to have it removed, however, I've never intended to push any POV in this or any other contributions of mine. I have cited sources wherever possible to ensure that the statements are credible. Genetics based studies if not accepted in a caste-based article, it is fine, but Brahmins have that genetic variation (recorded in various genetic studies, which are facts) from the rest of the communities whether or not you or anyone else accepts it, in general. Your recent edit commentaries seemed to align with the perspectives of those people who try and portray Brahmins to be divisive and make them the scapegoat.

So that you've some perspective, let me tell you that the Brahmins by and large were and still are in pursuit of knowledge, that made them relatively more intelligent, thereby stemming jealousy among others. Brahmins never tried to be divisive / racist to anyone if someone had the calibre! Brahmins had a few ethics which they upheld and did a few things differently, including keeping them separate from others, but that itself can't be generalised, as had that been the case, Ved Vyas who was born to a fisher woman wouldn't have been allowed to edit 4 Vedas and write Mahabharata, Valmiki couldn't have composed Ramayan, India wouldn't have had Bhakti and non-bhakti saints etc., and Ram, Buddha, Valmiki, Vashisht, Mahavir, Vivekananda wouldn't have been treasured/considered great by others and Brahmins alike.

You may be aware of the examples, such as the Pundits (Brahmins) of Cashmere been killed and removed from their original homes from their homeland, and Brahmins been forced out of Goa during Portuguese reign because they didn't convert to Christianity etc. So, many of us have been resilient and that's why we have been relatively more successful, although the Quota system as per the Government of India regulations makes it hard for a Brahmin to reach at top-tier jobs. So, I wasn't racist, I just stated a few facts!

Quibitos (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are stereotyping just as much as the people who are anti-Brahmin. You can't make sweeping generalisations such as those you have made above. And we do not accept the validity of genetic studies in caste-related articles, sorry. It probably would be better if you did not edit Brahmin articles at all because you quite clearly have a conflict of interest that would make it unlikely you could edit them neutrally. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I didn't stereotype, I just wanted to draw your attention that the racist remark of yours in your edit comment seemed to suggest (didn't say you were implying) that the word "Indo-aryan" kind of evoked xenophobia, if nothing else, something in-line with the people who are anti-Brahmins without proper rationale. I didn't say you're one of them but yes, you didn't even read through the source and struck out first time stating that it wasn’t mentioned. The racist remark wasn't right, as the term was cited based on the source, and that's all I have pointed out, and there's nothing wrong in doing so.

And in the above, I just shared a few pointers for you to assess the fact that grouping Brahmins as Indo-aryans isn’t racism, as they're numerous instances in the evolution of Hindu culture to suggest that many outside the community (that includes other Indo-aryans, Dravidians etc..) have contributed at various stages to the Hindu cultural growth, thereby challenging the very notion of Brahmin exclusivity. That's all! Genetics studies are not valid is fine (although I will need to check this with a wider audience), I have already accepted that reasoning, so there's nothing more left for you to reiterate the same point again. But the fact remains that the genetic studies are scientific (and we are not the ones doing it), so it is reasonable enough literature to support a statement indicating variations.

And by the way, please don't get territorial. While your continued patronage is appreciated, Wikipedia isn't yours to claim any proprietary rights or to suggest whether or not I or anyone should edit any articles, let Brahmin articles alone. The article has been created as there's enough literature available on this community deserving its elucidation in its current form. I would appreciate if you refrain from insinuating that I have got any conflict of interest. I have been here for more than 7 years, and during this time, my edits have span across various Assam related topics, and not Brahmin / Hinduism alone. I have not edited any Brahmin articles so far, except for the one in question. And I don't have any inferiority complex that would make me feel incapable of editing articles neutrally. I have been editing for many years, and will continue to make edits genuinely paying more attention to detail to the sources, unlike a few editors who seem to miss out on points by an oversight.

If I have time, I will try and raise your feedback with a few other Admins to review your commentary including my contribution to the article, as I am pretty sure that nothing have I mentioned so far suggesting any "conflict of interest".

Quibitos (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Still doing what?

It's his official title His Holiness 954482ab (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@954482ab: I know. And you have been pointed to WP:HON and WP:NCIN. As other people have told you, you are just confusing matters. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we going to have lists of every library in the US?

See here. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should create List of council waste recycling points in Aberdeen? Or List of dole offices in Wigan? - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I received a message because you did not find a citation; the source of my information is from this page and my own acknowledgement http://www.mulakanadusangha.com/eminent-personalities ShreikSpeakFreak 17:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, that is not a reliable source, sorry. We do not use caste-affiliated websites. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Good job cleaning up A. V. Thomas. It is great to see that there are people who take the time to do this essential work. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That one was easy. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but still, it is more than what most people put in. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Musunuri Nayaks

What is your problem man???? Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma is the only world class telugu historian. I submitted the sources of him.. U r using his sources for other castes like balijas etc.. Check balijas caste wikipedia page.. Whats wrong with you? Musunuri Nayaks are only independent kings of South India and appointed several vassals including reddies of kondaveedu..... This is quoted by Sharma in his works.....If any injustice is done to Musunuri Nayaks i'm not going to spare it.... We even approach any legal cells to report this Felkope (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for the legal threat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. I opened a case at SPI earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Disapperances

I researched a few of the user's contributions and found these articles had similar, or more blatant, issues compared to the ones you recently nominated: Carla Losey, Julie Weflen, Linne Dominelli, Marlene Abigosis, and Vernon Jones. I was very conservative measuring notability and probably could have included a few more. Although I am certain these articles should be nominated for deletion, I have not pulled the trigger yet because they are all from the same editor; I don't want him to think I am here to run him off the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, discouragement was my concern, too. Alas, I really don't think they understand our notability guidelines nor, perhaps, those relating to sources. We can but hope that seeing what people say in the discussions works positively in improving their understanding but we're treading a fine line. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we don't have to worry about driving him off the project. He is doing it himself, unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. They are not so new that they can get away with that type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Dragged to the courts of Delhi

You think that's — the above — is a legal threat? Try reading this lot. I suppose it's not really funny, but I was kind of cheered by visions of you being dragged to the courts of Delhi and of press releases stating the caste you belong to. That'll teach you to assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC).

The image of hordes of "foreigners and Ph.D. scholars" a furlong of foreigners and a flange of Ph.D. scholars (are they mutually exclusive) arriving at Delhi airport, clutching their computers while mumbling under their breath "gotta find me some of those Yadavs - the Aryan ones, not the fake news Sitush ones - to study". I enjoyed that! --regentspark (comment) 21:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I always thought the collective noun for Ph.D. scholars was a flange, but what do I know? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are not enough people who know where 'flange' in this context comes from and it makes me sad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I doubt Narendra Modi would even grant me a visa to attend court or anything else. As for This thing will be brought up in front of the Management of Wikipedia, well, they might be on to something there because it is no secret that Jimbo dislikes me and seemingly pretty much any other Wikipedia contributor from Manchester. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How many castes have you been accused of being a shill for now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always heard Sitush is a Brahmin, but Abhisihn doesn't seem to think so. Nice to see you back on the job, young Boing!. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC).

Oh, I reckon he's at least two Brahmins! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of bull.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: do you think the WMF office and/or South Indian caste associations pay any better than Prince? I'm still waiting for a cheque from him. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had my $400 a month for ages now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Bamraulia

Hello, I have deprodded Bamraulia because it has been prodded in the past. I only did this for procedural reasons; if you still wish to pursue deletion please feel free to open an AFD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We put up with too much

Rashakhalifa added a shorter version of Hani Sarie-Eldin's cv as early as 2013. I've given them a discretionary sanctions alert for blps, plus a specific warning. Is my patience getting shorter? Bishonen | talk 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

It was rather ridiculous, so I wouldn't blame your patience. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One up on you :-P

Ha, as well as our paid work for Indian princes, I've also now blagged a job with the CIA (along with User:Materialscientist and User:Yamla). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder when I can expect my paycheque. Not the first time I've been accused of working for the CIA, which is weird because I'm not a US citizen and live in Canada. Or so I claim. --Yamla (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The web is disproportionately populated by conspiracy theorists and outright nutjobs. I doubt Berners-Lee intended this. Although doubtless some conspiracy theorists and/or nutjobs will insist that he did. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I expect Berners-Lee was a CIA agent all along. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a new one for me, too...I think I've been outed as an agent of Pakistani intelligence, but not of the CIA (yet) that I recall...Vanamonde (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Andrew Gosden

Hello. Why have you changed dates on this article to YMD when you yourself have acknowledged DMY dates at the top of the article? The ref for WP:RETAIN seems to indicate leaving the dates as the norm for UK articles. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't. I changed it to dmy - the birthdate was mdy before that change. It is common practice to use yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates. The dates tool is very handy, very quick and very reliable. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I recognised the conversion to DMY on the birthdate; I just cannot see why having two date formats is sensible- the refs have a published date in DMY but an accessdate in YMD. The two different dates just seems odd to me; is there an actual steer that says we must do this, or is it your preference? I was going by MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it somewhere, years ago. I suspect a contradiction in guidelines which are, after all, not rules. ISO certainly reduces clutter but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the rationale otherwise everything would be ISO. Tbh, I was actually toying with sending the thing to AfD anyway: barring evidence to the contrary, it's just another runaway kid and that people keep making appeals about him is pure run of the mill.. I may still do that. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sending it to AfD is, of course, your perogative. Myself, I would vote to keep, but I wouldn't cry about it if it was deleted. The mechanics of his disappearance are interesting to say the least and it meets GNG as it has been covered by The Times, The Guardian and the BBC as well as local news. However, seeing as how I created the article, your last line seems like a threat rather than a well-thought out argument. I am more concerned that the dates make it look untidy rather than a WP:OWN scenario. If I have interpreted this incorrectly, then I am sorry; but the last line seems quite unfriendly. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a threat - a whole bunch of similar articles have been deleted recently, at least some of which you can see by looking at the removals from List of people who disappeared mysteriously. That it has been covered by major news sources has already been rejected as a valid argument in those previous deletions. As for the dates, I really don't care about aesthetics: I just used the tool and followed what I considered to be normal practice. If you don't like it, change it. The only reason I even looked at the page was because of the likelihood that it was similar to the other recently deleted articles and, indeed, it is. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I had seen the whole raft of articles being deleted, but I did not vote as I was unaware of those individual articles going to AfD. That said, I probably would have voted for delete on some given the dearth of reliable sources. If the Gosden article is going before AfD then I will refrain from changing anything as it would seem pointless given the only person voting to keep the deleted articles is David Goodheart. If deletion it is, then so be it; as I said, I am not that heavily invested in it. Apologies for misinterpreting your intent. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, if there is a mass cull ongoing of various articles (for which I must register I am not against in principle), would it not be part of WP:AFDEQ to mention this mass cull on the Talk page? I have arrived at the party late because I was blissfully unaware of those particular articles being selected (partly my fault for not having them on my watchlist). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of a mass cull - 5 or 6 articles so far, not all nominated on the same day and not al nominated by me. Bearcat, I think it was, suggested in one of those discussions that a lot of others in the list should probably go but I haven't acted on that. Perhaps I am out of kilter but I've never seen anyone mention such nominations purely as a courtesy ... but hen I happen to think that most list articles have no place on Wikipedia, so probably don't pay much attention to their talk pages as a rule. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue is that at certain Wikiprojects (e.g. Wikiproject Yorkshire & Wikiproject Railways) articles for deletion PRODs etc are listed as being nominated and then link to the deletion proposal page which is what I am familiar with (but that could be me being out of kilter). I commend you for placing the latest notice on the talk page and I apologise for using the phrase mass cull. On one of the deletion pages someone mentioned many more to be sent to the chopping block, I rather rashly assumed that was underway.

