Hello, I believe this is my second message requesting you to let me know exactly where you would like for me to post my messages. I am new to Wiki and I don't know i I am posting it in the correct place! Your help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks much. Regards, Kashmirian123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirian123 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate you clarifying this with me. BUT, I noticed then that the Kashmiri surnames section does NOT have a proper citation either(neither do MANY of the things written on topics concerning the Kashmir/Kashmiri people). I am not sure then as to why they are not being removed as well!!!! I will try my best to find proper sources on Kashmiri surnames, but as you can imagine, that might be tough as not much has been written on us, atleast not accurately! Surnames like Talib, Bamzai, Budshah and Sultan are Kashmiri(Pandit) surnames...How exactly is that inaccurate? I do appreciate the fact that verifiable sources are encouraged, but given that we are a small community, that might be just like finding a needle in a haystack! It will be almost impossible for me to find proper sources on this! If you want a comprehensive writeup on Kashmiris then these are important facts that are missing from these articles. Of course, that being said, I will most definitely find some proper sources to support the facts on Kashmir. Kindly ALSO let me know if I am posting this message in the proper space in your page! I do NOT know how to send messages on wikipedia and I do not want to post the messages in the wrong place. In fact, you will actually be helping me out! Thanks! Respectfully, Kashmirian123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirian123 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Actually, I had renewed the link since Iranica has changed its webhost. The correct link is this one: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din --Lysozym (talk)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ratnakar.kulkarni's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

i am not sure what you meant by Rawalpindi, it was not even listed when I made the revision. The references are all there, so I am not sure why you are so concerned about Sudhans, in fact the area itself is called Sudnuti by the Govt of AJK, All it says is that in AJK Rawalakot is the capital of the sudhan tribe. So if you have any issues please list them in the talk section so we can discuss this in a reasonable way.

Trueblood (talk)

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1557 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add ((AFC status)) or ((AfC Defcon)) to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Mr. Sitush, i have noticed that you have reverted my edits in articles like Mahadik by showing cause of citation. Kindly, check whether this book was legal or illegal. Mahesh Madhukar Deshpande(Second edition August 7, 2011). Sataryacha Parisarat. Adv. Varsha Madgulkar, Lokvrat Publications, Satara. ISBN 978-93-80230-11-5.

Although they are the same people it demonstrates the difference in language. Punjabi's sat "Jatt-eh" where's are Harayanavi's and others say "Jaaat". The two spellings relect this distiction. Thanks SH 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch, that is awkward. We should be working off WP:COMMONNAME and I am not sure that it covers original research related to audio stuff. I am pretty darn sure that "Jat" is the more common in writing, so that is the way we need to go. Feel free to disagree. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rijms jatten dat heet bijten en dat zul je berouwen! (Ha, try to GTranslate that!) Drmies (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's the old Punjabi Vs Hindi argument. The groups are racially the same but due to cultural difference seem ethnically different. Here read this nonsense on it. I'm easy either way. Thanks SH 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to know why this contained OR apart from the fact that Fowler thought that it was OR. --sarvajna (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As said at the ANI report and in my edit summary, it is a house of cards based on cherry-picking passing mentions etc and then constructing some bloated theory.It is possible that something can be said about the subject - Roma etc - but not in the way that it was presented. And OR/synthesis has no place in our articles. You'll see also that I had mentioned issues of this type on the article talk page a few days ago, so please do not accuse me of reverting you because it is what Fowler thinks. And, please, for your own sake, remember from the ANI report that you are on thin ice here. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:: I expected a better explanation from you but never mind, well when something can be said about Romani people why did you just revert my revert of removal by Fowler, why did you just not work on it? May be I will request Fowler to do it, he has a better sense of reasoning. Coming to the ANI part of your comment, well I have no idea what I was warned about as the admin never provided me any evidence of my 'Hindutva POV warrior (whatever it means) even if I had shown that kind of attitude it has nothing to do with my reverts, so stop threatening me!!. Wikipedia is not your fiefdom. so stop thinking that I should follow you blindly.--sarvajna (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC) P.S: I know you might just remove my say piss off or other such abusive words. You are the boss of your talk page, go ahead. --sarvajna (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... this user page? --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it should be moved to a sandbox. I doesn't appear to be a recreation of a deleted article, or at least not with my view of the logs, but it is masquerading as an article. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, I've done it. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain the deletion of the citations. I didn't see how the deletion discussion has any relevant content. --MeUser42 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Daily Bell is published and written by a distinctly off-centre self-publicising oddball who has created &/or is involved with a network of microsites and whose article on Wikipedia has recently been deleted. He is being used as a source for an article concerning an emeritus professor. It should be possible to find a better source for the information and, if not, then it should not be stated, - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a simple direct interview. The fact that there is no Wikipedia article on the daily bell does not mean it's not a good source. I don't mind tagging for an additional source, but the current source is of value and should not have been removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did I say anything about there being no WP article for The Daily Bell? It is a self-published source, produced by an oddball character. It is not reliable in a BLP. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by oddball? --MeUser42 (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, no, you are not sucking me into that one. Look it up if you must. I am sure you are aware that there are oddball characters who contribute to Wikipedia and I am not having my talk page turned into some battleground, be it for Libertarians vs Everyone else, Muslims vs Jews, Creationsists vs Atheists, or whatever. Such arguments tend to end up being distortions of what the protagonists say, as indeed you have already distorted what I said above. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am restoring the stable version. Reach consensus. --MeUser42 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello User:Sitush, with ref to the above article i still dont properly understand (a) why some of the references etc have been removed by you and (b) how can i help improve this, as i created the article in the first place and tried to maintain what i could understand of the requirements? I have also left some queries etc on the Talk Page of the article and your help would be much appreciated, thanks AsadUK200 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200Reply[reply]

I have already explained on the talk page. If you need further explanation then you can ask there because I added to my watchlist yesterday. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That user is adding harsh comments about a film and is currently engaged in a edit war, that's why I am editing on that user's talk page. But why are you behaving so harshly to me?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should not remove or reinstate content from someone else's talk page except in very unusual circumstances. Just because you think some comment or other about a film is "harsh" is not one of those circumstances, nor was I being "harsh" in pointing this out to you on your talk page.

If you think that there is edit warring going on and you have tried discussing on the article talk page then you can either refer the matter to dispute resolution or report the user at WP:AN3. You need to be aware of our three revert rule because it is a "bright line" and there are virtually no exceptions to it, so if you have crossed that line then you will probably find yourself in a spot of bother also. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush, since you blocked us from posting on the Autobiography talk page - I posted a draft on Yworo talk page - [1] I was hoping we could keep everything on one page. ?? Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not blocked you from doing anything. What I said was that since we have three drafts already perhaps it would be better to work with them rather than keep posting yet more. It should not be difficult for us to wander through the three and come to some sort of agreement, even if it has to be done one sentence at a time.

If you disagree with me then by all means copy whatever you put on Yworo's page to the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just found this interesting, not asking anything of you since you're more than busy enough with your current tasks.

I've been zipping through WP:AFC using their pretty boss automated tools, and have run across a bunch (easily a score or so) articles on Namibia, all from different editors, and all reasonably Notable topics like Seal hunting in Namibia. Maybe a quarter of them are marginally publishable, and only a quarter a right out unsuitable, so these folks seem reasonably conscientious.

All I can guess is that maybe some prof at the U of Windhoek (or whatever it's called) is assigning this as classwork? I've messaged a few of them trying to find the reason for this influx, and if it is a prof I'll see if we can get an Ambassador to touch base with him just to make sure the students are starting off on the right foot. As much as their articles need work, they're still way better than what we deal with in other areas, so I thought it an interesting indication of a region entering Wiki at a more measured pace and with some promising early efforts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. That certainly sounds like a project. We have a register somewhere - is it listed? The hit rate is nice: I've been on AFC a few times and the constant need to fail stuff kinda gets me down. - Sitush (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked at the "Ambassadors" project, and I'll try to ping every Namibian newb I can until I can get a straight story out of one of them. There's got to be some reason. Maybe if I play my cards right I can be appointed Wikipedia Ambassador to Namibia. I don't think I've been any closer to Namibia than I have to Timbuktu, quite literally by several thousand miles.

AFC is a little frustrating, but if it weren't for AFC we'd have even more crappy articles piling in. On the bright side, the automated widget at AFC is dang amazing, so when I'm on a roll I can do an article ever 30-45 seconds if they're obvious Declines. It is a little frustrating that the Decline templates have massive "THIS IS THE REASON YOU WERE DECLINED" banners up, yet AFC Help gets constant "hey, why'd my article get declined?" on blatant adverts, sourcing-less articles, etc. In fairness, for a long time now I've been convinced that "Notability" is a horrible name for a policy, since most people's gut reaction is "whaddya mean my topic is unimportant???" In fairness I had the same reaction three years ago when I first got Speedy'ed for Del Vecchio (guitar maker). A more technical-sounding term that doesn't sound accusatory would be good, but here we are. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I am not going to comment anymore now as I think I don't know how to. I am confused Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• btw i have never asked anyone to vote etc. Why would I ? You go and delete this article but don't blame me publicly like this. I only posted a link from Wikipedia, which I read about one reliable source. You deleted it. it's okay but how can you say that I am asking anyone to vote? Has anyone except the editors landed on the page? Please if you have to delete it go ahead but refrain from direct disparaging commentsAnanyaprasad (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I provided a link to a message that you posted that could have been construed as canvassing. I explained this to you. You do not have to say "please vote to keep" for your message to fall foul of WP:CANVASS. You have a pretty likely conflict of interest with these articles, as others have explained at the AfDs, and I notice that you appear possibly to have been submitting reviews of Singh's works elsewhere, eg: here.

  You are new-ish to Wikipedia and we should help you to settle in etc but that cannot be done at the expense of policies etc. So, if someone points out a problem and provides a link that gives you some more information about it, it probably would be a good idea if you actually read the link provided. The WP:CANVASS one seems pretty clear to me - is there something in it that you still do not understand? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are no longer welcome to post on my page. You also clearly have a grudge and your behavior shows that you lack a good deal of sense. I no longer wish to interact with you and would hope you get the clue that your recent behavior is beginning to become disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diddums. You are going round censoring people who disagree with you instead of letting third parties determine the outcomes. That is pretty dreadful behaviour. I've been called far, far worse things and let others deal with it. You have one of the thinnest skins I've ever come across here, probably even by the "California" standard that is sometimes used as a vague description for such types. How the hell I can have a grudge when you've never gotten the consensus on the odd occasion you have been involved on the other "side" of the debate from me is plain weird: are you rewriting history now, too. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article "Nair"". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush, The Kaul article draft in my sandbox is much overdue. You said you would be able to check it sometime last month (or the month before). Kindly take the time and have a look. I have alrady left replies to your queries. -Ambar (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, saw the following comments on a revert on my edit "(Reverted to revision 511251488 by 117.204.48.146: you cannot use a Pandit for this pov. ". Could you explain the pov concern. Is not very clear to me. -Ambar (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Did you mean to revert me here? I'd reverted a new addition that cited a Wikipedia page as the source (and that page is itself unsourced). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand Sitush last action too.Rajkris (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I certainly did not intend it. I'd better check for any other weird stuff over the last few days. I was taken to hospital and my phone was in my mum's bag for a while. She would neither know nor care about what happens on Wikipedia but those damn touchscreens + the usual detritus found in handbags are probably not a good mix. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush, sorry for not getting back to you before, but I have already wasted months without much progess trying to make the Autobiography of a Yogi´s article neutral. Your are aware how Red Rose 13 manipulates good faith editors in order to attain SRF´s ends. So I started contributing in other book articles. I only write about what I know and I never made a false statement. Credibility is like honour. This is a copy of what I just posted at yet another disruption made by Red Rose 13 false allegations. In 2009 there was another false claim, made by another SRF´s undisclosed member. Please read my post. I am very interested in your feed back. This is an inter-wiki case of spam and sectarist - together with vandalism.