I thank you for your comments and I appreciate your even-handedness in this discussion. It's quite rare to have a civilised discussion about things. Thank you again and regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Owens

It's good to see you leave the subcontinent for a while to improve Manchester articles. I may even continue with something I started but need to visit the library. J3Mrs (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

And Liverpool - see stuff in Category:Holt family. Much to do regarding the latter and I have all the resources + copious primary source notes. However, I've been toying with writing up that lot off-wiki and perhaps even publishing it that way precisely because so much is in the primaries.

The Holts, via something else and then Samuel Fletcher (merchant), was my convoluted route to Owens since the early hours of this morning. I don't hold out much hope for Fletcher: plenty of contemporary news sources but almost entirely run-of-the-mill for a Victorian local worthy (attended this meeting, spoke at another, was on the committee of X, served as a magistrate etc). - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

These people are so much more interesting than present day celebs. I'm really struggling to find any enthusiasm but fortunately my days are mostly filled with other stuff. J3Mrs (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think many of the socks I block, suggest that to Sitush already!—SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Goes to show that sometimes I can please everyone :) - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindi?

Do you speak it? If yes, can you take a look here and see what they are on about? They posted what appeared to be a bio (google translate was semi-useful) and some personal details at the village pump. I don't know if they are making a complaint or trying to promote something etc. Or it could be a hindi bot for all I know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry. I am fluent in English and Gibberish only. Maybe post at WT:INB or look up the language/babel user category? - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been in your presence both before and after a beer session, so I can confirm both ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice people the Gibbers, very welcoming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You were there afterwards, Boing? I don't recall that. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you recall anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I distinctly recall lending you £400 to tide you over until the cheque turned up from Prince. I never got it back, but then you probably never got the cheque. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

^^ This is an in-joke, folks, Boing! owes me nothing.

Heh, nested small tags. Can you read this?

Help, I'm slowly getting smaller and smaller. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in death, they appear to be using their talk page as a sandbox in which they've pasted what appears to me like snippets of a description of classical poetry. – Uanfala 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a more literary form of promotion than I was expecting. It was the mobile number at the pump that caught my eye. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Why waste efforts?

Hey, I have seen you putting in time and efforts to clear Raj era sources again and again. I appreciate the effort. But wouldn't it be little less cumbersome to get those sources added to the Blacklist or something and let some bots do this job for you? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be easy because there are valid uses for many of the sources, eg in articles about the books and their authors. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of surnames

I visit page on CKPs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu quite often I saw that some surnames were removed. Why so? SP2705 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I replied to your similar message on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I have responded to your comment at my talk page. I had to archive the whole thread as TheGracefulslick could not miss the opportunity to start up something. Anyway I have no issue with you as long as we both can agree to what I wrote. I will do a great effort to expand on my reasoning for the benefit of you, absolutely. And you will try to stance from POV pushing. Have a great evening.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, on a happier note I have to say that I admire your work here on Wikipedia overall. Cleaning up articles, etc etc. If you find time for it please take a look at some of the articles that I have created and see if there are stuff to improve. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Incoming crap

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest - yet more crap incoming, and some will get "paid" for it. I've recently edited a couple of articles that I think may have had origins in the last contest and, well, they were very poor, as also happened with the Dalit History Month collaboration - dubious notability, seriously misrepresenting sources etc. We're past the growth phase now and really should be insisting on quality. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl, particularly the answer to q. 1. Samsara 14:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Megalibrarygirl. Not had much interaction - hence no involvement at the RfA - but I've seen the name around. One of the problems is exploitation of poor special notability guidelines, which is why so many female/women/whatever the heck the PC term is at the moment author bios seem to appear during these events. In any event, as an admin who has declared that involvement in WiR, she won't be able to use the tools in that area. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, this says it all when it comes to the WMF and grants etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Shri Shakaracharya's letter source on CKP page - I find your comment inaccurate

Dear Sitush,

You said "I doubt that the Illustrated Weekly of India was a reliable source - can we not find something better?" on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&action=history

Very surprised that a wiki admin should make such a comment

I strongly disagree that a respected secondary source news-magazine that was around for more than a 100 years (until 1993?) and had prominent journalists editing it should be arbitrarily classified as 'not good' by a Wikipedia admin in a comment. We allow worse sources elsewhere on Wikipedia. Primary source(Shri Shankaracharya's letter itself) does exist but is from Raj era - so we cannot use it as per Wikipedia rules( I am talking about "Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu" ). And we are not using this Raj era source. But at least it does validate the secondary source.

This so called CKP community is extremely tiny (numerically) and hence it is difficult to find a lot of literature on it. We are facing similar issues with Pathare prabhus and even our fellow Karhade Brahmins. We should not dismiss a perfectly valid secondary sources like 'the weekly' imho.

I would like to add this reference back - but as you say I will try to search for another secondary source. But in any case this 1970s source is quite informative and well written in itself and should not be removed IMHO.

Acharya63 (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) a) Sitush is not an admin b) you're misrepresenting a tentative statement by Sitush as a dogmatic one c) I suspect (from a brief look at some copies of IWI) that the news-magazine probably varies quite a bit in the quality of its reporting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

keegan photo

keegan hi Sitush. I see you are replacing an old photo, why is that? I have looked at the photo situation before and there is no problem at all with the photo you are removing, what problem do you see with that photo? Govindaharihari (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Look at the article talk page. The consensus was in favour of the old photo and not pandering to vanity. I then asked for an explanation because your own intervention was as clear as mud and the single-purpose accounts simply do not understand how we work. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have had a look and am not seeing any clear concensus that the old photo is better, as I see it it is clearly worse. As for pandering to vanity, BLP urges us to insert to better photo rather than insisting on a poorer photo because the subject themselves is a single porpose account and hates it. We can start a RFC if you want? Govindaharihari (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You swanned in there after a consensus had emerged and then tried to impose your preference. If you can't see that there is blatant COI editing and socking, you probably shouldn't touch the article at all because somewhere down the line you may get accused of being paid to do so. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hi Sitush I left a message for you on Talk:Vellalar. Xenani (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will take a look later. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I do not understand your random deletes due to their inconsistency

Sitush, I am not understanding your deletions. Please explain.

1. You deleted a table from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&oldid=805875832 calling it trivia. But exactly similar 'trivia' (in fact older) had existed on the Deshastha Brahmin page that you have been editing for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deshastha_Brahmin&oldid=412765800

2. You deleted the opinion of Shri Shankaracharya (the highest authority on hinduism) by giving a reason that you do not care about some religious leader in the 1800s. But the source is not british-era. The other day you asked to find a better source for that SAME information and did not delete it. So it seems you did care about Shri Shankaracharya at that time. So what changed? So should I look for a better source for his opinion?

Are not ALL caste articles based based on opinions of religious people before the 20th centuries? Were castes formed in the 20th century? We are using non-british era sources.

3. Also, you deleted Jonathansammy's and my hard work about the satyagraha (on the same page). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&oldid=805875832

But you have allowed similar information (about Ambedkar) to remain on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deshastha_Brahmin&oldid=412765800

You seem to follow different "rules" in your deletes for different pages. Acharya63 (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

See the CKP talk page and WP:OSE (I can't fix everything myself). To be honest, I try to keep away from Brahmin-related articles for much of the time because the contributors from the Brahmin community are among the most obnoxious I have come across - even I have limits.

Please also note that, despite their experience, Johnathansammy makes a lot of poor edits, eg: using inappropriate sources and citing in weird ways. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I notice that the table you refer to at Deshastha Brahmin was only added a few days ago, by you and/or Jonathansammy. I have no idea why you think I should be checking all 3600+ articles on my watchlist every day but I am getting a bit fed up of some of the rubbish I am seeing when I do look. Some people certainly should know better by now than to misrepresent sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that, despite their experience, Johnathansammy makes a lot of poor edits. - Hmmm. Interesting. "Please also note that, despite his experience, Sitush also makes a lot of poor edits.

And I expect that, given Sitush's recent editing behaviour, Sitush thinks I make "a lot of poor edits". (I, of course(!), would disagree(!!!). ;-) The fact of the matter is that we all have different opinions, and, in my highly biased opinion, the best strategy is to WP:AGF and discuss things first rather than assume that one knows everything and assume that the other editor is a moron.

Sitush: Enjoy your break. If when you come back you're not more relaxed, take a longer break! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

And how do you know I haven't discussed? It has been mentioned before. Now go away and don't bother coming back. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Enjoy your break, Sitush. You deserve it!

Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Madhwa Brahmins

Since I seem to have a few people watching at the moment, can someone please take a look at the goings-on at Madhwa Brahmins and its talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, why so can i know the reason Madhwa Brahmin page.I think i did not mislead any information i'm writing neutrally according to wiki standards. Motospiff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Correctness.....

Hi, Sitush,

As my go-to-guy in any cast-related-topic, can you kindly verify the correctness of this edit?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not great on the Nepalese caste system. It differs somewhat from that of India (and I'm not even sure why!). Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

why so much bias against Yadav article

May I know why so much bias against article. You seem to be ignoring every valid source violating Wikipedia neutral policy. Meenapandit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenapandit (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not here. And, ideally, not an the article talk page either because this has been dealt with at dispute resolution and nothing has changed re: sources since then. - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The states series is not considered to be reliable - plagiarises stuff written in the Raj era

Hmmmm I wonder how People of india, Anthrapological survey of India 2003 can be Raj Era. Care to explain? In relation to chib. And also please explain what you consider reliable book on casts and communities.

The "states" series of PoI plagiarises Raj era sources. It has been discussed at WP:RSN and I'm fairly surely I would have said that either in my edit summary or on the article talk page; certainly, I usually do. As for what constitutes a reliable source, see WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

edit warrior

stop edit warring andf then dropin edit war templates on other users talkpages, its embarrasing. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I know you're embarrassing. There is an open RfC and, not for the first time, you are trying to bludgeon your way through this. You opened an unnecessary (and quickly close) thread at BLPN, you supported obvious sockpuppets, you changed the format of an image without discussion, and so on. Then you have the crassness to throw an "lol" in my direction? - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Janjua

Hi. I made some edits on the article of Janjua but you reverted it. I have a good reference for this, the famous and most popular newspaper of Pakistan which is Express news.The evidence is that https://www.express.pk/story/111494/ Newblog 32 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think the Daily Mail is likely the most popular newspaper in the UK (certainly one of them) but we don't use it to verify a lot of things. Using newspapers to verify matters of long-ago history is rarely a good idea. Can you not find the information in a book? The newspaper got it from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Koch Rajbongshi people

Hi. I noticed that you have some history with Rajbanshi. A few days after your last edit, it was cut-paste-merged into Koch Rajbongshi people which was itself moved from Rajbongshi. Now there's some weird double-barrelled business going on that looks suspect. Britannica names them Koch, also called Rajbanshi … Any idea what's going on here? Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, what a mess. This edit summary is wrong, for starters. I removed a copyvio in 2013 and noted that at the merge discussion but, clearly, it was sourceable per the copyvio document, which I have been able to download again. But after spending four pages calling them the Koch, on the last page it speaks of there being different types of Rabanshi, including the Koch Rabashi (sic), and then of their being "subcastes of the Koch Rabanshis". So that source isn't particularly clear.

On the other hand, the hyphenated Koch-Rabanshi mentioned in the new Koch Rajbongshi people article does not appear in that source at all and nor do variants mentioned there such as Koch Bihari. I can't see the first source at the new article, which does moot the possibility of confusing two tribes as one using the second source. The third source at the new article, also used in the lead, is Edward Gait, who is not reliable.

I'm as confused as you, sorry. I can try to do some digging around but I don't have anything here related to Nepalese tribes and I don't know of any "go to" sources for them, so it would be a start-from-scratch job. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice that Ethnologue treats Koch and Rajbanshi as synonyms for the same language, along with a few other names. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that Rajbongshi is a Bangla-isation of Rajbanshi which is a localisation of Rajvanshi. If the people are also present in Nepal, this "corruption" is not NPOV. While I do see a significant number of hits for Koch—Rajbongshi, I also see RS preferring Koch (Rajvanshi/Rajbanshi). I also came across this report where according to Joe Bloggs, ‘Koch’ is the name of a community and ‘Rajbongshi’ means ancestors of a royal family, hence ‘Koch-Rajbongshi’ cannot be a name of an ethnic group. So I suspect that the people are the Koch and Rajbanshi is an affectation to remind people of their Koch dynasty heritage. Or some nonsense like that. Ethnologue's search box suggests that Koch Rajbanshi is also an alternate name for Rangpuri. Chaipau, do you know anything about all this?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Seymour Remenick

Hi, you recently edited the page Seymour Remenick, and took out some bio information. Reason was you don't know this is the same person. May I ask, which parts do you mean? The part from the Schwarz gallery seems to be pretty clear it's Seymour Remenick. Can you put the part citing the Schwarz gallery back in? Thanks Socialresearch (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Now fixed. My mistake. - Sitush (talk)

Thanks very much. Socialresearch (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Offensive and racist content against Marathi Brahmins

Dear Sitush, Someone had used the word 'nigger' on the wikipedia page for Deshastha Brahmins to refer to Brahmins. Needless to say this is very racist and extremely offensive to Brahmins from Maharashtra. I understand it was a quote by some colonial era European and not a personal quote by a wiki editor. But in my opinion such racist language should be avoided on wikipedia. Hence I removed it. Do wiki admins run a search tool on all the wiki content for vulgar/racist words. What is the wikipedia policy on such issues? Thank you. Acharya63 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC) (Had forgotten to sign this earlier. Thanks to Joshua Jonathan for resolving this and removing this derogatory word from the Deshastha Brahmin page) Acharya63 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the context but see WP:CENSORED. Eg: archaisms are sometimes appropriate, however much they might offend us. -Sitush (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Deshastha Brahmin#Please avoid racist and offensive language. Indeed, WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

James Farmer image

Sir James Farmer, from his Manchester Times obituary in 1892

To show no hard feelings about a certain other image, and indeed appreciation of your work, I cropped, uploaded and put this image on the article that you wrote, thinking it would be more to the point than a kitten image as you have above. But then, of course I realized that you had found the obituary, so could have probably done so yourself.... so if there is a reason you intentionally didn't, please say so, and accept my apologies instead. (Maybe a kitten would have been better after all!) --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think because I got to the newspaper via British Newspaper Archive at a time when the Wikipedia Library had some free subscriptions. They were absolutely insistent that we should not copy anything from it, despite the WMF attitude to sources of that age. Since the deal is long over, I guess it really doesn't matter any more. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai

Please lock Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai pages Sitush, many people are coming and deleting references and related content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingzing1 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Anant Kumar Hegde

Hi Sitush, There is a lot of useless content in this page can you correct it.--Zingzing1 (talk) 8:01 AM, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why you cannot do so yourself. Just be bold. But don't be reckless - if something is sourced, for example, then you need a good reason to remove it. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Kumar Vishwas

Don't understand why you are highlighting only negative and unpopular matters related to Kumar Vishwas. You are just deleting the good content and pasting the same material which maligns his image. I have given the references for each edits. Please go through this.

I'm not highlighting anything. I'm just trying to prevent it turning into a hagiography again while copyediting the useful update you gave regarding the molestation case. More importantly, I am concerned that you are trying to insert a copyrighted image. I've explained that on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you ARE highlighting negative news and I have doubt on your intention. If you have done enough research on this person, don't you know that he has done several shows on mainstream Indian television channels? Have you gathered the information about it and posted here as you have gathered the controversy element? It is a sure thing that you are either being paid for this act or you are getting some benefit in turn of doing this maligning activity. - CreativeEdit (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions some television stuff. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern about copyrighted image but that image is provided by his office. Also thanks for keeping the update about molestation case. You have also revert the countries visited by him. I have given references for that too. Hope you revert that. Thanks. -Dipupandey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have just tagged the image for deletion. He cannot have taken the photo himself and it appears, for example, in this newspaper. I think that you may need to be careful regarding conflict of interest and suggest that you read the information about this by clicking on the link.

The Vishwas article has for many years been a honeypot for his fans. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and, for example, long lists of places that he has visited are of little benefit to the reader. We already name a few, and at one point the list contained something like 40-50 places, which was silly.

I remain concerned about the article because of all the statements related to legal matters. I know that the Indian legal process can be slow and that mountains are often made out of molehills with FIRs etc, but it has long concerned me that we may be placing too much stress on legal matters. However, it is not helpful to counter that by adding to the list of places visited or inserting an incredibly opinionated comment about him having rock star status as if it is Wikipedia who thinks that is so. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not even sure we should accept that image even if it does come from Vishwas's office. He's not exactly known for respecting copyright, is he? - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

By your words it seems you have some personal problem with Kumar Vishwas. If the pics come from his office, then there is no copyright violation. You are talking about the copyright, then you should know he has given the full credit to the person. Please don't express your personal feelings on such type of prestigious platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipupandey80 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nveer met the guy, never even heard him speak and, like I said above, I remain concerned about the amount of legal-related stuff in the article. creating a possible imbalance. The image has been deleted as a copyright violation - that was not my decision. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Great. Then I think I can use the pic posted by him on his FB page. It seems no problem then? Right?

Secondly, does the wikipedia has problem, if we update about with the country visited by him? If no, then hope you will not revert that too. Looking for your support. Thanks.Dipupandey80 (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've not looked at his Facebook page but the chances are high that we cannot use an image from there. Look, the article already has a photo of him so I am not even sure why you are so bothered about this. And I've already explained the issue with the itinerary. I'm beginning to become very concerned now that you are here to promote him. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason of using his image from FB, is that we can have updated image over here, not from 2009, 8 years old pic, right? And thanks for your out rated concern, I have the same feeling that you are here to defame him.I don't have any reason to not to update his new pic, do you have one? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:COPYRIGHT. I've also nominated one of the images at Commons for deletion. The uploader shares his name and claims it is "own work", which is fairly implausible given the nature of the photo. While cameras have self-timers, I doubt that was a self-portrait. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You never met the guy, never heard him then on what basis you are updating and reverting his page? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

On precisely that basis - I am independent of the subject. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's my concern brother. You should have some knowledge about the subject which you are editing. Okay. So lets back on pic topic. You change the pic as of your choice with the latest one. I will have not problem. Is that okay with you? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misconception of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia is meant supposed to hide all good things about a person and highlight negative things only? CreativeEdit (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Tell me about my concern which I raised earlier. Hope you change the pic and places visited. Keeping the updates is the policy of wikipedia. Hope you will cooperate. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What concern was that? What image are you referring to now? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please Check this https://www.facebook.com/KumarVishwas/photos/a.483383168453.287051.58762883453/10155757829638454/?type=1&theater -Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. We cannot use that because of WP:COPYRIGHT. He didn't take the picture and we do not have permission from the person who did. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How you can say that he didn't take the pic? How are you using that pic of 2009? Okay, do one thing, you choose the pic. My simple concern is to have updated pic of him on this article. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please check this too WP:COPYRIGHT[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipupandey80 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already explained why it is unlikely he took the photo. Even if he did, we don't have his permissions to use it, either. The existing photo has been accepted as valid for a long time; aside from anything else, it has EXIF data attached to it which clearly shows its origin. I'm not going hunting for a different photo - better things to do with my time. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have better thing to do then please let me handle this. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, I would if I thought you understood our policies and guidelines. But you clearly do not understand them yet. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I will. But it seems you have not interested to make this page updated. Either you do the editing with updated matters or let me do. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