• This false claim of copyright infringement (which is not the first) is part of a conflict of interest in the editing of Wikipedia articles by people whose background mean that their motives are likely to conflict with the encyclopedia's strict neutrality polic. Members of Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) do not disclose their status in order to edit article space directly, thus lying about their identity in order to use Wikipedia to ardvertise and sell their book, giving the false impression Wikipedia sponsors SRF´s version. The book is in public domain. Only SRF´s version is copyrighted and SRF has changed the 49th chapter. To hide this fact they want to remove it from Wikisource. The reprint of the first edition with the 49th chapter as bonus material is is being sold for years. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, but its neutral policy is not being respected in the Autobiography of a Yogi´s article. Red Rose is using Wikipedia to advertise the heavily edited book published by SRF and supresses any controversial issue. I am banned to edit the article since all my contributions are reversed by Red Rose 13, as can be easily checked in the article "view history". The article is intentionally or unintentionally biased. As you see it is the only book article I have seen so far that has TWO book covers, the first edition cover and SRF´s version cover. To be able to insert the original cover which was also marked for deletion per Red Rose 13 request, it took us nearly THREE months in mediation. Red Rose 13 has been around claiming the first edition of the book was not in public domain; when this failed, now he/she says the cover of the book together with the photographs and illustrations is not in public domain either. Red Rose 13 has been disrupting Wikipedia for his;her own means. Please check this 2009 inter-wiki accusation of copyright infringement. [[2]]. My feeling is that these false claims should be addressed once and for all, since time is money and too many editors are loosing their precious time with spam and sectarism. Tat Sat (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapter 49 was not in the 1946 version Autobiography of a Yogi

• Sitush - Hope you are feeling better...been waiting until you are ready. Here is the actual page so that you can read the whole post - [3] What I wrote is a correct assessment of the situation. George Orwell is correct in his assessment plus it is a copyright infringement because only the 1946 is in public domain according to Gutenberg. Yogananda added the 49th chapter to the 1951 edition which is not in public domain.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have a question as well. Is there a policy in regards to someone constantly falsely accusing another editor? Also, these constant accusations and tirades are disruptive to the editing process. Any thoughts on this? Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I care very little what a discussion on Wikisource may say. The policies there are distinct from those here. Nor do I necessarily place much weight on what Gutenberg say: what makes them a reliable source for legal opinion regarding copyright issues? I'd like to think that they're quite a lot safer to link to than, say, scribd.com but I doubt that they have authority for statements of law. As for the allegations that fly back and forth, well, it seems likely to me that you have some sort of affinity with the SRF and I cannot recall that you have ever explicitly denied it even when explicitly requested to do so. However, provided that you are aware of the constraints of WP:COI and WP:NPOV, well, I really do not care about that either. You could report a serial offender but I wouldn't advise it because it could quite conceivably boomerang on you.

  You both need to stick to what is verifiable and stop indulging in original research and synthesis: you both seem frequently to draw conclusions by mixing your personal knowledge with a hotch-potch of selectively chosen analyses etc and it really is not how we should be doing things. Try to de-personalise things, although I know that this is easier said than done! - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you Sitush for your guidance - looked up original research and synthesis and posted for TatSat and my benefit - "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. [4] Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I deliberately didn't link to either WP:OR or to WP:SYNTHESIS because I was using the terms in a slightly looser sense than they are defined in those articles. The point is still valid. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I apologize for having to do this but it is time to address the allegations once again. The reason I used italicize was not to emphasize the words but to separate the words:
• "Only SRF´s version is copyrighted and SRF has changed the 49th chapter. To hide this fact they want to remove it from Wikisource." It is not hidden. In my research, I discovered that the author actually added the 49th chapter to his 1951 version plus he added many more revisions to this book alone. In the process I discovered that the publisher Crystal Clarity changed the first edition by adding Chapter 49 (without the authors other many revisions) to the original 1st edition, inserted a new foreward among other things. Would this actually be considered a pure reprint? Crystal Clarity reprint 2005.
• "The reprint of the first edition with the 49th chapter as bonus material is is being sold for years." That fact is completely irrelevant to whether it is legal or not.
• "Red Rose is using Wikipedia to advertise the heavily edited book published by SRF and supresses any controversial issue. I am banned to edit the article since all my contributions are reversed by Red Rose 13, as can be easily checked in the article "view history"." Yworo helped us bring the truth to the page thus far - calm, neutral truth. He also has repeatedly said what is allowed on Wikipedia regarding controversy. The article needs improving and with Yworo's & Sitush's help, we can create a neutral well sourced article.
• "The article is intentionally or unintentionally biased. As you see it is the only book article I have seen so far that has TWO book covers, the first edition cover and SRF´s version cover." Remember that Yworo said it is accepted on Wikipedia to have two covers - the 1st edition and the current edition cover on a page.
• "To be able to insert the original cover which was also marked for deletion per Red Rose 13 request, it took us nearly THREE months in mediation." I don't recall marking the original cover for deletion - do you have a link for this?
• "Red Rose 13 has been around claiming the first edition of the book was not in public domain;" I still have not seen a reliable source saying that it is in public domain except Gutenberg.
• when this failed, now he/she says the cover of the book together with the photographs and illustrations is not in public domain either." Not true - Do you have a link for this?
• Red Rose 13 has been disrupting Wikipedia for his;her own means. I have repeatedly said that I want the truth on this page along with reliable sources, not personal opinions.
• Please check this 2009 inter-wiki accusation of copyright infringement. [5]. In reading this, I don't see the final 2002 jury verdict mentioned here. I also see a wikisource editor attempting to interpret a legal document in which this Autobioraphy was not a part of. It needs to be a reliable source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You asked me for my opinion, I gave it and I am not reading another long screed that appears to cover the same ground. This tendentiousness is exactly the problem here. Just let it drop and concentrate on improving the article. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I agree...it is exhausting.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had the references from Google Books and some other sources to the Minhas article but it was deleted again by someone. Now what is the reason for deletion of this article. Minhas 12:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Glad you are back after so many days! Large number of hits to one of the articles created by me made me to rethink whether I am on right track or not. Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust - a controversial subject right now needs guidance/copy editing urgently, in view of high hits. Can you have a glance and suggest something? Thank you for all the support.-Rayabhari (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can say very little. Allegations of corruption are common in India but WP:BLP will not allow us to propagate unsubstantiated claims made on the basis of draft official reports etc. If legal charges are filed and accepted by the courts then perhaps it can be fleshed out but until then we should be limiting ourselves to the absolute minimum.

I can see this becoming yet another Indian corruption rolling news article and, frankly, we need less of those, not more. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. At first instance, when I requested you, I wrote - large number of hits ...made me to rethink whether I am on right track or not. Yes, we need less of these, more of encyclopedic, less sensational info. Thank you for support and guidance. - Rayabhari (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respected Sir, Since after 31.03.2007 no body in the whole word took initiative to update the the page indian postal services, I took up the task on 08.05.2012 & spent daily 4-5 hrs in updating the the page; when going to the final touch, you crashed the the whole page,are you want that people of the world may not know about the latest development in india post pre-independence + after independence; if so i may leave updating the page, why to waste my time in updating wikkipedia encyclopedia. People expert like you will do better having thorough knwolege of the subject but remained silent years together since 31.03.2007 - Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset. I came across the article because of this request made on the India Project noticeboard. From that you can see that it is not just me who saw problems with the page and, indeed, your own talk page has a few comments concerning it. One of those comments makes the perfectly valid point that you do not own the article. Wikipedia articles are rarely if ever a "final" version: they can be and usually are subject to modifications.

In the case of this article, there were numerous problems. The most serious of these were copyright violations both of text and images: for legal reasons, these have to be resolved pretty much as soon as they are found. Other content was either poorly sourced or not sourced at all (in some cases, the source did not even support the statements). Aside from general style issues and rather poor English phrasing etc, the other major difficulty was that it was bloated. For example, we do not need a detailed history of Indian stamps in the article about the IPS because (a) the article should focus on the institution and (b) we have another article that can and does contain the detail relating to stamps, and it is linked.

Can the article be improved? Sure, and you are welcome to do so. But you must abide by our policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any time. Happy to be of help. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, thanks for the guidance & giving knowlede about the rules of editting, I will ensure to abide by our policies and guidelines--Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a voting process going on for selection of Images for Economy section of the India article. Voting ends on 15th November 2012. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look but it is fairly well-known that images are not my thing: although I know what I like when I see it, I do not have a good eye for them and cannot usually say more than "I like that" ... or the opposite. Which is not particularly constructive. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, ageed with you start by you, i wanted to give just information upon the page IPS that department of posts India also has Philatelic Museum. Now modified only link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Philatelic_Museum,_New_Delhi mentioned there. Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was about to PROD the article, but found you were trying to clean it up. I don't see a producer of two movies who is involved in a minor "spat" with a singer is notable. I didn't find anything in the way of references not related to the spat. But, I want to hear your opinion first as you have put some research into this. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what I could find, she is not notable. DGG might argue otherwise and suggest that there may be Hindi sources out there (the film titles look to be Hindi). - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 09:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision as of 15:24, 18 October 2012 edit IPS by is agreed to--Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_Mudaliars#So_what_is_this_list.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 19:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate you clarifying this with me. BUT, I noticed then that the Kashmiri surnames section does NOT have a proper citation either(neither do MANY of the things written on topics concerning the Kashmir/Kashmiri people). I am not sure then as to why they are not being removed as well!!!! I will try my best to find proper sources on Kashmiri surnames, but as you can imagine, that might be tough as not much has been written on us, atleast not accurately! Surnames like Talib, Bamzai, Budshah and Sultan are Kashmiri(Pandit) surnames...How exactly is that inaccurate? I do appreciate the fact that verifiable sources are encouraged, but given that we are a small community, that might be just like finding a needle in a haystack! It will be almost impossible for me to find proper sources on this! If you want a comprehensive writeup on Kashmiris then these are important facts that are missing from these articles. Of course, that being said, I will most definitely find some proper sources to support the facts on Kashmir. Kindly ALSO let me know if I am posting this message in the proper space in your page! I do NOT know how to send messages on wikipedia and I do not want to post the messages in the wrong place. In fact, you will actually be helping me out! Thanks! Respectfully, Kashmirian123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirian123 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I believe this is my second message requesting you to let me know exactly where you would like for me to post my messages. I am new to Wiki and I don't know i I am posting it in the correct place! Your help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks much. Regards, Kashmirian123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirian123 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello Kashmirian, generally the newest sections go at the very bottom of Talk pages; and you continue within that section even if somebody starts a separate/unrelated section below that. You are correctly indenting with the ":" so that's good, but you're forgetting to sign your post. Either type ~ four times (which will turn into your signature when you save the page) or hit the "signature" button (the one with a pencil writing a letter) just above your editing window. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kashmirian123, and my thanks to MatthewVanitas. It seems to me that you (Kashmirian) do have a basic understanding of how we operate here: you recognise, for example, that reliable sources are needed for verifiability. There really are only a very few exceptions to the rule, an example of which would be that you do not need to source that "blue is a colour". You are correct to note that there are masses of unsourced content on Wikipedia but this does not absolve you of responsibility for providing a mechanism for verifying statements that you contribute. The reasons for the existence of unsourced content are many and varied but at the most basic it is simply because we have over 4 million articles here and it is impossible for all of them to be monitored continuously. Things slip through the net.

I work a lot in the area of articles relating to Indic communities and I know that it can often be difficult to find sources for what appear (to those in the know) to be statements that are as obvious as the sun rising in the east. Alas, they are only obvious to those who are in the know and not to the vastly greater number of people who are not members of this or that community etc - hence, they require the support of reliable sources. Fundamentally, no source = no statement.