On what basis you are using this pic? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean the picture that is currently in the article? I didn't put it there but it appears to be a valid, policy-compliant photograph of him. I also didn't write the legal-related stuff, although I have copyedited and updated it. I am getting weary of this, and especially now that CreativeEdit has appeared with ludicrous suggestions of paid editing etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines for images and other media files

Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have explicitly been placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more. Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. what is your point? - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It's simple... The pic has been uploaded on public domain. So we can use.- Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Being on Facebook does not mean it is "public domain". It that were the case, we could use any photo posted anywhere on the web. What's more, our policy on non-free use content, which you mention, has specific limitations. Since we already have a valid image, it would be difficult to justify using a non-free one. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the countries visited by him? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already explained this above, too. I have no objection to you adding another if you remove one that is already mentioned but we are not some sort of tour diary. A random list of countries adds nothing of note to the reader. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, We are not sort of tour diary but it will give information that artist is well known and performed in several countries. No harm in mentioning that. But I think we should his updated pic too. Hope you too agree with this. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. If you can find a photo that is better than the one we have, complies with our policies and is acceptable to other people who are interested in the article then, sure, you could change it. You'd need to seek consensus for the change at Talk:Kumar Vishwas. We already have sources for him being well-known and travelling abroad - we do not need to hammer the point home. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If you do not revert this edit asap you will likely be blocked for a violation of WP:3RR, for which you have already had a warning, or simply for edit warring during a discussion. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. Hope you will cooeprate in future too and guide me if needed. Thanks brother. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dipupandey80: did you understand what I just said? The info you have just added needs to be reverted otherwise you will be blocked from contributing. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Brother, I think you have some biasedness. I have revert the changes you mentioned. The fair policy is meant for both of us. I too think you should cooperate. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You have increased the size of the list of countries, despite what I said above. Add one, lose one. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Does it is necessary to delete one and then add one? Is this the policy of wikipedia? - Dipupandey80 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is you do not have consensus to expand that list which you yourself have said should not become a sort of tour diary. Go back through the history of the article and you will see just how much trouble was caused by previous fans and supporters of Vishwas, who seemed almost to be adding every visit he made.

Do you know CreativeEdit? There is something odd going on, both in terms of the pair of you having an almost single purpose interest in Vishwas and with them popping up in this thread to support you after days of being inactive. I think you and that other account might be better off finding something else on Wikipedia in which to take an interest. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It also doesn't actually matter about that list at the moment: you have breached WP:3RR and you cannot do that. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you changed the pic? It's good one. No I don't know Creativeedit. - Dipupandey80 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

CU results

• Insidernews is  Technically indistinguishable to CreativeEdit and they both are  Confirmed to Dipupandey80 who is  Technically indistinguishable to WikiCone!.

The interest of the confirmed socks span multiple years for this deleted article. Other contribs may need analysis.

• Shivamroy22 is  Possible to the above but needs further evaluation. Exact UA match coming up within same /64 address although they are defined as static IPs.

The following accounts are  Possible to WikiCone! as they share the same IP and the first two created their accounts within less than 12 hours of each other:

• Mohammad Aqueel
• Gulfam Raza
• Hp gupta

After evaluation, it would be good for someone to get this into an SPI report to track for future purposes. It also allows a place to report others that you may feel are related or we may tie this to another master eventually. We can worry about tags later. Don't be shy about asking some of the other admins for help sorting this out, Sitush. More eyes may mean that more socks are found.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean Hunter. I appreciate your penultimate sentence in particular as I won't have a clue what to do! - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Berean Hunter, I had blocked just the two, but it's now obvious that I jsut touched the edges. As for Shivamroy22, I think these are all related and it's more likely a paid editing ring with Shivamroy controlling the rest, that's how it looks to me, the language etc of that account seems quite different from the rest (and I can be persuaded otherwise, this is just my preliminary observation), although the non-mainstream topical interest for advertising is a give away. —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Insidernews seems to be the oldest of the accounts listed, so any SPI should be opened under that. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be not only COI but undisclosed paid editing. I think that if you get a posting at COIN, they have a very good likelihood of confirming that and turning up more socks as well. Good group of editors working that board and they will likely turn something up, I predict.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Shivamroy22 created Namit Tiwari, which was soft deleted at AfD and then recreated by Wikicone! earlier this month. I've just put it up for CSD. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Shivpratap22 (talk · contribs) will be connected, and I think the Bhupendra Singh redirect probably needs some sort of protection. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Both Shiv22s. Duh.--regentspark (comment) 14:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Shivamroy22 created Bhupendra Singh in July 2015 but it was originally created in 2012 by Shivap who is using a different ISP and a little older OS but are geolocating to the exact same place. I'll let this be decided based on behavior. HeyIMShivam is stale but based on behavior would be likely. Nisheethsharan could be a meat in a similar region as the socks further up the page but using a different OS.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

May have all started with this. Compare some of the user names, not just the Shivam ones.—SpacemanSpiff 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Very good chance.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Where do we start here? SPI report (Bishonen kindly offered to do it when she has some time later) or COIN? Bbb used to give me a bit of grief from time to time for not filing at SPI under the oldest account, which is a particularly confusing issue for this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Although I can't confirm to the case that Spaceman has pointed out because those accounts are all stale, that is probably the right case to file under. Post at COIN after you have the links to the SPI. If it should turn out that Shivap is blocked then I believe he would be the oldest as a 2005 account and the case might be moved to his name.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Shivap is connected to this farm, his articles are a bit problematic in terms of poor quality/quantity of references but he usually is quite basic in his content and a random check showed that the subjects are notable, and his topic areas have been pretty much the same since start, and I don't see a real overlap to this group. I think Utcursch or Tito may be able to provide better insight here as there's some crossover with their editing topic areas. —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Shiv Pratap Singh Marehra may be found helping the other socks in Special:Undelete/Bhupendra Singh and is close to Shivpratap22 by name.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, grrrr. And I've just found Shivamroy22 and Shivpratap22 creating and pretty much being the only contributors to Balbir Singh "Rang", an article that seems next to impossible to source in English and that really doesn't seem to have any sources at present other than online lists of poetry, ie: nothing about the man himself other than he lived and died. No doubt someone would argue it is worth keeping but if I had my way, I'd bin it, watchlist the thing and hope that whoever does recreate it is competent and not another incarnation of the farm. Creation of a sock/little other input. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, aren't you familiar with Padmalakshmisx? The Charlie Kay Chakkar Mein article was created by Shivamroy22 in October/November 2015 and the next significant bunch of edits came in November from an account that was later CU blocked as a Padmalakshmisx sock. All the early edits of Shivamroy22, across all articles, seem to relate to TV/film, which I think is/was Padmalakshmisx's interest. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So, we file it under the existing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution? Guys, I'm sorry, I did say I'd do it, but I meant a regular simple SPI. I can't handle all the branching-out stuff above, I'm out. Pinging @Utcursch and Titodutta: for you, to see if they can add further likelihoods and complexities. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

Definitely getting messy. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll file the SPI in the next few hours. Meanwhile, there's someone you know from when you were buying a flat who is also likely indulging in behavior similar to what's noted above. I've left a note asking for an explanation on one account and a COI warning on the other, maybe Bearian Hunter might see things differently from how I'm seeing them on this new issue? —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--@Spiff:--Definitely agree that it's more likely a paid editing ring with Shivamroy controlling the rest.And, in all probabilities, apart from technical evidences, ShivamRoy22 can be blocked for mass-scale undisclosed paid-editing.But, what surprised me the most is the excessive interest of the entire farm about Indian vice-presidential election, 2017!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have bitten the bullet and filed an outline case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution - it needs work. Pinging SpacemanSpiff, Bishonen, Berean Hunter, Godric on Leave, RegentsPark. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

'People of India ' confusion

Sitush, please can you advise me if the following is considered reliable or not? India's Communities A-Z: 3 Volume Set Series: People Of India Hardcover: 4206 pages Publisher: Oxford University Press (June 3, 1999) Language: English ISBN-10: 0195633547 ISBN-13: 978-0195633542 I do not think this is the state series. But not sure.

Or see this https://books.google.com/books?id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ

Are the above books reliable?

Acharya63 (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That is the "national" series which, as you note, is an OUP publication and considered to be reliable. The "states" series was published by various companies, was politicised and plagiarised the Raj era authors, often without attribution.The People of India gives a bit of information but probably isn't massively relevant to the issue of reliability. - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your prompt reply.- Acharya63 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Anangpal Tomar

Hi Sitush,

I removed a text from anangpal tomar about caste of anangpal. You reverted this change and ask me to provide proper summary. Sitush, i already provided a proper summary there that there is no document or proofs about the caste of anangpal tomar. There is no news, article about anangpal tomar or anangpal tanwar. Even everyone knows that anangpal tomar was gurjar but rajput and jats also claim that he belongs to their community. But there is no proper proof for that. Only on the base of a book, you can not decide the history. Atleast there must be some other references also. Please revert back the changes. Thank YouVIRAAT (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You removed a statement sourced to a book published by the Oxford University Press. I am sure plenty of different groups "claim" the guy because that is the nature of Indian society: so many groups clamour to be associated with characters they consider would glorify them. If you have reliable sources that support their claims then we could add them to the article, saying that his caste is disputed. But caste-affiliated websites etc are not reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Karadiya Rajput

Hi Sitush - If / when you have a minute, could I please ask you to look at the recent edits to Karadiya Rajput - Given the editors name, I suspect PoV but some sources don't seem to support the previous version, so (s)he may be right. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching. Things got messy after the big edits by Lourdes and I lost track of what was going on. I need to try to catch up because I think Lourdes now accepts that they may be a bit out of their depth with classifications etc (see discussion at Talk:Telaga involving them, Kautilya3 and myself). Basically, though, I suspect you are right: in my experience, any editor of an India-related article whose username contains the words "kshatriya", "history" or "truth" ends up being blocked or reverted so often that they give up. Some, of course, then start socking. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Spiffy charged in with his mop four minutes before I did :) Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue at hand

@SpacemanSpiff: @Sitush:

After reading your (SpacemanSpiff) message related to user:Dagduba lokhande, I discussed the matter with user:संदेश हिवाळे / Sandesh Hiwale on his mr wikipedia talk page and he denied any link and felt concerned that because of any misunderstanding his account may remain blocked in future too.