With specific regard to list relating to caste, ethnicity and the like, you may benefit from reading User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and WP:NLIST, as well as WP:BLP and its little brother, WP:BLPCAT.. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. Erm. I don't grok how anything going on here is in any way related to me. Or to you, for that matter. As Marvin Gaye said, What's Going On (song)? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarication, Sitush. To be quite honest, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how WP:CORP works on the German Wikipedia. Fut.Perf.☼ is an admin over there. Perhaps ask him? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can the article be improved? Sure, and you are welcome to do so. But you must abide by our policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please guide how i can use link of news regarding 'first bara dakghar'along with snap of first gpo opened in kolkutta on 01.04.1774 published in e paper punjab kesari/bal kesari dated 30.07.2011,when link to the e paper is not being opened but i am having a copy of that issue Bal Kesari of punjab kesari jalandhar dated 30.07.2011. I could have attatched the file but there in provision upon talk page to attatch file G C GOYAL SENIOR POSTMASTER (GAZETTED) JALANDHAR CITY PINJAB INDIA Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr sitush i think you are a very senior editor on wikipedia. Here 'senior' doesn't denote your age but your work on wikipedia. But I have a doubt whether you truly know whether the information you edit on wikipedia is really genuine or not. All the references which you consider as reliable are outdated. You consider the references of 1980's of the article Tyagi to be reliable but it's 2012 now and 32 years is a big period if you consider the speed at which the world is changing. I have a request to you just come out of these books see what's happening in reality. Just try to know what state of mind are people in today. You are providing the outdated and obsolete information by including these references.According to me it's better to provide exact and precise information rather than the one dwindling in its existence and i expect same from you.

For your better knowledge i would like to tell you that every change is cyclic in nature. The time period of this could vary but you can't prevent it from happening. So the best thing is to accept the reality by accepting the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.202.187.232 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)IP, if you know of more current sources, I'm sure that they would be welcomed, so long as they meet WP:RS. However, Wikipedia rules don't allow us to "see what's happening in reality"--that would constitute original research, which is forbidden. Sitush is editing less often recently; if there's some sources or article that you think needs looking into, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'll try to get to it when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Yes, that was in my watchlist. The citation error problem was mentioned in last part of Talk:Rameswaram#Section_01! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Tito. There were a lot of things mentioned! I've never done a GA review and, frankly, I doubt that I'd be much good at them because my standards tend to be somewhere between GA and FA, making it probably a rather frustrating experience for all concerned. But for those who do review, I think that it might sometimes be instructive to see what others think soon after the event. I'm not sure whether the article meets or fails GA now: I would have failed it in the state that it was at the time of the nomination but, like I said, my standards and indeed my interpretation of the criteria are probably askew. Anyway, I'll try to polish up the referencing stuff when I come down off my meds. It definitely could do with some basic work, GA or no GA- Sitush (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya, the references were in worse condition. I was/am weak in sfn style reference, that's why asked second opinion there, there they mentioned another article with similar issues which was most probably GA or FA! I have felt GA process might be little bit confusing sometimes. After successful passing of few articles (by other reviewers). I have felt those article aren't GA. In one article I went forward and discussed with others. There has been a complaint against me I sometimes make the reviews too strict (and add FA types comments). I am taking a break from GA reviews. Most probably I'll back to reviews sometime in 2013. Tomorrow is Kali Puja (in Bengal it s mainly called Kali Puja or Dipabali unlike Hindi belt's Diwali) SO, Dipabalir Shubechha (i.e. Good wishes of the festival). I have been watching Ek Tha Tiger. Let me go back to the film now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go enjoy that film. And my best wishes to you! - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have got emails from Yogesh Khandke where he has felt the word "Hindi belt" is "denigrative". Well, I meant language, i.e. in Hindi it is mainly called "Diwali", in Bengali it is "Dipabali" (in Hindi "Holi", in Bengali "Dol") etc!--Tito Dutta (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tito, no worries. I knew what you meant by "Hindi belt". And you should know what I think of Yogesh by now. Don't feel that you have to toe his line - most other experienced contributors here seem not to! - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was unfamiliar with the slang "bollocks" that you used. [6]

I tried to look it up, my browser gave me the following warning, "WEBIMAGESVIDEOSMORE Your country or region requires a strict Bing SafeSearch setting, which filters out results that might return adult content. To learn more about SafeSearch requirements in your country or region, see How Bing delivers search results." (Browser: Safari, device IPad). I will provide a screen shot on demand.

You have indulged in profanity in the recent past when communicating with me.[7]

Please understand the international nature of the project and that civility is one of its pillars. You are requested to refrain from using slang/profanity. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you stop writing bollocks, as you did at Talk:International Association of Sanskrit Studies, then I will stop describing it as bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I figure, hence my non-reaction at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see that it what you that closed it. Another day, another .... oh, I don't do paid editing. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I'd like to ask the exact reason the user User:Arctan371 is being punished for? He recently left his concerns on the Feedback dashboard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard/58083 ), and I feel a tendency to defend his cause, since I went through the same thing in the past, and my ethnic group is going through a slower version of the same thing. Depending on what the reason was for his punishment shall I defend him, of course. It seemed, at first glance, that his edits were constructive, with some of them having a source, though with some grammatical errors that could very easily be fixed. Why were these contributions not accepted and fixed? Why were they blocked, including the part with a citation? I'm curious, and slightly afraid that this dispute is involving vengeful tactics, instead of fair, balanced, and calm resolution from both sides equally. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I didn't block, of course, but the reasons are noted on their talk page and also on the article talk page. Basically, they were showing no inclination to discuss, they were reinstating unsourced and sometimes pov-ily phrased statements, they were being reverted by several people etc and were (IIRC) in breach of WP:3RR, which is a bright-line. You'll note that I have tried to explain what they need to do and others have pointed out the real problems that exist in this subject area and which have given rise to it being subject to ArbCom-authorised sanctions.

Obviously, if you can get this message across and if you want to assist in finding decent sources etc (after reviewing the article talk threads) then that would be great. You need perhaps to be aware that they are also at present the subject of a report at WP:SPI - here - which was filed by someone other than me. This is not about the rights and wrongs of the persecution of people in Quetta but rather one of how we do things on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. Thanks for explaining.. One thing I immediately think of when trying to find sources for this information is my complete lack of Urdu and Arabic skills - I might not be able to read the online news sources which report these things, especially the smaller ones. I'll try tomorrow anyway. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe I should wait until the dispute blows over... I don't know these people personally, so it doesn't matter to me that I mingle in the dispute now that I know that things like sockpuppetry and POV are involved, also after them not heeding your [plural] advice. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the systemic issue is likely to be a problem here but my initial reading-around suggests that there are likely to be plenty of English language sources. Darkness Shines actually listed a few possibles on the article talk page but I've not got round to seeing if I have access to them. Hopefully, soon, I'll have JSTOR access and I am pretty sure that issues such as this will have been covered by academic journals. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush and friends/enemies!

I was unaware of your expertise on India.

Ben Affleck's 2012 film Argo tells the story of the CIA's attempt to rescue hostages from Iran (after the 1979 Revolution) using a cover story of filming a science-fiction movie.

The movie was to have been based on the Hugo-award and Nebula-award winning 1967 novel Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny. (Jack Kirby drew some story boards.)

Lord of Light uses Hinduism the way his This Immortal used Greek pantheism. The WP article on Lord of Light has no discussion of from Indian or Hindu writers, as far as I know. I would be interested in learning about such responses.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not good on Hinduism as a religious concept (as opposed to its social effects etc), and I'm even worse on movies and literature (mainly because I can never get my head round what is acceptable as a plot summary & the weight issues surrounding reviews/criticism). You might try posting at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Sitush! As you know, but your readers need not, I followed your suggestion. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sitush

There are many other articles like 2011 Mastung bus shooting, 2011 Hazara Town shooting and so on which are mentioned in the main article Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. Do you believe that those articles should be nominated as well for deletion?

As far as this article is concerned, I will add the details of the incident like I have done in other articles (mentioned above). Now, nominating the article for deletion is a bit unfair, I just started it. Let it be completed then review it if it is copied or mentioned (in detail) in any other article then of course this should be nominated for deletion. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 10:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OSE is relevant here. Not to mention a significant amount of pro-Hazara POV-pushing.- Sitush (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a Hindu, Caste is very important. I don't know Sitush to which caste you belong and to which part of the India. Atleast I can find out that you don't belong to Andhra, and you are not Telugu. Without any knowledge of feelings of Telugu people and the Telugu castes don't write, edit, re edit the Wikipedia articles on major Telugu Castes. Only a Reddy would know about their caste, only a Balija Naidu would know about their caste, only a Kamma Naidu would know about their caste. Please don't edit articles on these major Telugu castes without much knowledge and insult us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.250.17 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid that you are completely misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. As a starting point, you may wish to read our Five Pillars. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Sitush, My apologies for being harsh during my previous post in your talk page. I am not deleting that post (but you are free to do it) from your talk page. Please continue to manage the pages on Hindu Telugu castes, we appreciate your time and good work. I have read through Wikipedia's Five Pillars and will let you know of any new information which can be added to the Balija page.

It seems a pity to remove so much historical information.... granted it was unsourced but was it untrue??? and is there no source available? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no idea whether it was accurate or not, precisely because there were no sources. It had been tagged for a very long time and - IIRC - the article was being used for promotional stuff by a COI editor also. If you can find policy-compliant sources etc then great. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dost, i am glad you visited article Durga Bhabhi and edited it by removing a few images that i had uploaded. Since i am a new wikipedian and have little knowldege about image copyrights and wikipedia's policies for image uploads. The images that i had uploaded to wikimedia commons are rare images that are important for the article above mentioned , and would be a great help to visiter who is intrested in the article.i had found those images on internet ,and sources are mentioned with the respective images on wikimedia website.I guess you are a senior editor ,so it would be a great help if you could improve the required information for the images or you yo just could just suggest me ,what steps should i follow. i have already gone through the wikipedia policis but couldnt make much out of it.Articles are related to indian historical personalities(freedom fighters). Lets provide space on wikipedia to those who deserve the most.

TheBharatam 05:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebharatam (talk • contribs)

Hi, I am not great with stuff relating to images myself! The gist in the instances that you refer to is that we need to have clear evidence of permission to use the things. If I remember correctly, they were taken from the website of a museum and there were no dates etc on the things, so we have no idea when they were first published. Your best bet might be to email the museum and see if they would be willing to provide permission for use or confirmation that they are in the public domain via our OTRS system. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush! I've got the wanted pages of Stell's Nonconformist chapels and meeting-houses. Where I have to send it to? Greetings, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated, Doc! I've mailed you a response. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail -- Doc Taxon (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

got it. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have discussed a lot with you regarding inclusion of Gurjar as claimed members in Kshatriya page. Our discussions didn't get anywhere because I think you assume ownership of that very page or you are being very rigid about your thoughts. If you are failing to get to some conclusive discussion because you lack any solid point to revert my edits, why are you doing it. In addition to it, I've already said that I am open to talk on the "TALK" page of the "article" so STOP FLOODING MY TALK PAGE WITH NOTICES. I am again requesting you to go through the last content I added. It is completely valid and referenced. Still if you think it was not right, you should stop reverting my edits and accept that you need to study history deeper. Thank you. -Author 91 (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am laughing after reading what you've written last on the talk page of Kshatriya .

You seem to think that Gurjars are called that because of region. You seriously need to study history, specially INDIAN HISTORY to know that Gurjar is caste. You must be very knowledgeable about FEW things but don't act as if you're master of all. Because you know NOTHING of CASTE SYSTEM IN INDIA. I'd suggest, LEAVE EDITING ARTICLES ABOUT CASTES before you end up destroying complete Indian history.