As one can see simillarity between conent intrests of them, prima facia my feeling was Sandesh Hiwale may not be as good enough in english sentence formation as Dagduba lokhande seems. User Sandesh Hiwale has been more polite on talk pages. and third is on Marathi Wikipedia atleast I have seen him largly avoiding edit wars and engages well on talk page discussion. But rather than remaing in suspission it is ok to carry out a cu check if you feel so.

What one defficulty I find in these cases is if some one doing direct mobile edit through source edit tools to add citations and refs are not visible at least the smartphones I have seen uptil now. Certainly I do not want any one to use this as defence of unaccaptable conduct.

I suppose user:Sitush might have been stuying edits related to Dr.Ambedkar and Buddhism related pages for long enough. I want to discuss the social phenomena and may be some ways to deal with the same. 1) Not being aware about encyclopedia is a common issue 2) what adds into that is certain communities looking for social recognition and to do that they add honorifix and hero-worshipng or some unsubtantiated claims which they here from their local socio-political leaders or media. Many of edits may not be as per encyclopedic expectations but many of them may not be intentional bad faith. If we use blocking as a majior tool a risk of sizable community may be getting distanced from editing wikipedia.

My perception is from the previous edit attempts if experienced users like you can find and make list of words sentences to be discouraged, and add edit filters as first measure for specific pages of specific categories. I know english wikipedia is reluctant player on edit filter side but before banning option of filter may be proper.

The second preferable measure is rather than total block may be you have a category block that will allow them to engage on more number of talk pages and non-contro main space pages too and this also can be enforced through edit filters.

(Actually what we do on Marathi Wikipedia is if any one edits any socio-political artical then dependin on edit count the user gets random messages informing them of various encyclopedic values along with the reason behind importance of the value. We prefer to stress more on values than set of rules. Its fine that every project has different culture and requirements So english wikipedia governs differently is understandable)

Last but not least is if at all blocking needs to be used see if it can be limited to one year. In first few instances of undesirable editing.

my laptop has got some flying cursor tech issue.Sorry if any spell mistakes remain due to this reason. AlSo Its taking me time to respond back. Rgds and thanks. Mahitgar (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Mahitgar, I've had a deeper look here and at Commons and I think I'm leaning towards your conclusion that the accounts are not operated by the same person. Hilwale's accounts were non-communicative whereas Lokhande is just confrontational. I'm leaning towards a topic ban from anything related to Ambedkar or Buddhism and if he can't comply with that then he'll be blocked (will do that soon, if you have any further opinion on that, do let me know). However, while looking though this entire history on these articles, I came across another editor who shares a similar editing pattern -- प्रसाद साळवे. Are you sure that they aren't co-ordinating their edits outside of Wikipedia and pushing that here? Also, if you think Hilwale's ready, I'm also ready to support an unblock now if he agrees to stay away from anything related to Ambedkar for six months, during which time he should show an ability to edit in other areas -- he'll have to file a formal unblock request on his talk page listing out what he plans to differently this time around. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

About Hiwale and प्रसाद साळवे they are most likely from different geographies as per their eidits on mr:wp so far, As such प्रसाद साळवे is very old user on mr:wp compared to Hiwale. While can't predict anything about social media connectivity. Actually I have addressed all of them on Hiwale's talk page on mr:wp and suggested them for few things 1) to prioritise to get Ambedkar And Buddhism related source literature on en-wikisource because to some exantant they may be bit confused between reliability of their sources. If they refer to standard sources they will get .better quality for their subjects of interest. 2) First write down references what you are going to cite on talk pages of the articles before editing the page. 3) preferably try to use more than one source for any single topic . 4) Doing proper referencing

To Hiwale I have shared some PDF of a PHD thesis also for proper referencing of the sources. I will remind him on the same again.

About topic ban per me in main name space if you feel then ok. But atleast for Hiwale and प्रसाद साळवे you can keep user talk page access open on your or Sitush page so you can take into account their legitimate issues and that will help mentoring aspects too. Afterwards let them go to article talk pages and at a later stage in main namespace so I suppose it will help the mentoring better.

For Hiwale to end his six months I think couple of more weeks until then you will have better strategy of mentoring them further according to en:wp set of rules.

Thanks and rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Info

Hello, I have just copy-paste your material from User:Sitush/Common to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources via this edit. I don't know, whether I wrote it earlier, but I would like to mention again, should we consider building a Blacklist which can act as source for bots to make reverts? Thanks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Potentially unreliable does not mean always unreliable, so automated bot reverts probably aren't a good idea. I have no idea regarding operation of the list you mention but doubt it is intended to act as an automated filter. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You may possibly be able to help with a problem over sources

Hello, "Sitush". It's many years since you and I had any contact, as far as I remember, though occasionally I come across mentions of you, usually in the form of editors angrily denouncing you for bias in favour of the clan or caste that they presume you belong to, or just in favour of your native land of India. I always find that a little amusing.

I don't know whether you will be able help or not, but a problem has come up in connection with an India-related article, and in view of your experience in that area I thought you just might have something to suggest. The article is Prabir Ghosh. There has been a history of POV editing and edit warring on the article. I made this edit, where, as you can see from my edit summary, I removed content which had been disputed and for which there was no verifiable source. An editor has posted to my talk page about this, saying that there are reliable sources in newspaper reports, but they are old newspapers and not available online. The editor's message and my answer are at User talk:JamesBWatson#Prabir Ghosh. I get the impression that the editor is likely to be be right, but in view of the edit warring, the dispute over the content, and my edit summary in which I said that restoring the content without a verifiable source would be a BLP violation, I don't feel that I can just revert my removal.

In a way there is no reason why you should be more likely to have an answer than anyone else, since the problem of verification of old newspaper reports is not specific to India, but you may be able to help.

There is just one possible solution that I know of. The editor has offered to provide scanned copies of the newspaper reports, but I see two potential problems there: (1) I can't read Bengali, (2) posting copies of newspapers to Wikipedia would raise copyright issues. Point (2) could be dealt with by using email, but with the disadvantage that other readers could not verify the sources. Point (1) could be dealt with if there is a trustworthy editor who can read Bengali who could be consulted. You don't by any chance know of one, do you? Or have any suggestions as to how we could find one? Or any other ideas that might help? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You could try Dwaipayanc, who is still at least slightly active and who as the person who took Darjeeling, Kolkata and West Bengal through FAC is presumably familiar with the area, the language, and Wikipedia policies on sourcing. Winged Blades of Godric is also a Bengali speaker and (after some initial—er—differences of opinion with policy) seems fairly sensible. ‑ Iridescent 09:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thanks very much. I'll try contacting those two and maybe one or other can help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Titodutta is a Bengali speaking admin who created a custom search engine for Indian news sources, located at WP:INDAFD. —SpacemanSpiff 11:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is almost impossible for me to check 1996 edition of Aajkaal, there is no digital archive, I can try mailing to the office of the newspaper, depending on whether they will reply or not, it will take at least 2-3 weeks to verify this information. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the editor is willing to email a scanned copy of the text, perhaps Tito can just look at that rather than waiting for aajkaal.--regentspark (comment) 14:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for responding to this and other messages. I'm not very well at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Be well Sitush.--regentspark (comment) 14:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am concerned to hear you are unwell, Sitush. I do hope it's something you can reasonably easily recover from.
• Well, in future I shall know that if I want help with anything India-related I just need to post to this page, and volunteers will flock in, whether Sitush is available or not. Thanks to all who have responded to my call for help. I have been in touch with Winged Blades of Godric, who is helping, so special thanks to Iridescent for suggesting that name. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am sorry to hear you are feeling a bit rough at the moment Sitush, hopefully it will bugger off soon! Regards, Irondome (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

William Beach Thomas

Hey Sitush. This is letting you know that the William Beach Thomas article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 12, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 12, 2017.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick comment on this one ... "rewarded him with knighthoods", or "awarded him knighthoods"? I know enough to say that some people may care about the difference, but that's the extent of my knowledge. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Rewarded" in this context, since they were given in return for specific services. One can be awarded a knighthood for a completely undistinguished career in (for instance) finance or the civil service, but it wouldn't be a reward. ‑ Iridescent 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it. After an initial spate of anti-authoritarianism, He was a lapdog and his reward for that was a pat on the head tap on the shoulders. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I found details of the son that died 'serving as a naval officer during the Second World War'. There was nothing in the CWGC records under 'Beach Thomas', so I presumed he had been filed under the surname 'Thomas' and did a search for the surname 'Thomas' and 'Navy' and 'World War II', and got 337 results. Scanning the list of names for someone with Beach as a middle name I came across the son's record on page 3 of 17: Lieut-Commander Michael Beach Thomas "died 05/04/1941, aged 35, HMS Terror II, Royal Navy, son of Sir William Beach Thomas, KBE, and Lady Thomas, of Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire; husband of E. H. C. Thomas, of Ringmore, Kingsbridge, Devon." More here as well, giving details of what happened, with a reference to a brief news report in The Times (the ship he was on is one of the red-links in the list at HMS Buffalo). Commemorated on the Plymouth Naval Memorial. Obviously too much detail would be inappropriate for the article (which is about the father), but given that at the FAC discussion Curly Turkey asked about date and cause of death of this son, and the reply was "not known", maybe that can be changed now to "known" and some details added? Maybe an additional footnote to the article? Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Despite the widow being listed as living in Devon, the son is listed on the war memorial where his parents lived in Wheathampstead, see here (the photo of the WW2 names on the memorial shows him correctly listed under 'B'). There is a collection of biographies of people that appear on that war memorial, and Michael Beach Thomas is among them, but only part of the book is online, see here. Michael Beach Thomas is on pages 179 and 180. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding some sort of short note based on the CWGC seems fine to me. It is one of those instances where there isn't going to be any potential confusion with some other family. Feel free to do it. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Times obituary records the son's name, Lt Cdr Michael Beach Thomas: it seems the naval board of inquiry blamed him for the tender Buffalo fouling a British mine in No 3 minefield in the harbour at Singapore on 4 April 1941. The mine exploded and the vessel broke in two, killing 22 (including Commander Richard Ryder Airey) and 20 injured. A few details in a short report in The Times on 8 April 1941. How unfortunate. Something like "His son Michael served in the Royal Navy, and was killed in April 1941, when his vessel hit a British mine in Singapore harbour."