(talk page stalker)Author 91, when something you add to an article is contested and reverted, you should discuss it on the article talk page and not put it back until you can reach a consensus supporting its inclusion. That includes listening to the other editor's objections and addressing them, and if you cannot reach a consensus, you should consider the steps described at WP:DR. Should you repeatedly put back your disputed content, you could end up being blocked for edit warring. Further, if you have a disagreement, you should stick to discussing the content that is being disputed, and you should not turn to attacks on the editor who is contesting your addition. Your comment "Still if you think it was not right, you should stop reverting my edits and accept that you need to study history deeper" is essentially saying "I'm right and I'm not listening to your opinion", and that is absolutely not an acceptable approach to discussion and consensus here. Please have a read of WP:Consensus and WP:BRD, and I suggest take a break until you calm down a little. If you carry on with your current approach, it is very likely you will end up being blocked from editing, and I certainly wouldn't like that to happen. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author 91, it was not me who reverted you last. In fact, that was the third person who has reverted your contribution to that article recently. The warnings are, alas, necessary in some form or another: for example, you need to be aware of the three revert rule. As for my understanding of the Gurjar caste situation, well yes, I may be wrong - it happens - but I was speaking of the system in a general sense, attempting to show that not all Gurjar clans share the same varna and, indeed, some (but not all) Gurjar clans are also deemed to be Rajput clans etc. I am aware also of the arguments that Rajputs are late-comers to the party and have Gurjar origins but, again, that is a controversial theory that has resulted in numerous edit wars etc. Gurjars are variously described in reliable sources as a caste, as clans, as a tribal group, as a community and as an ethnic grouping. The situation is made still more difficult because of inconsistencies in how they are termed even by the state and national governments.

I really do think that the easy solution here is to bin the list of claims, as I explained at Talk:Kshatriya#Claims_versus_reality. Sometimes we just have to accept that this place is incapable of depicting certain situations in a manner that does them justice and it is better to adopt a broad-brush approach to them rather than get entrenched in continual warfare over minutiae that satisifies no-one. Definitive lists are not the be-all and end-all of this project and, frankly, it is my opinion that we have far too many, far too poor quality lists. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sockpuppeting. So that is what you meant when you said you were suspicious about my history on wikipedia. I left that message for that user because I felt that we were having the same point and he had raised it time and again on various pages. And about using same style of words, I think its just a coincidence. I am not trying to push any position about some community. I am writing what is right and true. As you can see I've added quite enough number of references. So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only. Some facts get disclosed with time. We should not just keep on repeating widely accepted theories. Please put an end to this thing. You are a lot senior. You know far more rules than me, so why can't you just make this more simpler to go on. I am not edit warring. If I am writing long paragraphs on talk page about why I am updating and someone just comes in and reverts my edit, isn't it unethical. Can't they first prove why I was wrong in stating those facts and then decide what to do. If someone really have a great knowledge about this subject, he/she should come forward and explain to me why can't I edit that page. Discussions are getting us nowhere. - Author 91 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learn to respect other peoples contributions and their hard work. Stop bullying new users. I've been noticing you're work as well, half of the time you're removing articles without references instead of helping cite references, and your'e reverting other peoples work recklessly, without a thought. If you're a senior here, act like one. we all care and work for Wikipedia. please dont ruin its sole purpose. give it a thought. Bhonsale (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sometimes the best work ever done to an article is a BOLD trip through with a machete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I am scything a fair number of Maratha-based articles at present. In most cases, these are ones where I have previously requested sources etc. This range of articles has been subject to prolonged POV editing and sockpuppetry, the latter of which seems to be handled very well at the moment, mostly by Elockid. The articles often contain a lot of puffery, original research and synthesis, which are all contrary to our policies as per the blue links. They also tend to be articles that attract a lot of other contributors and, alas, a lot of them are misguided even if well-intentioned. Against this, I also improve and add to a lot of stuff, among which one of my larger ongoing projects is Aurangzeb - I'm currently in a reading/research phase on that one, having done a fair amount of initial editing work.

I wouldn't read to much into description of "senior editor" etc here. I've been around a bit and, yes, there are the userboxes etc, but neither number of edits nor longevity are any guarantee of, well, anything much at all except (hopefully) experience in the application of policies. And it is policies that matter: we cannot continually ignore them just so that some random Joe can say what they believe to be correct when that is not obviously verifiable. For what it is worth, some time ago I was among a loose group of people who made substantial efforts to improve some high-profile articles concerning communities where editors were claiming kshatriya status in circumstances that were, at best, not presenting the full picture. Not all of those have been covered but I and others still spend a lot of time keeping them in order and I am still trying to develop some. We do what we can, where we can, when we can. Much of your own work seems to consist of copy/pasting a standard set of "See also" links. While useful if reasonably applied, if your concern is that I am cutting back in a manner that is untoward then one obvious thing that you could do is actually fulfil some of the citation requests etc. In the scale of things, See Also links are useful but citations are far more significant.

An advance warning: I am likely to be taking an in-depth look at Brahmin articles next year. They, too, seem to have escaped the policy net in many ways and it is not just myself who feels that some order needs to be introduced. For example, Fowler&fowler has been making noises for some time now. So, please do not get the impression that what I do is some sort of campaign aimed solely at a single community. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Good to know you plan to stay till next year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That plan may be scuppered - see next section. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignorance is bliss. I don't even know what ArbCom is and how it affects me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ARBCOM. Hopefully, you'll never have to deal with them but you are already feeling their impact, eg: with some general sanctions that exist for the India-Pakistan topic area. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I remember something like that general sanctions, but never came across any case where someone was sacked or whatever those sanctions said. (Its very long and boring. I won't read that.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The announcement that Jclemens is standing for re-election to ArbCom - see here - is not good news to me. You'd think they had realised the problems and the divisiveness after the recent spat that saw many of their fellow-ArbCom members dissociate themselves from certain remarks etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you kindly for that thought, Tito. Made my day. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone pretty much messed up the whole page and changed the title to "Gujar" from Gujjar and removed side tamplet showing images of gujjar people, religion and population. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.212.72 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gujjar was redirected to Gurjar some two years ago by SpacemanSpiff, who usually knows what he is doing. If you want that to be reversed then you'll need to take a read of WP:COMMONNAME and then propose something at Talk:Gurjar if you feel that you have a case. Gujar is a disambiguation page and is unlikely to be changed, although I note that a lot of the entries there are not in fact linked to articles.

As far as the infobox images of people are concerned, well, you'll be able to see who did it by trawling through edit history. It may well have been me: there was a discussion about showing such images in Indian caste/community articles not too long ago. That discussion took place on the India Project talk page, where many people with an interest in Wikipedia's India-related articles discuss issues relating to those articles. There was a consensus that the images tended to cause more problems than they were worth. In particular, there are issues relating to our policy concerning biographies of living people, as well as matters relating to due weight and edit warring. Even if I was not the one that removed them, I do support the principle and that support is based on a fairly significant amount of time dealing with such articles. You could always propose that the images be reinstated but I suspect that you would not gain consensus for it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, my bet is that the religion and population information that was in the infobox was removed because it was unsourced. If you can find reliable sources for it then of course it can be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have removed many things in the vellalar page because of lack of refs. I have many refs to add, just don't have time. Just give me some time (end of this year) and I will add them. Then you can check & act (after discussion). Time is again the reason why I did not join the discussion between you & author91 on Kshatriya page. I will also work on this page soon.Rajkris (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Rajkris! I seem to remember a similar time-shortage problem with the now-deleted South India kshatriyas article (can't recall the exact title), which spanned from around this period last year to February or beyond. It's no big deal: when you've got the sources then you can add the content. Until then, I'll keep doing whatever I feel is necessary and, of course, I am open to be challenged. The Vellalar/Gounder etc articles have been subject to very substantial socking over a prolonged period, most of which seems to track back to PONDHEEPANKAR. I am talking probably hundreds of socks here - the housekeeping of records got a bit messy at SPI. Although you are not a sock (obviously), the history means that I am likely to insist on the WP:NOENG policy with regard to Tamil language sources etc. I know that the likes of SpacemanSpiff have been equally cautious. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, no pb.Rajkris (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<Maithili Brahmin

Reverting my edi to Maithil brahmin was not proper for a community of some 5 million if one can write onlt a few names in notable and that too wrong depends on wikepedia to celebrate- Now there are pnly thiese anmes Udit Narayan Jha- playback singer in Indian cinema (agreed_ Piyush Jha- Indian director and screenwriter ( We have not listned about this man, maybe but there are many more like him and the additions I had made allwere more widely known htan this name) Ganganath Jha- Indian philosopher (agreed but he was only a new name in the list of hundreds) Vidyapati- Hindi poet( wrong- h ewas a Maithili poer though Hindi too keeps him and for that matter banglaa too just to show their date some hundered years before thieir origin). Dr. Dhanakar Thakur (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can only include in lists those people who are notable and whose membership of the group being listed is verifiable using reliable sources. In addition, for lists of members of castes etc, where the person is living it has been agreed that we should only include them if they have self-identified as being members of that group - this is in accordance with our policy concerning biographies of living people. That's just how we do things here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dear sir you deleted the information put under the Rajwada in Indore on the 19th of November , i am the Co-Convener of INTACH Indore Chapter a semi government organisation , the information you deleted is verified historic data and our organisation is the spearheading agency to document and upkeep the history of Indore , kindly refrain from deleting any content which you are unaware of in case you have a problem for verification of the history of Indore kindly contact intachindore@gmail.com. Co-Convener INTACH Indore Chapter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intachindorechapter (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 November 2012‎

The information needed verification by use of citations that reference reliable sources. It is unusual for us to rely on primary sources for the bulk of an article or indeed to rely on sources that are closely affiliated to the subject matter. I suspect that you'll need to find some independent references if you wish to re-include that information.

Please also note that your username is contrary to our policy because it implies that you are contributing as part of a group. You'll need to abandon that account and set up another that reflects you as an individual, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Sitush, I see that here are certain additions that have been made to a page I have contributed to Jadeja. I cannot logically understand how someone's view on how the word Jadeja was formed is left untouched, yet an enriching addition to the article- a list of notable Jadejas is deleted? You cannot deny the existence of these mentioned individuals who have their own wiki pages. Please advise. Thank you. Tamasic 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamasic (talk • contribs)

Hi, I think a read of User:Sitush/Common#Castelists might answer your query. If it does not then feel free to continue this thread. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it looks like we may have been through some of this before - see here. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for the useful link Sitush. There is no denying that the individuals that have been mentioned as notable Jadeja are Jadeja by name and caste. Numerous books state that K.S. Ranjitsinhji Jadeja was born into a Rajput or Kshatriya family; and that he went on to rule the princely state of Nawanagar, now called Jamnagar. The suffix of his name 'sinhji' is a Rajput suffix. Hence I cannot understand why additions of notable Jadejas are deleted when clearly there is no denying that those mentioned are a) Jadeja b)Rajput by caste. I am further more confused that an inaccurate piece of information suggesting that the word Jadeja is derived from a Gujarati word is permitted. The word Jadeja existed before the community resided in present day Gujarat. It is more likely that the name is derived from Jam Jada with Jadeja meaning 'son of' in Sindhi as the community were based in Thatta, Sindh where Gujarati would not of been spoken. I look forward to your feedback. Tamasic 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamasic (talk • contribs)

Even if "sinhji" is uniquely a Rajput suffix (which you will never be able to prove), being a Rajput does not necessarily make someone a Jadeja. It really is quite simple: find those sources that you refer to, ensure that they comply with our policy regarding reliability and (if the person is living) that they make clear that the person self-identifies as Jadeja ... and then you can add the name, with a citation to the relevant source.

As far as the etymological thing is concerned, if you doubt that the source is reliable then you'll need to explain why it is unreliable (this might include it being a fringe theory). Otherwise, the quotation seems to be valid and can remain in the article - it is a single sentence and so hardly undue weight. Your speculation about an alternate etymology, which you think is more likely, is just that: speculation. We cannot engage in original research here and so you'll need sources to support it.

Wikipedia is not a perfect environment for conveying information. This does mean that from time to time things will appear that local knowledge etc suggests is incorrect. But we have to have some sort of system otherwise it will be anarchy, with everyone saying whatever the heck they like. Hopefully, the number of instances when local knowledge and reliable sources diverge will be very few. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. I have stated that 'sinhji' is a Rajput suffix. I have not used the word 'uniquely'. I agree with you, being a Rajput does not make you and Jadeja. Jadejas are a community belonging to the Rajput caste. With reference to K.S. Ranjitsinhji, he was born into a Jadeja family and I am sure that sources citing this information exist, it is how I myself am aware of this fact. To the inaccuracy issue of McLeod's small statement, it may be a single sentence but it is offensive as it is clearly inaccurate as I have stated in my earlier post. I am aware that Wikipedia is not perfect for conveying accurate information, this conversation stems from a case in point; yet with the tools and systems available the quality of articles can be maintained, improved. It is up to individuals like you and myself to aid this. I thank you for your kind time and when I have more time on my hands, shall improve the quality of the article in concern with references from reliable sources whose information is culturally and historically accurate- as the latter is imperative. Tamasic 20:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamasic (talk • contribs)

I undid the deprodding as you convinced me about the probable unrealiability of the sources and the non-proofed existence of this clan. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or we may not. I have no interest in the topic of Jats, clans, caste or other matters, nor any expertise in those and similar areas. My thinking is solely that the articles in this topic area are in great need of substantial improvement. To me that improvement is best made by "Cite it or it goes" as a philosophy with all articles. Indeed that is a philosophy I stand by in all areas of Wikipedia, not just this one. I am singling this one out for special attention because it is a set of many highly similar articles, all purporting to be on the same topic, and each overlapping greatly with its neighbour article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've spent the last 18 months working on caste articles. There is a time to be ruthless and a time to pause. I've no idea how much experience you have of the topic area but since I've not come across your name before it seems likely that you are branching out. You can expect to receive a fair amount of vitriol but, hey, someone has to do it! There is a small group of fellow-travellers whom you can query if you are unsure etc and you may also want to keep an eye on WT:INB if you do not do so already. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My experience is limited to being a generalist editor who cares only about article quality. What perplexes me is the sheer quantity of repeated unverified material that is perpetuated in these areas. I don't know (nor care) what is or is not a caste (etc), but I do care about citations passionately. Vitriol doesn't worry me. I ignore it. I just care about process (most assuredly including consensus building) and quality, as I am sure you can see from my small history in the List of Jat Clans

This may interest you. I suspect it may prove unworkable, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long time no see. How are you? I heard you had some health issues recently. Hope you are feeling better now. I don't understand why you lifted some notable names from the List of Nadars article(some had refs like mla k.pandiarajan) and left some names to remain on the page. Could you please explain?Mayan302 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mayan, I'm improving health-wise, thanks. I removed names from the list per User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Where they had been referenced at all, I generally just removed the citation and left the name in order to give people a chance to re-source correctly. The cites that I removed were all itemising various alleged members of the Nadar community and all the names were of living people. As my link demonstrates, this is not acceptable unless the sources show that those people were self-identifying ... and they were not.

I won't be leaving it alone for long because they are breaches of WP:BLP, but I'll give it a few days before returning. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Ok. It's pretty hard to get people talk about their caste in a state like Tamil nadu where people dont speak about a person's caste in public. It's more like using bad words(even though casteism still exists). Perhaps you should just have to remove the names or just delete the article. I ll see what I can do. But I am quite sure that there are not many refs which could satisfy this criteria. Glad to know you are getting better.TC.Mayan302 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if I had it my way then none of these List of members of caste X would exist. They are perpetual maintenance nightmares and, really, a person's caste is so rarely relevant to the cause of their notability that for the few instances where it is relevant we could just mention them in the article related to the caste itself. Anyway, thanks for taking my explanation in the manner that it was intended: the more usual response is a series of rants and edit warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and since there is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste, why should we list them in that way? - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'll note that part of the reason we have List of members of caste X is because if we list the important people in the main caste articles (particularly in list format), tons of drive-by editors take that as an indication to jam in non-notable people, or notable people but with no existing article, no reference, and often misformatted with all-caps, "the Late", honorifics, titles, etc. So part of the role of this lists has been to divert "damage" away from more visible main articles, but then we end up with a bunch of lesser but still oft-shoddy list articles. It's a dilemma. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We end up having to manage the main caste article and the list. Btw, take a look at my comment at Talk:List of Indian castes#Original research - that list has got to go! Sitush (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I placed the edit points in capital letters because the original merger discussion was removed without proper discussion, so I wanted to make sure it was seen this time. In my actual talk page discussion I had to be brisk to make sure there were no communication barriers, as some of the editors did not appear to be fluent in English.

It is important to adhere to the message of the website and maintain objectivity. Merger discussions cannot be removed without proper discussion. The discussion under the main Tyagi page was regarding merger with a different article -- Bhumihaar -- which apparently no longer exists. The discussion on the Tyagi (Muslim) page did not address the issue. As such, I reinstated it.

Again, I really have to emphasize the importance of religious neutrality on this website. Thank you for helping the discussion along. Parsh (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I apologize if I gave you the impression of shouting. That certainly was not my intention. Parsh (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you start a merge proposal then you need to initiate the discussion, otherwise it is perfectly valid for someone else boldly to remove the proposal. I can't see where you or anyone else started a discussion in relation to the proposal that you have just reinstated. If that it my fault then it is likely that other people will suffer the same problem, so you somehow need to make clear where that discussion is on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Sitush,

We have not met before, but I am very impressed by your dedication to the site. In regards to your point, I am certain I started the discussion 2-3 years ago, but somebody deleted it. I am trying to make sense of the extensive deletions and rewrites of the main article, but I am certain it is was deleted. I believe my discussion is still present on Tyagi (Muslim).

If I am mistaken in my old age, and cannot find it, I will change the date to November 2012 and treat it as a new discussion -- you are of course correct, the discussion needs ti be on the talk page. Please let me know if there is anything else I could do to make sure this discussion proceeds in a calm and reasonable fashion. Parsh (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would probably be best if you restarted the discussion. Please ensure that the proposal tags on the two articles both point to just one of the article's talk pages (ie: the one where you hold the discussion). It really would be helpful if you could provide a diff of the article at the point you consider to be just prior to the "vandalism" that you allege has happened. You'll notice that I had raised a query at Talk:Tyagi some time ago & got no response, so it could well end up being just you and me who are discussing, but so be it! - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitush,

Sure, that's completely reasonable, I'll do it.

I'm looking through the edits, and it is pretty overwhelming. I think it may either the version I had written in 2007 or then one from 2010 (you can see my name on the edit history), but there has been a lot of nonsense that has flooded the page and I will likely have to start something new with more accessible references.

Looking back, to when I first rewrote the article 6 years ago, I have to admit there were some District Gazeteer claims that I simply reentered without verifying myself, even back then. I have hopefully learned a trick or two since then. Either way, I will restart the discussion as you suggested shortly. I am first trying to make sense of when the division between Muslims and Hindus occurred (the last name is Sanskrit and dates back to BC, several millenia before Islam existed). That seems to be where everything started. I am going to have to retrograde to the Tyagi (Muslim) article first, to see what they've been writing about.

Man, I feel like quitting before starting. Well someone has to do it. Thanks for pointing out that I hadn't actually started a discussion, apologies again if I came across as being short with you. Parsh (talk)

No probs, and I understand the frustration. I have had Tyagi on my watchlist for ages but wasn't aware of the forked version. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitush, I have started a new discussion as you suggested with some basic references. I am going to purchase a copy of the 1990 District Gazetteer, as I cannot find it online and it appears a large portion of claims relate to this text. My suspicion is the text does not contain any of the information asserted. If you have a copy, or can verify it somehow that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will update as my research proceeds. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the page.

By the way, as you noted earlier, the merger discussion will likely end up just being the two of us. If that is the case, how long do you suggest I wait before merging the articles? Parsh (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at the new discussion later. Don't go spending any of your money just yet - there are ways and means of getting hold of what is required, eg: we can try asking for specific pages via WP:RX and on the talk page of the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I don't usually like editing articles about religious conflict because it's such a pain with so many covert agendas. I think I will have to read the original texts because I don't trust most of whats been written with the religious aspects. It's okay, although I'm not of a specific religion it's good to learn about my heritage. You must really love editing to put up with this stuff all day, or you're a glutton for punishment. Either way, thank you for your editing pen. Looking at the history of the article, I can't believe how patient you've been. Parsh (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, thanks. I'll close the request at WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importance: High

I am interested to nominate your name as an admin. Following step 1 of nominating someone else, I have to ask a candidate before nominating his name. Please tell me what you think!

--Tito Dutta (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tito, thanks for the vote of confidence. My gut reaction is that I should decline but I'll ponder it for a few hours and get back to you. Although I cannot recall it ever been raised on my own talk page before, you are not the first to have floated the idea in my direction. Apologies for the suspense! - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tito, thank you for the kind thought but I think "no, thanks" is my response at the moment. You deserve an explanation.

Whether now or any time in the foreseeable future, any RfA by me is likely to be pretty controversial. I mean, the entire process seems to me to be increasingly heated anyway but with my background on the caste articles etc I have built up a sizeable number of "default opposers". By that I mean people who will oppose simply because it is my sig on the end of a message, at the top of a proposition or in an edit summary. There has been evidence in the past that at least some of these people organised support for their position off-wiki via Orkut etc & I would expect them to come out in force for a RfA.

There is also another issue: although I think that generally I do take the frequent abuse and intransigence at disputes fairly well, I blip from time to time and one of those blips is very recent. Sure, my rather frequent summons to WP:ANI and similar seem always to end up in my favour but being a semi-permanent fixture there might will be seen as a problem for any prospective admin. Short of swapping caste articles for, say, the history of defunct Mancunian engineering companies, amateur botanists of the 19th C or British bareknuckle boxers of the 18th C (all of which I've meddled in), I don't see my ANI visits deteriorating any time soon.

Finally, there is a personal issue: I remain somewhat unhappy with goings-on in a recent ArbCom case and while I've reconciled myself to the situation generally, I think that I need a bit of time to be sure. That might take a few months or, depending on who is elected to ArbCom in the next few days, it might be quicker. This is a very specific issue and I will settle down but it is quite odd that I've become more concerned about a procedural matter (and what I consider to be a gross insult by somone who should have known better) than all of the stuff that is usually thrown at me. - Sitush (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy to support your eventual candidature as an admin. If you ever decide to stand please do not hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. But I am glad you are not going to stand at least at present. I believe that far more can be done as an ordinary editor than as an admin. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very rarely do I see a list that I recommend to be changed to a category. INdeed the more I consider this one the more I see that a category is important and the list must go. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume that you are referring to List of Indian castes and the recent discussion that I have started on that list's talk page. Category:Indian castes already exists and itself displays a few of the more esoteric issues, eg: Irulas are within it but are in fact a dalit tribe and thus outside the caste system. It might also be argued that the category and its subcats are in need of some pretty serious tidying up and possibly even re-organisation.