Rather bizarrely, it seems that "High Trees", overlooking a golf course near Wheathampstead, was later owned by John Knight, brother of Ronnie Knight, and one of the participants in the £6m Security Express robbery in Shoreditch in 1983. It seems he buried some of the loot under the tomatoes in his greenhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.75.36.68 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Have just added a bit just now. I saw the references to an enquiry, and the records at the National Archives, but haven't been able to access that - is that report online? Might be going too far to expand on that. I did wonder who the enquiry blamed. The surname confuses me. Michael's widow was surnamed Thomas (not Beach Thomas), and Lady Thomas (the mother) only took the name Thomas. The father (William) used his second name as part of his surname (as the article says). It looks like he gave the same second name to his second son, who in some places is called Thomas and in others is called Beach Thomas or even Beach-Thomas (the hyphenation is definitely incorrect). The sources do disagree on whether the deaths occurred on 4 or 5 April. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I suspect the report will not be online. I know air accident reports, mining accident reports etc are public record but a lot of WW2 stuff is still either locked away or simply not digitised. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Priti Patel

I'm just looking at The Guardian's rolling news feed, and picturing 25 Wikipedians about to reenact something like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I rarely get involved with BLPs but that article was a mess. I'm too unwell to go through the entire thing - concentration keeps drifting - but it wouldn't surprise me if there are other misrepresentations. It is likely to be frantic in the next few hours, as you suggest, but I won't be around to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been involved in two rapid-fire article changes recently, Tom Petty and Catalonia, and I don't think I can stomach another one right now. I keep telling people to wait, pointing them towards WP:NOTNEWS and explaining Wikipedia won't fall over if we don't report news as it happens, but I might as well be Sisyphus pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom

ArbCom is in principle the right venue to deal with the Ref Desk issue. But that doesn't man that I don't have issues with the way ArbCom has gone about doing its business. But that's a very long story, it deals with issues that date back almost a decade, you can find some clues here. ArbCom should actually have the guts to mow down a walled garden, even if its' a very large one. Too often they have taken the mistaken but politically correct decision, to not do that. In some cases, the right decision may well be a very unpopular decision... Count Iblis (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have little interest in the opinions of someone whose primary purpose on Wikipedia does not appear to be improvement of articles etc and who repeatedly states fundamentally the same thing on multiple occasions in a single thread while demonstrating a complete inability to understand how we operate. I know you wear your wiki-anarchist badge with pride but, frankly, you come across as rather absurd. And you pretty much always have, in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm usually too busy working on stuff that may eventually end up becoming part of Wikipedia articles. Here on Wikipedia, I've contributed to missing technical stuff of some articles, e.g. the section Gaussian_quadrature#General formula for the weights, which is very important as most readers want to actually know the general formula and some of them may want to read the proof. I understand perfectly well how Wikipedia and AN/I operates, AN/I is worse than this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect most readers don't give a crap about Gaussian_quadrature#General formula for the weights, and there's something odd about seeing a section that cites no sources even if it is supposed to be a proof. If it took you a while to work it out then that suggests to me that you've engaged in original research.

I don't watch YouTube - can't hear anything on it and the captioning system is useless. - Sitush (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Suppose someone needs to do numerical integration when the integrand has singularities at the boundaries. The way to go about is to absorb the singularities in the weight function, this means that you want to know the general formula for Gaussian Quadrature where the weight function is arbitrary. This topic wasn't covered well in sources available online, which is why I decided to write down that section. The audience are then those people who need it, who are able to understand the proof I wrote down, most of whom are not invested in Wikipedia, they don't give a damn about our policies here.

And this is also the attitude I take, I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. Who cares if everything is already verifiable from first principles? Only the OR warriors here care, not the people who can actually understand what is written, who will actually read and use the text. So, I see myself as contributing to content available online, not per se to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you're deliberately providing fake refs etc then I think you need to be site banned. - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Since in his entire time here the Count has only ever edited 390 mainspace articles, it would be easy enough to check. Although Occam's Razor would suggest "you're being trolled" is a considerably more likely explanation. ‑ Iridescent 22:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, Wikipedia does have this safety valve that makes sure that good content that's useful for readers doesn't get removed just because it violates some rule. A long time ago I did ask people here to broaden the OR policy so that mathematical text that is self-contained and therefore verifiable to people who can understand it, should not need citations. While textbooks can often be cited, they'll be written for students who are assumed to have a certain amount of knowledge. Here on Wikipedia we can often present the same stuff to people who have less knowledge and you then need to change the way the stuff is presented. E.g. in in this proof of the Bogoliubov inequality, most textbooks would use the density matrix formalism for the quantum mechanical part of the proof. But that's not necessary, the way I presented it works just as well. Count Iblis (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The more a statement tends towards specialist knowledge, the less we should ignore WP:V. Have you never made a mistake in presenting a mathematical proof? I can remember at least one supposed "proof" that 1 = 0 which might mislead the uninitiated because of the fallacy within it. There is nothing to stop you presenting such proofs on, for example, a blog and I do wonder if Iridescent has a point here. As I said near the outset of this thread, you seem to contribute little of merit and I recall that crass attempt to be elected to the ArbCom of a few years ago. WP:NOTHERE may apply. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

With math that you are familiar with, this isn't a problem. The main issue here isn't an OR or verifiability issue, as we already know that the statement is true and there are plenty of sources for that. But people who are actually search the Internet and find themselves clicking on the link, want the technical details such as the proof. Now, they are expert enough to see through a bogus proof, but it's too much effort for them to construct a proof themselves (that's usually more difficult than checking that a purported proof works, and they may have difficulties accessing books, or the books they have invoke other things that they yet have to master). Note then that the whole point of the proof is what is says, it allows people understand why the statement is true. It's no good writing down something that they can't verify from first principles but should trust is correct because it is cited to an authoritative source.

Now, I'm of course not against giving references whenever good ones exist. But it can happen that no good references exist, not because the text is OR but because all the sources invoke more advanced concepts and I've written it up without those concepts. So, by not giving a reference, I solicit for other editors to find a good one. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

is there a list of reliable and unreliable sources that we can reference?

For example are the following source considered reliable? The latter two are from the Govt of India. Hence I am not sure if they are plagiarized from Raj sources.

1. Is The Castes, Tribes & Culture of India: Western Maharashtra & Gujarat Krishna Prakash Bahadur, Sukhdev Singh Chib Ess Ess Publications, 1977

2. Maharashtra, Land and Its People Front Cover Irawati Karmarkar Karve Directorate of Government Printing, Stationery and Publications, Maharashtra State, 1968 - Maharashtra (India) - 201 pages

3. Maharashtra, land and its people

Author: Tri Nā Vāḷuñjakara; A Śã Pāṭhaka; Maharashtra (India). Gazetteers Department. Publisher: Mumbai : Gazetteers Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra : Book available at, Govt. Book Depot, 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mail

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

Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Sitush. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Lohanas

Please keep an eye on this Lohana page, there has been recent vandalism of sourced content by user "Harsh54". He is claiming Lohahans are Kshatriya from Afghanistan/Iran and other absurd pseudo-history things without any source. Additionally, he has removed so much things. I have restored as much as possible. 61.3.102.6 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sitush. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wishing you good health:)

Winged Blades ^Godric 11:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for William Beach Thomas, a "war correspondent of WWI who gained both fame and infamy for his efforts and was also prominent as a writer of articles and books concerning rural affairs and nature. He was imprisoned for his activities in the early part of the war and also much parodied in the Wipers Times trench newspaper. He was later knighted by both the British and the French."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi, could you take a little look on this article, Sri Lankan Vellalar. Xenani (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Birbal Jha is the article I have included all those links in reference to the edit. I wonder why you appear to be biased and averse to the article. I have no conflict of Interest but I fail to understand your logic behind cleaning up. I have closed watched and read the activities of Birbal Jha on media and I take interest in editing it. Should I refrain myself from editing the article or do the justice to the page. Kind regards

DarrenmongDarrenmong (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Raju article

I have not added anything that seems to be faulty.the words landed aristocracy is more appropriate.You can see it in any history of kakatiyas, qutub shahis,asafjahis/nizams and even during rashtrakutas who were considered as military chiefs/vassals/tax collectors.Every peasant leader cannot be zamindar & dynasty rulers.Before reverting to your own data you should check atleast whether I have provided any misleading information then it seems to be neutral information Bsr465 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Explained on your talk page before you posted here. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

does saying Bhagat singh as a sikh is misleading and saying jat is not misleading ?

if you are removing sikh because it is misleading to say so why you don't remove "jat" its too misleading Bhagat singh never said he is jat--Jagat jit singh (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

why you are not removing jat

if you are saying sikh is misleading to say then thus jat is right to say ? even the source given along with it "https://books.google.co.in/books?id=PC4C3KcgCv0C&redir_esc=y" clear that he was born in a sandhu sikh jat family my dear please first read it and i am not creating any edit war i am just correcting it--Jagat jit singh (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You have exceeded the three revert limit and thus I've reported you to the relevant noticeboard. I'd already tried to explain on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Udayar

1) I accept that some people of udayar caste are following Christianity. But when compare to Hindus udayar not even comes to 1%. The reference what you have given is not worked based on caste or orgin. It deals with only south Indian Christianity people.

2) Socially Humbler than Vellar - Vellar is the group of people how doing agriculture. But udayar caste are belongs to Velir group. For reference please read Dennis B. McGilvray work on caste system in south India. One more all udayars are under obc category. Earlier it was in General category later changed to obc category after Dravidian movement has became ruling party in Tamil Nadu. But most of the vellar cast are in mbc category earlier they where in BC later moved to MBC. If the caste is humbler than vellar then how this this is possible.

3) Malayaman Udayar are belongs to Malayaman Dynasty. There are lot of inscription which has return on sangam period found in Tamil Nadu and also found in Literature. Please refer the following artical - http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_26/introduction_1.html We request you to don't revert the page. If you have any concern replay to this mail. Will make it clear. -> Archescientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archescientist (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You are at the three revert limit, have been reverted by other people than just me, and are using some awful sources and poor phrasing. I did ask you to raise the issue at the article talk page. This is not that. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi sitush, We are looking forward your view on above points rather your discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archescientist (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discrimination? I'm not the one who is attempting to bias the article with poor sources and phrasing, and by removing existing sourced info. And who is the "we" to whom you refer? You should not be editing on behalf of an organisation etc.