There is nothing wrong with having both a list and a category and indeed when someone proposes an either/or at AfD or CfD it is my experience that the proposal almost always fails. However, I've set out my logic at Talk:List of Indian castes and I think that there are two possible outcomes: the first is a massive clean up of the list that at least makes it more manageable (although it will never be possible to resolve all of the issues I raise), and the second is indeed deletion. I was hoping that some sort of meaningful discussion could be had in that thread prior to any AfD - mainly, in case I am missing some crucial point - but I must admit to not being optimistic that it will happen. If you want to take it to AfD then feel free, but I've committed myself to allowing some time for people to come up with suggestions and I'll stick with that for a week or so. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I applaud your caution. I read your discussion points with interest yesterday and almost nominated it on sight using them. I agree with all your points. I am less cautious. I gave a considered rationale with sufficient hooks for folk to refer to and to seek to show that in this case a list just will not do the job. It sits at AfD. This will either confirm that there is much work to do in the list or remove the problem. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not envy you and others the task of cleansing the categories whether this list exists or not, by the way. BUt it is a matter I am entirely unqualified to help with. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was unqualified 18 months ago but have had something of a crash course since then. Re: your AfD of the thing, no problem: I've left a comment for now and added it to my list of things to think about rather more urgently than originally intended ;) To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, it might be at least a two pint problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you have not rushed in to opt for deletion. Indeed I can quite see that you might opt to keep. Folk need time to consider, after all. I suspect this one will become partisan, though I am unsure who the parties will be. The 'list vs category as a religion' crowd will have their usual fun and come out with honours approximately even. That means their commentary can, broadly, be discounted and the real issues discussed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I See the lists must be kept contingent has arrived :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a version of Randy in Boise. I do wish people would try some research before adopting such a course. I guess it is the old pragmatist vs dogmatist debate. I've never had much time for religious fundamentalists who insist on shoving their ideas down my throat, and much the same is likely to apply here. Believe in whatever takes your fancy, but remember that the real world keeps turning, with all its faults. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happens to the article will happen. I think the dogma will wear itself out. I intend to speak to each dogmatic post with logic, and trust the eventual closer. Whatever happens to the article it has been most assuredly worth nominating it for deletion. Never forget that Wikipedia is less an encyclopaedia and more a great social experiment. Within that experiment it is important to have fun. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For maintaining a cool head in tense religious discussions.Parsh (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. Parsh (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome. Oddly, I don't see it as religious stuff: I know caste etc has a religious origin but I treat it more as a social construct. And, yes, I do lose my rag from time to time ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the more I look, the more I'm noticing your name everywhere. And someone always seems to be mad about something you removed! :) But always a cool head that I've seen. 78,000 edits is a hell of a lot of patience. Thanks. Parsh (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blimey, it's only four days ago that someone said it was 73,000! The numbers vary according to which link/tool you choose to use. In any event, yes, it may seem like a lot but there are people here who have exceeded a million. I wouldn't read too much into how many contributions a person has clocked up: the quality counts for more than the volume. I get involved in a lot of disputes and that racks up the count without necessarily adding an awful lot to the content! - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, so I have only 69,000 more edits to go till I get a free shirt. It's the weekend, maybe I'll go out and get some sun. :) I will update you once I obtain those books and I am able to figure out what went wrong with the Tyagi article. I hope you're staying warm there across the duck pond. Favorite quote from that discussion you linked:

Yes. MF is correct: Sitush is either totally dedicated or a complete masochist.

That about sums it up! Have a good weekend friend. Appreciate your vigil over the editorializing of social constructs, as it were. Parsh (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, if you don't mind my asking, why the fascination with caste, etc? Are you a professor or just massively dedicated to history? Parsh (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither. It is just something that I've kind of fallen into, and it is an area of Wikipedia that needs all the help it can get. My degrees are in history and, yes, I clearly have an innate interest in that but you'll find that my contributions go way beyonf what might be classified as history. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cypher.Oracle (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Satti. Hi, I just saw your amendments. What reasons, you removed the facts?Reply[reply]

What facts were those? I could see no verification that complies with our policies, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello and thanks for your edits in Buttar. You removed much, specially the list of villages, many of them has own articles and were sourced; why you removed them? And you removed a reference to Internet Archive saying not reliable, I couldn't understand why it's unreliable or the census? I think it's good! --itar buttar [talk] 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm off out soon but will take a look when I get back. I cannot remember the details because I've edited so many articles in the last few days!- Sitush (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The villages that were linked or sourced (or both) were removed because the sourcing did not verify that they are Buttar villages, merely that the places exist etc. The unsourced/unlinked were removed due to a complete lack of verification. In addition, I remove a source published by General Books LLC, who mirror our own content and are therefore not a reliable source. Similarly, the book written by Denzil Ibbetson is unreliable - practically everything written in the British Raj period by these amateur ethnologists etc has been dismissed across a wide range of articles. The 1881 census was pretty much hopeless. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the support. Can you please have a glance at Kalanos? Is the article cluttered with citations?Rayabhari (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do. I'm off out soon but have it on my list. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a lot of citations but you are sourcing a lot of statements to various works, so that is how it has to be. I know nothing about the person other than what I've read in the article: it is a bit unfortunate that there isn't enough to stop it from being a series of factoids but, again, that is how it has to be. Perhaps some more info will turn up at some point & then the cites will find themselves spread out a bit more. - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the dab to a more appropriate place and moved Bhil Vasava to Vasava with a hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1557 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add ((AFC status)) or ((AfC Defcon)) to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Hello this is Whitetararaj, you have made a mistake. I am living in Jubail. Please, you should let me to write the tourism of Jubail. —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not draw me into this. The situation has been amply explained to you by one of our administrators. I agree with them, so let's leave it there. Vandalising their user page, as you did, does not exactly help your case. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi sitush,how r u, actualy I have writen so much about the Gheba Tribe but Unfortunately it was deleted again again.Why is it so. If Ghebas Returned themselves as Mughals ,than there should be no Problem for you or any other to Called them as Rajputs. Now the Ghebas are Identifies himselfs as Mughals and In write As Mughal Gheba. If some one has any dout,he can chek out ,and come to Gheba villages in Fateh jang. Now Uses the Title of Sardar .And one thing more the British writers writes about only the bioghrafies and Progeniter of One or two villages ,but here Ghebas Having 30 to 35 villages in which they are living and More than 20 villages where the landlord Are Gheba sardars but the Cultivator are Malyaar Awan .So kindly i have a request to you that consider my Writing about Ghebas and please dont delete my words in Article Gheba.Thanks hoping for a Favorable reply.Raimughal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimughal (talk • contribs) 10:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were asked to discuss at Talk:Gheba. Please do so. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitush, I had a small request, if you look at articles that are not history but mythology based as well. I am working on an article Parashurama for good article submission, and I was hoping for an outside eye to look at the article quickly and point out things that I was missing. If that is not your forte, it is no problem. Thanks, Parsh (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can certainly try to take a look when I've finished cleaning up issues related to the recently deleted List of Jat clans. Mythology is not something that I am terribly keen on generally but it is about time that I started to delve more deeply into the numerous ones that underlie the caste system! - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Sitush. Even basic things like "you over-referenced here, not enough references there, this sentence looks funny, etc" would be helpful. Is there any editor off hand that you can think of that has a specific interest in Hinduism and good with a red pen like yourself? I have tried User:Ekabhishek, User:Redtigerxyz and User:Ashlin, but if anyone came to mind.. Regardless, my appreciation. Parsh (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've named the main names there, as far as I know. I'll try to take a look at the thing later today. It's 0530 now & I haven't slept. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! By the way, I appreciate the discussion on the Rajput talk page -- you Cambridge folks certainly keep the rest of the world on its toes. Parsh (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't read too much into where someone was educated. There are plenty of people who had little education and achieved much, and there have been plenty of crooks, spies, traitors, bigots, idiots etc who have attended Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Harvard or wherever. We all learn from each other and, as Newton said, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I understand, schooling can be tricky like that. Let me know if you have any projects you need a hand with -- I promise no more caps lock. Parsh (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does no votes on an AfD mean the same thing as a no consensus? Obviously there is atleast 1 vote for delete; and a no consensus cannot be establishedf as there are no votes against. The policy says nothing that the AfD must be closed as no consensus. The article in concern is this TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(tsp) Technically, the closure is fine. A 'no consensus' decision in this case only means that, since there has been no discussion, despite several relistings, consensus either way is not established (a singe !vote does not make consensus). A different closer might have chosen to delete the article but no consensus is fine too. It's perfectly fine to start a new AfD if you feel it appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it is a bit of an either/or situation, this one. Nothing wrong with the close but someone else might have chosen a different outcome. And, RegentsPark, since when did you become a teaspoon? I mean, teaspoons are as welcome on this talk page as stalkers but they usually come with the "cup of tea" calming template ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T'was just a tea-spoon-er-ism. (Sorry, couldn't resist that one!) --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am really glad that you are back. I have created Sher Ali Afridi and can you kindly glance at it and tell me whether the subject is notable? Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he seems notable to me. If I were you, I'd change the andoman citation slightly: that website is republishing an old, out-of-copyright book and I think that you should probably be citing the book & the author etc even though you'd leave the url pointing to the website. I'd also see if you can find any other sources, just to beef it up a bit. I'll try to take a more detailed look at the thing when I have a moment: some people might say that the article should be merged with one about the person whom he assassinated. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You told, you will have a dig at Sher Ali Afridi! Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, yes I did and unfortunately it is not great news. I couldn't find anything to add to the stuff that you had already dug up. This makes it a bit tricky: I know that you have already seen Qwryxian's view on the matter and I'm more inclined to agree now that I've failed to come up with anything extra. In particular, Afridi's motive appears to have been entirely personal - "I object to being locked up" - rather than part of some anti-British campaign or some similar wider concern. Whether the article can survive is moot and it certainly would not surprise me if someone nominates it for deletion. If that were to happen then I think the solution is as I suggested above, ie: to aim for a merge of the content into Mayo's article and then redirect Sher Ali Afridi to that. Of course, you could do that now if you'd rather not have the hassle of a possible deletion discussion in the future. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I got the point. Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more request

Hi. Can you kindly suggest me whether Kalanos, biography of a historic person, meets notability requirements? Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is this a reliable source?