I've just posted a note at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Attention on Propaganda Articles and misleading edits in List of Rajputs

Hello Sitush The articles Thakur Yugal Kishore Sinha looks like the content uploader 'Prabhatmishra1985' (who has been blocked earlier) is running a propagandist agenda and presenting mostly hoax and over exaggerated facts in disguise of some real facts.He has inserted the names of son and grandson of Thakur Yugal Kishore Sinha & Ram Dulari Sinha in many places including the top slot of the wiki page political families of Bihar. How can a couple's children who have never ever been a legislator,parliamentarian or held any constitutional office or had any political relevance be forcefully presented as 'important political personalities of Bihar'? Is it a place to promote or falsely portray individuals?

Secondly, In the page political families of Bihar,there are seasoned families whose several generations of leaders have held highest constitutional offices in India/bihar and there are families producing several ministers and Chief Ministers;how come the couple of Thakur Yugal Kishore Sinha & Ram Dulari Sinha be considered a 'political dynasty or family of Bihar' when after the couple none of their children or grand child ever won any election in state or held any important constitutional office or in short never got the people's mandate.

Also, the user 'Prabhatmishra1985' has strangely added the couple in the FIRST place of the national 'List of Rajputs'- 'Politicians of India'. He has removed much much important historic,political and constitutional personalities of India belonging to Rajput Caste and inserted Thakur Yugal Kishore Sinha at the TOP of list who was only a one time MP and .If his his wife Ram Dulari Sinha (Who may be included as she held post of a Governor) is included then why not other Rajputs who have held the office of Governor of several states and some who became Governors & CMs many times?. There are hundreds of prominent Rajputs who have been MPs and members of first Lok Sabha of India and there are some who even have been CMs, Governors and central ministers,then how come only Thakur Yugal Kishore Sinha who doesn't qualify to be placed at the 'Top' is allowed there?Kindly ensure only content backed by realistic sources and genuine importance are uploaded.

Neutral parties on Bengal famine of 1943?

Hello Sitush.

I have no recollection at all how I started working on Bengal famine of 1943. I grew up in suburban US in a rural state, and all of my relatives are very rural 'Muricans. I don't give a flying hoot about the Raj. If anything at all... I can come clean and confess to being obsessively perfectionist (in many but not all cases; sometimes I DGAF, esp. for pop culture crap) about Wikipedia. I probably have lost friends because of it, in fact.

I spent a year rewriting Bengal famine of 1943 because it was massively POV horse manure. I made a half-completed list of all the POV aspects, and even half done, it was distressing. Huge aspects never even mentioned, etc. That list is given on the MilHist try I think.

I acknowledge that I perceive Fowler&Fowler to be an admitted pro-British POV editor because of this comment: "This is in part because BFo1943 is only obliquely military history. In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility."

F&F has already asserted that he thinks I worked in userspace to protect a POV.

Are there any very experienced and very neutral editors who can help satisfy F&F's demands that the article must be checked?

Having said all that, I have to confess: I very clearly believe (and invite you to consider the possibility) that there are exactly three forums in the whole of Wikipedia that even come close to being equipped to handle this article. Those three forums are WP:FAC, WP:FAC, and WP:FAC. GA? Please. PR? Well, yeah, in theory, but in practice it is undermanned. It is designed to be of lesser quality than FAC. MILHIST? Same as PR, plus A- level reviewers are all at FAC already anyhow... In FAC people have to stow away their POV, and the best reviewers in Wikipedia congregate at FAC. I would be quite content for the article to sit three or four months in FAC, if that's what it takes...

Sigh. I give up; I forgot that you already said at Bish's page that you don't have a good view of the article. Cheers; I'll go bang my head against a wall at WT:FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(t

Nattukottai Nagarthar Page Content Removal

please understand or research before deleting a content in a page like this which provide information about community as these details not found on internet they don't prove these details are false. some content can't are need to be present in Wikipedia for there novelty. these contents are verifiable in "Nattukottai Nagarathar Seerthirutham" a book by Pandithamani Kathiresan.

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: troll free? Your optimism astounds me ;) Thanks for the wishes, which are reciprocated. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Indian private universities

I believe you were once interviewed by an editor belonging to The Times of India. As such do you know of any business journalist based in UK/India who can be persuaded to run a story on the growth of private universities in Indian states and their quality standards when judged from an international stage? If you want specific examples take a look at my post at Talk:Annals of Mathematics#Content, where I asked David Eppstein to write a new blog post on his blog. Apparently it took 60 years, under the banner of a brand new private university set up under a central legislation, for a paper from West Bengal to appear in the top math journal. I don't think RKMVU is the only private university which have successfully managed to "defeat" older public universities. Tachs recently completed his project of creating biographical articles on the SSB prize winners and I know of at least two SSB laureates (biologist MadhavDGadgil and mathematician Rkarandikar) who have edited Wikipedia and are presumably aware of the modus operandi of Indian private universities to attract top faculties (and students).

The specific institution I have in mind for running a story is the Techno India University setup in 2012 with an endowment of 10,000 crore but whose owners Satyam Roy Chowdhury and Goutam Roy Chowdhury, neither of them feature at the Forbes list of Indian billionaires. Solomon7968 07:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. And, frankly, my own opinion is that the Indian private university system is subject to massive corruption - just look at the number of fake degrees etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Echo Sitush.Unless and until you're looking at outlying outliers and/or a very selected few, private-university-system over here is way-way too corrupt.Winged Blades^Godric 15:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello Sitush: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 22:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

@Buster7: thanks, and my best wishes to you also. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Auguri!

Merry Christmas from London, Sitush ...

and a New Year filled with peace and happiness!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: thanks, and my best wishes to you also. I see that IAC are still causing problems, notably with Drmies. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• What? Who? What is IAC--that anti-corruption party? I've recently been bothered by Inlinetext: are they connected? Drmies (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Tut, tut: you're supposed to be enjoying the day with your kids, Drmies. Shocked, I am shocked, I say. <g> I know you have no interest in WP criticism sites etc but the word on the street in the public areas of those sites is that it is IAC. There were certainly some similarities when I looked into it recently - Germany, outing, threats via employers etc. There was also some messing about with domain names somewhere, which fits the pattern. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I too was puzzled at first by Sitush's mention of an IAC connection. But, after the Christmas festivities are over, you might want to read this in conjunction with this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so it is India Against Corruption. Sorry Sitush--I've had little to do with that sock farm. Sad, by the way--very sad. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes

No pictures and all; just wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a pleasant 2018:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and the same wishes to you, WBG - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

don't create an edit war

why you are creating edit war by removing Sikh from Bhagat singh early life and creating a false attitude that it is not mention in a source given along with it--Jagat jit singh (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

why you are not removing jat then

if you are talking that sikh creates a misleading in bhagat singh so why you don't remove jat which is not mentioned in a source given along with it. i have asked this question two times and you have not replied it. if you don't have the answer so please stay away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagat jit singh (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been told before. See the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

taking complaints to someone else would not resolve the problem until you have not red the source. and i have asked certain questions you have still not replied--Jagat jit singh (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You are running a steamroller through our policies and guidelines, and you were lucky that my report to WP:AN3 on 23 December was archived before someone acted on it. I am fed up of telling you to read the article talk page and fed up of trying to explain why your edit is plain wrong. I don't know if you have some sort of problem with English language comprehension or are just being pig-headed about it but all is explained at Talk:Bhagat Singh. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

AFD on Burton Speiser

I’ve nominated Burton Speiser for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burton Speiser (2nd nomination). Billhpike (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Sitush. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,556 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Read Ahluwalia Talk Page

thanks

KingG1001 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

email representation: info-en-q@wikimedia.org

sent a detailed representation on your edits to the page on email info-en-q@wikimedia.org. kindly let them take the call.

thanks and regards, s jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanskritijain (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Edit of Title Picture

Dear Sitush, you have reverted my change to title picture in article Bhil. You have reverted it back to Children in risen district with caption- 'Bhil children in Raisen. The authenticity you say is the picture "APPEARS GENUINE". I ask, who are you to judge the appearance of bhil people. Where are your reliable source. Can you produce caste certificates and aadhar cards of these children to validate the information. Also in case these children are belonging to this ethnic group the picture don't belong to the information/title picture but somewhere down the article. The next point you give "we don't do Famous people"-contrary to this open Wikipedia page of any community, particularly ethnic groups in america like Irish Americans, Indian Americans you will only find 'famous people' whose identity of belonging to a particularly community is beyond any doubt and just does not "appear" as you say. One example of ethnic community where picture of school children indeed appear is in Native Hawaiians. But this said picture comes with all the credible information like photographer, details of picture and dates and unlike picture in question the said picture is well-cataloged historical document. On the other hand the picture I added is well known historical document and its validity as you call reliable source is evident in the wikipedia page of erstwhile Udaipur State. Also my previous edit's reliable source can be found on wikipedia page of Battle_of_Haldighati but leave this apart I will edit it with book citations later on. As far as your relaible source for my historical depiction of Bhil Warrior in attire is concerned here is link to the official page of custodians of erstwhile Mewar/Udaipur state http://www.eternalmewar.in/asm/coat-of-arms.html . Further another historical picture depicting Bhil warrior in his attire and role can be seen on Wikipedia page of Mayo College Ajmer's coat of arms. I wish you will restore the authentic changes I have made. Your reliable source for Mayo College coat of Arms is https://www.mayocollege.com/CoatOfArms.html

The photo that you removed was taken in the field by a respected administrator at Wikimedia Commons. The image that you added says nothing about the Bhil people. Mayo College appears to be completely irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The picture you restored says what about bhil people? They are just some random children. The picture I uploaded is a historical document in public domain on wikipedia and it demonstration/depicts on historic role and attire of Bhil people as warriors. I find your so called respected administrator upload is totally irrelevant in this matter. Kindly try to understand the importance of this historic image with respect to Bhil people. I am moving 'Children' pic to Images- a more appropriate location. Thank You.

Telugu people

I'm surprise that you deleted large part of it claiming that it is original research, when it clearly said Telugu speaking. On what basis do you claim it is original research, and is your assertion in itself an original research, unsupported by sources? Hzh (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries, Raj sources are not reliable and being situated in AP or Telangana does not make someone Telugu, nor does being situated in (say) London mean that someone isn't Telugu. The entire thing is a nonsense, as I said on the article talk page. It is driven by political motives, I suspect (on which subject, Horowitz might be worth a read). - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Making claim is simple, it is for you to show that it is actually so. I could simply say everything you said is nonsense and driven by political motive, that does not mean that I am right. Deleting figures from Raj era by simply dismissing it as unreliable is really absurd. There are always inaccuracies in figures due to numerous factors, particular those from the past, that does not mean they are nonsense. It is for historians to sieve out what might be true or not, it is not for editors to simply assert and delete thing. Wikipedia may give sources where historians discuss the figures and their accuracy, it is not for editor to unitarily decide that something if unreliable without given valid reasons. That would actually be your original research, and a sourced figure is better than your unsupported assertion. Hzh (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue regarding Raj sources is a long-established consensus, discussed at numerous articles in the past, at WP:RSN, at WP:DR, WP:ANI, WT:INB etc. You might also care to read Census of India prior to independence. That not all of the population in a massive region speak a given language is common sense. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the figures. The figures are not just of people in the states, they are figures of those who speak Telugu in particular states, and image and the figures in the table given clearly shows that this is so (it shows proportion of population who spoke Telugu). I again repeat that it is not for you to simply assert that something is so, editors should give sources that would support your claim. Vague assertions about past discussions is of no help in this. Hzh (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood the figures. It is not just me who is asserting - it is a site-wide consensus. Have you read the article I linked above? The census enumerators didn't know what they were talking about (sic) and those being enumerated manipulated things. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic "nationalism" is a hot political topic in India. Always has been, probably always will be. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, where did Galletti get the info from if not from the census? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything that support your assertion that the particular set of figures are unreliable. What the article said is that the figures are "variable" (and that covered a large time span). Therefore I repeat, support your assertion with actual source that show that that set of data is unreliable. Hzh (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't prove a negative except by past discussions and consensus. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? Have you also ever seen WP:HISTRS (admittedly an essay, but a widely noted one)? Even if it were not unreliable, the information was ridiculously detailed. I've also got no idea why you are asking me all of this stuff here. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1901 Census of Rajputana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1901 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F - something from RSN. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some background - User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't shown it is relevant to this. You cannot have a WP:CONSENSUS on this when it had not been discussed by the wider community before you deleted the figures. Since I don't know what relevance the past discussions may have on this particular case, you would need to show their relevance. For example, the source you gave said the figures are variable, that is not the same as they are all unreliable. It should also be noted that in the discussions you brought up, not many actually agree with you on you (some of those who agree with the deletion gave other reasons). That source gave population figures of Telugu speakers at a particular time, and would be valid for that particular period with whatever limitation that the figures may have. WP:HISTRS would apply if you want historians to discuss the figures. You can say that many modern census figures are also not accurate (for example, people don't bother to return the survey, sometimes deliberately avoiding it altogether), that does not mean that those figures should not be given. All census figures have limitations, I would therefore say that your action appears to be indiscriminate.

As I've said, I'm simply surprise by your assertion as it is apparently a misunderstanding of the figures. I don't care that much that you removed it, it's the manner you removed it. Personally I would have condensed it to a short paragraph of a few sentences. Hzh (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I stand by what I did, with the knowledge that I have a lot of experience in the subject area and have been in literally thousands of similar discussions over the last decade or so. I am nonetheless no more perfect than anyone else: you're welcome to raise the issue at the appropriate venue, which is not here. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

jain awadhiya samaj

dear sitush,

you seem to have ignored the vast number of awadhiyas who are jains and who are not in any way connected to bihar.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/uttarakhand/community/avalanches-result-of-rise-in-temperature-parrikar/230176.html

https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/abide-by-constitution-ministers-will-come-and-go-prez/872361

http://mpsbb.info/MP_Plant_Biodiversity/Resume.pdf

https://in.linkedin.com/in/iitkian

this person is awadhiya and is a jain. he is from madhya pradesh. he belongs to general category.

there are many ias ips ifs officers in your country who are jains and use surname awadhiya.

awadhiya actually means "who belongs to awadh". just like surname "pilania" refers to 'who hails from pilani'. or jhunjhunwala refers to 'who belongs to jhunjhunu'.

awadhiya is not a caste. and majority of awadhiyas are jains who are neither connected to bihar, nor do belong to reservation category. they are very successful and powerful people in contemporary times.

i hope that this helps.

thanks and regards, the awadhiya jain samaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainawadhiyasamaj (talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to choose another user name. Your present name suggests that you are editing on behalf of an organisation and this is not permitted. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New YearJonathansammy (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wish you both (Jonathansammy and Sitush) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Sitush, I have been following your comments/edits and although I have given exams that require good vocabulary like the "old pattern" GRE (in the US), I learn some new words from you every time(like polemicist, ballsed, etc.). It is quite obvious you were completely western educated - but not sure how you developed such good vocabulary. Or perhaps my vocabulary is not good. Just an observation.Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am British, Acharya63. My only connection to India is that a great-great-grandmother was born in 1849 in Bangalore while her father was serving as a private with the 15th Hussars. According to army records, he served 23 years in total, of which the last 16 were in India. He appears not to have had any significant ill health out there but died of bronchitis - a disease associated with industrialisation - within a year of returning to the UK and settling in Manchester. I suspect there will be baptismal records at some church in Bangalore but I'll never get there to find out.

I wouldn't advise you to use phrases such as "ballsed up", although I admit I have done - that's a colloquialism! There are some excellent writers of English among India-born Wikipedians. Reading a lot helps with vocabulary development. In my case, I was born profoundly deaf and so never bothered with television or radio or even much conversation - it was pretty much all books. Eg: I had read all of Dickens by the age of 11, except for Edwin Drood (I couldn't see the point in reading an unfinished book). - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I am sorry to hear about your hearing issue. Also I had assumed you were an Indian Brahmin from Bengal or the north. So was surprised to lean you are British(not that it matters). Do you recommend any books in particular? Since you are British, I assume P.G.Wodehouse might have been popular. He used a lot of 'advanced' vocabulary. I loved Dickens too but as far as vocabulary goes, he did not use very difficult words (probably intentionally).-Acharya63 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Acharya63: I read a lot of Wodehouse many years ago - it is light-hearted fun stuff but his style was deliberately old-fashioned. He's worth reading just for pure enjoyment but probably not with the intention of picking up phrases that you might want to use nowadays. That said, the key to developing vocabulary from the written word seems to me (I am no expert) simply to read a lot and widely. Unless you're one of those odd people who enjoy trying to memorise dictionaries. As a teenager back in the 1970s, I used to really enjoy stuff by Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Douglas Adams and so on - I had very broad tastes. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, and some questions

Hello Sitush -
I am relatively new at Wikipedia and really appreciate your edits and comments on Udaipur State and Bhil people. I learnt a thing or two (and more) by reviewing your edits. I do have the following questions that I hope you can help with:
1) You stated Raj sources are deemed unreliable and referenced a discussion page. However, I could not find the particular discussion on that page (again, I don't have much experience navigating Wikipedia pages and am probably missing it). I would like to better understand if all Raj sources are to be wholesale avoided or if some objective information unlikely to be unreliable (e.g., number or name of zillas) can be used. Can you help me find the discussion?
2) I understand that Bhil people had many Raj sources and I used a non-consensus style. However, my edits did contain some pieces of information that neither contained a rp style nor referenced a Raj source (but were referenced to a non-Raj source). I would like to revert at least those edits, but did not want to do so without consulting you. I have a genuine interest in increasing available information on neglected topics like Bhil people but would like to do so in a respectful and consensual way. Please let me know if you would contest my partial reversions (only of those items which do not violate the parameters you commented).
I have one item of discussion on Udaipur State that is better suited for the discussions page than here, so I will write it there. Thank you.
Deccantrap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Raj sources have long been considered unreliable by consensus on Wikipedia. There have been numerous discussions about them across a vast number of articles, as well as at centralised venues such as WP:RSN (example) and WT:INB, and at various articles for deletion discussions. I do have a subpage in my userspace about the issue in relation to castes, although it is far from being a complete survey of the rationale. The information at WP:HISTRS is also relevant.

I am sure that there are situations where common sense can prevail. For example, while the Imperial Gazetteers are generally problematic, they should be ok for statements concerning geographic boundaries prevailing at the time of publication. However, it would still be better to use something more recent, if only to eliminate any potential problem.

I did go a bit overboard in reverting at Bhil people. For some reason, I'd not got round to looking at that article for quite a while and I was faced with an awful lot of poor changes. With India-related articles frequently being subject to massive amounts of such changes, sorting out the wheat from the chaff can be incredibly time-consuming and often for very little gain (if any). I have no objection to you reinstating anything that you feel has been changed by me inappropriately - I will endeavour to keep an eye on it and raise any issues on the article talk page.

Regarding citation style, the guidance at WP:CITEVAR is worth a read. I generally fix such issues as and when I see them but, again, the sheer number of changes defeated me on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you much for the thoughtful response and the links. I will read the discussion on Raj sources and citation styles before reverting my edits on Bhil people and look forward to discussing any issues that you or other editors may identify with the edits. Deccantrap (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sitush - Since my Bhil people edits were reverted wholesale rather than piecemeal, I am not sure how to bring back individual pieces of information. I can undo your reversion, and then methodically delete items that you identified as not meeting editorial standards. Or is there a better way? Thanks. Deccantrap (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a mess, I admit. The choices would appear to be either revert me as you suggest or rebuild it using the history. Either way would produce the same result, so take your pick. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will tackle it this weekend so that even if I have to revert you, the improper content is not up for more than the couple of hours that it will take me to clean it up. Deccantrap (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)

Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I doubt they would even grant me a visa. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barjati

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barjati. Winged Blades^Godric 10:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Ramgarhia.
Message added 06:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Winged Blades^Godric 06:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted, thanks. I'm giving some time to let other people have a say. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dongria Khonds

Thank you for addressing the Khonds/Dongria Khond issue. Have you any objection if I retarget the Dongria Kondh redirect from Khonds to Dangaria Kandha, and say in that article that they are a subgroup of Khonds? That will make the position clearer and my proposed merge can be dropped. There is plenty of coverage now about the Dongrias because of a local mining dispute that has attracted wider attention: Noyster (talk), 13:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Noyster. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Illathu Nair

the illathu nair is a subcaste of nair and it should need its own page . since all the other subcaste of nair have their own page . more over the information provided is well sourced and true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypillai (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You've done nothing but disrupt this project over the last 12 months or so with your incompetent attempts to force your opinion against consensus and policy etc. It's about time you were indefinitely topic banned and perhaps even blocked. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

Do you think this is much-reliable? The writing style coupled with the puffery do instill some doubt in me.Winged Blades^Godric 13:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

None of them are good sources - that's the problem with Indo-Pakistani sources for "martyrs". We need to find stuff published outside of those countries, and preferably academic. They do exist. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)