Hi. Kindly advise me, whether this is a reliable source [8] Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What article do you want to use it for? Or is it going to be a new article? - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to use it to improve article Shatavadhani Ganesh. Rayabhari (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. I see that it was written by someone called Suryaprakash Pandit and translated into English by someone whose full name is not given. Have you any idea who Pandit is/was? I see that the website is published by a charitable foundation that is fairly new. I am a bit concerned here because the source reads like a hagiography, the publisher seems to be advocating and our article is a BLP. Can you give me a couple of examples of info that you would verify using it? Sorry to be a pain. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above source says, Ganesh has given Astavadhana performance in American and European countries;- such info. I would like to add to this article. Thanks for the effort/pain you take to advice me. Rayabhari (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yes, it will be ok for such a sweeping statement as that. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please make the correction. You claimed to rely on the NCBC lists. Despite having proved their FC status, you still have not updated it.Akashasr (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have claimed nothing, nor did I insert the information in the first place. I think that you may possible be mixing apples and oranges but I really do need some time to review the various sources that you have provided. The article has said what it does for quite some time now - a few more hours, or even days, is not going to make much difference. I think that perhaps you need to calm down a bit: time that I might possibly be spending in reading the info is being wasted in responding and formatting what you've already said. And now I am off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sitush, Your advice is noted. However my main concern leading to said changes are base on the point you stated that the term "Colombo Royalist" is a journalistic device and not a generally recognised alternate name. I have mentioned so in the talk page and would like your input on it. Thanks. Cossde (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jat people".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting ((subst:drn-notice)) on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Do not revert w/o explanation[edit] Why has been a single author quoted 4 diff times? 1st source is Brittanica which is not acceptable. What about BALANCE? The whole article is filled with Bayly. Other authors have been ignored. AND YET YOU CHOSE TO KEEP IT. I posted several links where Jats were described as "elite cultivating caste" , "high caste zamindars" and since they don't fulfil your agenda, you have chosen to stick to the SINGLE BAYLY SOURCE WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED MULTIPLE TIMES. Akashasr (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Stubbington House School[edit] Thank you for your constructive comments on your message to me. I am a very naive contributor to Wikipedia but certainly do not have a conflict of interest, having never attended the school which is now defunct anyway. I was, however, for many years a resident of Stubbington and wrote articles around twenty year's ago. The Alumni for the school are taken from primary documents, school lists and, in particular, a 44 page document detailing those pupils who were known by the First World War, and a smaller document detailing the same for the Second World War. Most, if not all those ex-pupils cited can be corroborated by their entries in Who's Who and Kelly's Directories. I am sorry if you have been offended by my entries and felt, presumably as an invigilator for Wikipedia, the need to remove them. Perhaps you would like to reinstate them and I will e-mail you details of corroborating documents. Kind regards Gavelman (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavelman (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I was not offended but rather concerned. You had added information to a large number of articles without providing any source. Personally, I am not convinced that a prep school is even particularly relevant - which is presumably why it is rarely mentioned by the ODNB - but I guess that if you follow the procedures outlined by our verifiability, reliability and citing procedures then whether or not it is relevant is really down to those people who have a greater interest in the individual articles than do I. What you cannot do is just make random statements, and you will have to search through Who's Who etc in order to provide full details for each of the entries that you make. I am not convinced, by the way, that a school booklet will suffice - see WP:PRIMARY - and so if you chose to use that you should probably anticipate that someone may challenge it. Honestly, is it worth the effort? If ODNB do not mention a prep school then it seems likely to be minutiae, although it does intrigue me that such a seemingly minor school should have been attended by so many military/naval types etc. That might be worth explaining in the school article, if you can source it. Eg: was it near a naval base? Oh, you'll notice that I removed some quotations from the school article: you cannot just add random quotes with attributing them to someone. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] (talk page stalker) I take a passing interest in prep schools. Alumni lists are just not Ok without citations. There is the scope for huge BLP violation with uncited lists. I've dropped by that article and lodged a better citation tag in the list itself and made notes on the talk page. Put simply, assumng the school itself to be notable, and I see nothing much against it, but nothing much for it either, the existence of each alumnus must be cited in a reliable source that he or she is an alumnus. Useful searches in this case may be forumulated thus and editors can derive much of use from that. I'm leaving this message on your page because the two of you are discussing it. I will attract Gavelman's attention here to see this message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks, FF. You raise a good point about the school itself, which was not my primary concern when I was reverting 50 or so biographical articles! High schools/secondary schools are deemed to be inherently notable on Wikipedia. This is not something that I particular like but it is the consensus (apparently, though I've yet to find someone showing me where that consensus was formed). A prep school will not be inherently notable and therefore is going to have be shown to meet WP:GNG. Having a long list of notable alumni is not sufficient because notability is not inherited. That article is going to need a fair bit more than it presently has. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It appears to have been an unusual school in that it has educated pretty much all the Royal Navy top brass in days or yore. Whether this makes t notable is a different matter. I propose to give it the benefit of the doubt ion the basis that I think it is just on the right side of the border, but I have no strong feelings about it. Finding material about it online is likely to be a tough hunt since it died in 1997, but sufficient paper archives will exist. I have never found the alleged school notability consensus either. Many school articles should be shot on sight. I feel folk misunderstand prep schools in that they are secondary education, but only ages 11, 12, and 13. Even so I do not find them to be inherently notable in the same manner that I do not find secondary schools of themselves notable. What I do find is that people have an expectation that their school is present, so I am not going to argue with a load of alumni that their beloved alma mater is not notable and win! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oh great. See Talk:Stubbington House School where I have been attempting to cite a few alumni. What I feared has happened. Scraping and mirrors render the referencing task in online sources very hard indeed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sitush, I would entirely agree with you that most schools are not worth a mention on this site. However, if you agree with me that Primary education can provided the strongest possible foundation for a child's future destination in life then the alumni of Stubbington House School are truly remarkable. First Sea Lords in both World Wars, Scott of the Antarctic, and men of the highest gallantry (VC/GC recipients) alone would merit a mention. Thank you for erring on the side of indulgence!! Gavelman (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] The problem was that the article did not assert the notability of its subject in the Wikipedia sense of the word. As such, it was liable to be deleted. I've spent maybe 15-20 hours on it since then, hunting for sources and writing things up. FF hasn't been lax, either. I am still concerned about the lack of verification for names in the list, bearing in mind that I have trawled Who Was Who, the ODNB and the obituaries of The Times, as well as doing a general search of the web. The chances are that some in that list will have to be removed, at least for a while. There is now no way that the thing will be deleted and - if I can be bothered - it could even feature as a Did You Know on the main page of English Wikipedia (but I'd have to sort out the nomination pretty quickly because there is a time limit). - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Like Arnie, I'll be back. Doing more here needs more concentration power than I have available at present, but I'm aware I have left some holes. I see what you mean about a DYK, but they are just "Scout Badges" in a way. I find that they are a huge effort for no real encyclopaedic purpose. The school, now, is in no danger of failing our notability criteria. You have done excellent work here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Reddy[edit] Just prior to your edits on Reddy, Edunt made [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reddy&diff=526199971&oldid=526197595 this edit], which seems dubious to me. But I figured that you had seen it given you edited afterward...were those edits okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It isn't great. I added a url for Stein himself, who says: John Richards' monograph on Golkonda shows that Telangana had a political order very like that of Tamil country and Karnataka before the sixteenth century. From the Kakatiya period, when they held the major fortresses of the kingdom, Velama and Reddi 'warrior/cultivators' constituted a 'nobility' ... It is difficult to determine if Stein's apostrophised stuff is quoting words chosen by Richards or if he is saying that they were "sort of" nobility etc. You'll recall that there is this big problem with terminology in south India cf north India. I very nearly reverted and then thought that, well, the amendment is fairly harmless & I'd probably be better getting hold of a copy of Richards' thing. Neither Stein nor Richards are remotely modern writers but Stein does have a certain gravitas. Of course, much of the article is a mess and I've had too many distractions of late. What say I try to start over there? In the interval, just revert it if you are more sure than I. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It was actually the latter part of the edit, where Edunt seemed to give definitions for the four varna; I felt the definitions were a bit absolute; for example, I don't think that equating "Shudra" and "peasants" is quite accurate because the two social systems (caste and feudalism) are so radically different that the words aren't really direct translations like that. I removed that part by hand, leaving the Richards part. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ah, I saw that also but my brain was not in gear. Good catch. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Question[edit] During the "Death of Bal Thackeray" deletion discussion you write "Btw, a redirect would be the quick solution, I guess. That probably could have been boldly done but given the controversial nature of Thackeray and also the identity of one of the main contributors, you've done the right thing in being circumspect." Would you clarify whom you allude to? Just curious. Don't answer if you wouldn't like to. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Mughal Army[edit] Please tell me what can I do sir?--Piggy58 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, as I've said at User_talk:Piggy58#Mughal Army, I am not at all sure what it is you are trying to do. You appear to be reinstating an old version of Mughal Army but are saying that it is a copy/paste and that it is a submission to our Articles for Creation process. It seems that the article was recently cut right back due to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mughal_Army, where the content was determined to be against our policies. I cannot see the full history but it would appear that you are trying to insert the same unacceptable material again. We cannot use copyrighted content here. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sir it is not copyright material. I take this matter from old book published in 1903 The army of the Indian Moghuls: its organization and administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piggy58 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] That book is unlikely to be considered a reliable source because of its age. However, although it looks to me as if you are reinstating the old content, I will ask an administrator to look into it because they can see old versions of the article that are not visible to me. In the event that it is not a violation then we have a review process for content that has been deleted via a discussion - we'll probably have to use that. Bear with me, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] ok. Thanks--Piggy58 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Moonriddengirl, who is probably our best copyright specialist, has said that she will take a look at the situation. Don't expect something to happen quickly because these things can take time to check out. I am sure that she'll either drop a note here or on your talk page when she has done her stuff. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hello, folks. :) I've taken a look, and there should be no issues with the former version of the article; there are no substantial similarities that our "duplication detector tool" picked out, and I didn't see any on a spot check. Using public domain material is perfectly acceptable (although Sitush is right, of course, that some of the content will almost certainly need updating), but in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism you have to clearly acknowledge that you are copying from it - it isn't enough to cite it as a source. That guideline gives instructions, but in brief you should use an "attribution template" to note that the material has been taken verbatim. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] OK, thanks. I've restored the content, added attribution, removed the inappropriate maintenance tags, restored the semi-sock one, cut off more than 50k of text by linking to Mughal artillery and Mughal weapons, associated with the military history project ... and done a few minor tweaks. Phew. It needs a phenomenal amount of work, including a major copyedit & association with projects such as India and Pakistan, but my plate is rather full at the moment. Hopefully, we now have a basis for something decent covering this important topic. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] sir you restored content in mughal army. So please review this articleArticles for creation Mughal Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piggy58 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi, I'll mark the version you have just linked to as not being required because it duplicates content that we are already displaying to the world. Hopefully, that is ok? - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] ok. Thanks.You are a good reviewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piggy58 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No problem. Thank you for being so understanding - it all got a bit technical. The article needs a lot of work to tidy it up. I encourage you to have a go at that and just drop me a note on this talk page if you have any queries or get a bit stuck. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sir. Removal of matter under ahsam head is also better to improve the article. Because a article under this head also present.Ahsham (Mughal Infantry)--Piggy58 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Arain - December 2012[edit] Dear Sitush. I noticed you reverted my edit. If you actually look at the edit that was made you will note that no unsourced information was added, and no sourced information removed. The edit merely concised the information in a more presentable manner and removed unnecessary detail that can be found be clicking on the link. In future you should be careful to check other people's edits before you undo them unnecessarily. Yes, my mistake, sorry. I got confused by the amount of moving around of info that you did. I have self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Main page appearance: James Tod[edit] This is a note to let the main editors of James Tod know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: James Tod (1782–1835) was an English officer of the British East India Company and an Oriental scholar. He combined his official role and his amateur interests to create a series of works about the history and geography of India, particularly the area then known as Rajputana (present-day Rajasthan). He travelled to India in 1799 as a cadet in the Bengal Army and rose quickly in rank. After the Third Anglo-Maratha War, during which Tod was involved in the intelligence department, he was appointed Political Agent for some areas of Rajputana. His task was to help unify the region under the control of the East India Company. While Tod was initially successful, his methods were questioned. Over time, his work was restricted and his areas of oversight were significantly curtailed. In 1823, due to declining health and reputation, Tod resigned and returned to England. He then published a number of academic works about India, based on materials collected during his travels. His major works have been criticised as inaccurate and biased. However, he is highly regarded in some areas of India and his accounts of India in general and the Rajputs in particular had a significant impact on British views for many years. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I saw your message at MF's talk page. I picked the article because I liked the look of it but if you want me to run another article that day, and save this for another time when you're better equipped to deal with it, just say the word. No problem at all. Part of the reason I'm trying to schedule a longer time in advance than has hitherto been the case is to allow for problems like this. BencherliteTalk 01:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hey Bencherlite, good to see you and thanks for the consideration. Let it run, though. There have been some significant issues regarding POV-warring types and, yes, it may all blow up but we have undo, rollback, restore etc and there is a talk page where they can re-ignite whatever they wish. I've just checked the contribution history and now understand why it is that the bot probably only notified me, even though I do not know the algorithm. But it was very much a team effort, despite what the stats may say, and I am sure that the principal others (I nearly said "significant others") still have it watchlisted. You are not going to avoid controversy when it comes to articles concerning Indian ethnic groups etc, which has always been the bone of contention with this one. With a bit of luck, it will all pass smoothly and if not then I trust the community to do what they think is right and any disputes can be setted later. In particular, the crowd who frequent MF's talk page are among the best contributors that we have and I'm sure that some of them will keep an eye on it. There really is no time when I'm "better equipped", - a nuisance, but there we go. If I'm not chopping off a toe, being driven mad with tinnitus, breaking a bone or two, having my heart or lungs or ears or whatever looked at, well, that was a good day! I do this because I want to and if others find it even remotely interesting or otherwise useful then I'm a happy bunny. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] How the Hell did you manage to chop off a toe? I know how maddening tinnitus can be. My brother's had it ever since he went deaf, and the cochlear implant he had made it so much worse that he had to have it removed. Don't worry about TFA day, think of it this way. If anyone's going to get blocked for a 3RR violation it'll be me, not you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, we are to have a chat about your brother some time. Regarding the toe, which is merely one of my many misadventures, see this and this. It still exists but it doesn't really work.It has the colour and shape comparable to the nose of, well, someone underneath the arches of Manchester. No comments about what my actual nose looks like, please! - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Obviously, Malleus, Sitush was recreating a scene from The Big Lebowski! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congratulations on the article! I'll watchlist it too. Goodluck with the medical procedures. My one experience with real surgery was enough to last a lifetime. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Food is even more interesting that clans and castes[edit] Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger and the state the article was in when I suggested deletion and the allegedly better state it is in today. I find inclusionists as hard to fathom as deletionists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] That's a keep or just possibly a merge to Hamburger. Articles about food are often reliant on pop culture sourcing etc: the bar of what is acceptable varies according to the subject matter. Since I guess practically everyone in the States knows what this thing is, it is clearly notable. You're not often going to win deletion discussions relating to popular culture. I must admit to feeling a bit peckish now! - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] What interested me was the initial state of the article. Keep or delete is broadly irrelevant. Folk may do what they like. And the article now has some sort of referencing. But the whole process has been amusing, just watching it from start to finish. So many huge fights over what is really nothing at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oh, I recognised that point and AfD can serve a purpose in resolving it. We could get a much better quality of encyclopedia if we dumped around 75% of the crap that we currently have, much of which is geared to pop culture & consumes a vast amount of time for those who fight vandals, try to copyedit etc. But it ain't going to happen because the entire project is fucked up: consensus is not always a good thing but it is a darn sight easier to live with it than to fight it. - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Food is beserkery and mockery punctuated by the clatter of dishes and the flushing of water closets. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Heston Blumenthal and chili burgers[edit] Heston Blumenthal? Probably not. More like Guy Fieri... pbp 02:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I misread the link at first, seeing "Fiery" rather than "Fieri". Given the subject, was this a Freudian slip? Or merely because it is gone 0300 here? - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Tod TFA[edit] Hey, cool; James Tod is going live pretty soon as the featured article on the Main Page. Congrats one more time! Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Argh! More eyes will be needed, I suspect. If that thing gets through the day without being turned-over then I'd be astonished and, alas, while at present I seem to be spending well over 24 hours at a time without sleep, on that day I have a hospital appointment. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Many hands make light work. More than hands, there will be a lot of eyes on the article as is always the case with TFA—people keeping track of vandalism, poor quality changes, etc. It's not all on your shoulders! Best wishes at the hospital. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, that's nice to know. This TFA lark is new to me: all I've seen of it previously is frequent mentions and comments re: resulting problems at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. I'm hammering out Godfrey Herbert at the moment and cannot believe no-one had done an article about a Brit accused of WWI war crimes. And I came at that after creating a redlink in a list when expanding Stubbington House School, such are the wonders of travelling by hyperlink. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oh, how I've lost precious productivity by traveling the hyperlink; countless hours of enjoyment I cannot regret. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have one question about the article; why, in the lead and infobox, does is the link to "Political Agent" rather than "Political agent", especially considering the article redirects? Is this some British syntax I'm unfamiliar with as an American? I didn't want to change it, but I did want to bring it to your attention in case it was a mistake. Go Phightins! 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Good point. "Political Agent" was an office, a title. To use a poor analogy, a Prime Minister is not the same as a Prime minister (no, I've not checked the dabs on the last two links!). - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Political Resident seems to hit the mark, unreferenced although it is. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I don't know, it just seemed kind of odd. I was viewing political agent being similar to a political operative, which would be written out Political operative or simply political operative in the context of an article. Go Phightins! 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yeah, you're right. It is a bit ambiguous. I've linked to Political Resident. It isn't great due to the unsourced-ness, but it is better. Right now, I really cannot think of a decent way to explain it other than what I've already said but, sure, it might need some explanation. I'll have a think and please do suggest anything that comes to mind. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I've got no further on this one, GoPhightins. The caps still seem to be correct in this instance. Maybe float it at Talk:James Tod and get some other opinions? - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No big deal; I wasn't really sure, but it just seemed kind of odd. I don't feel passionately about it, so I'm fine just letting it go. Go Phightins! 22:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Some edits[edit] Hi. Can you kindly have a look at Koraga people and my edits there. Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'll clean up some of the phrasing, if that's ok with you? The expansion and sources are fine - it mainly needs a bit of a polish. A heading needs to be adjusted also, I think: "Fight for equality" is a rather emotive phrase, so I'll have a think. Oh, and I'm not too sure yet about how to deal with this. I mean, if the district boundaries etc have changed then obviously we need to do something but we've also got make sure that someone who checks the cited source doesn't think "Hey, Wikipedia is saying something different from Professor X said." We may need to tweak that a bit but you seem to know more about the administrative changes in the area than I do. Rayabhari, you are doing a lot of good work on a lot of articles. I'm impressed. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you. Certainly, please clean up the phrasing, paragraphs etc., as I am fully aware that formation of sentences/selection of words by me are a little odd. Thanks for your support, guidance etc ."Dakshina Kannada" was divided into two districts, viz., "Dakshina Kannada" and "Udupi" - and we may need a source for this, right? I will find one. I am very glad, when you expressed that you are impressed by my efforts. Rayabhari (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] File:Ethnic Groups Rural Pakistan.jpg[edit] This is an image, if you want to nominate it for deletion it needs to go to WP:FFD rather than WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Damn. Sorry about that, and will do. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Regarding Jai Chandra Rathod (Rathore)[edit] Hi, My request for adding modern name for Jai Chand you asked for an authentic ref. Quote : "In Northern part of India, the Rathore (or Rathor or Rathur or Rathod or Rathour) is a Suryavanshi Indian clan." From Google books"Gorkhas: The Warrior Race By Bandana Rai" http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=keEl6QKnuoYC&pg=PA147&dq=rathore+%26+Rathod&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XcjFUOmKEMuk4ATQ04DgDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rathore%20%26%20Rathod&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baitaal (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes. I was aware that there are a multitude of names for the clan but not of that has any bearing on the name of this individual. You need to find reliable sources that call him "Jai Chandra Rathore" and, as I said on the article talk page, there do not appear to be any. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Talkback[edit] Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 27#Category:Tribal communities of Rajasthan. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] My user page edit[edit] Considering the AN/I in progress, I am not sure how this would be taken, however thanking anyone never should hurt. Thanks for removing vandalism from my user page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No probs. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sorry[edit] I thought that I had got everyone, but there were around 20 or so pages. Sorry that I missed your's, it certainly wasn't deliberate. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No, I realise that it was accidental. You might want to double-check, though. It can be a nightmare attempting to notify a large group of people. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Just checked again and I think I got everyone. Someone suggested that Hamburger might be the better target, so I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] DYK for Stubbington House School[edit] On 12 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stubbington House School, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert Falcon Scott was educated at Stubbington House School, "the cradle of the Navy", which closed in 1997? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stubbington House School. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Regarding Mr.Goyal's comment[edit] Plz note I am new to this wiki editing. Unable to respond to ur changes on talk page, hence writing here. First thank you for adding - Goyal further said "Shiv Sena ...". Without the text Goyal further said " it was not conveying the meaning that it was said by Goyal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhD09 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Samra[edit] Pardon my intransigence at your edits on the Samra page. But I find it a bullying act, removing painstakingly researched and collected material posted by me over a period of two years. You have whimsically removed well cited sources like James Todd, whose book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan' is considered a masterpiece in Rajasthan history, and whom you say is an unreliable source. So, Magasthanes is an unreliable source as well! I have read his Indica well enough before posting it here. No wonder you are the most reliable source here! First prove that they are unreliable sources, and I will concede. I have personally verified sources before posting them. Secondly, you have removed the name of the Villages where Samra gotra people live, which you have no reason to discard. I have lived in one of them, and in this case Wikipedia is acting as a source of information to and not just as a compiler of published information. I would have appreciated if you had really tried to remove the uncited Prominent Personalities, which I have regularly filtered, if you check my history. You removed winners of Mahavir Chakra, MLAs etc. If this is not vandalism, what is? I know you would love nothing more than bombarding me with some Wiki mumbo jumbo and warnings. Still I would request you to understand that knowledge is not a one-way street, open your mind to the world. Just by editing more pages, you dont become an authority on all subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, sorry, but I have reverted you. James Tod and Megasthenes most definitely are not reliable sources for Rajasthani history etc on Wikipedia, nor are they treated as such by most of the academic world. A cursory read of the article that we have here for Tod might be illuminating. As far as the list of alleged notable people is concerned, you need to provide reliable sources that verify they are Samra and we usually expect the people to have an article. If the people are alive then the sources that you provide must show that they self-identify as Samra, not that someone else has classified them as such. You may find User:Sitush/Common#Castelists to be a useful explanation. This is the way Wikipedia works. If you cannot accept what you describe as the "mumbo jumbo" then you are probably going to become frustrated here. Wikipedia is not a perfect environment for the dissemination of knowledge. There are other means by which you could publish a version of the Samra article that more closely aligns with your thoughts and research. As much as I'd hope that you continue to contribute here, if you are unwilling to accept the norms then you might find it more satisfying to publish your research concerning Samra elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, for Police Commissioner Amarjeet Singh Samra, I had posted the link to an article from Outlook Magazine. He is well known in Mumbai as the Commissioner during the infamous Mumbai Riots, and Sanjay Dutt case. The link was there, you ignored it. Again I had posted a Mahavir Chakra winner, after checking from the official website of Indian Army, the link was there, you ignored it. I do honour the wikipedia code, and having referred to the website as a user thousands of time, I am indebted to people like you who bring objectivity. But this time, you seem to have ignored a lot of links I had painstakingly derived and posted. As for Tod, I had not made a judgement on what he said. I had posted its contents clearly mentioning that it was as per "Tod", to judge on Todd is another subject altogether. I read the article on Todd you referred me to. I think it is open ended, and does not make a judgement either way, and hence it would not be right to summarily discount everything he has written. Also, I feel that the Tod page has been coloured by the vision of a one-sided researcher who might have has his/her own agenda to do it. His book is still taught in History colleges in Rajasthan, and is considered a scholarly work. I would request you to revert back the links and statements from his book. I am not a full-time Wikipediaite, but I did join this family early, and if you see my history, with the limited time available to me, over many years, I have contributed to some pages in my little way, without crossing the code. I dont have the time and the skills to argue incessantly with seasoned editors like you. I would request you to revert the listing of the prominent people who had well-cited sources linked to them. Also, to revert the James Tod and Magasthenes link, with a qualifying statement that the sources' reliability is being debated. I wanted to thank you for reverting some edits of me. This page is being hammered and an year of research was initially removed by you, and then some other guys removed sections on Prominent Personalities, even though i had painstakingly given links....hope u can review and revive some of them, I seek your help in reviewing them User:Sitush/List of Jat clans[edit] When I tried to delete this as you requested, the system replied that the page had more than 5,000 revisions so would have to be deleted by a steward. (I knew the history of the Jats was complicated, but I didn't know it was that complicated!) However, while I was composing a message for you, the delete seems to have gone through. Maybe I have super-powers I didn't know about. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, it's gone red! Spinningspark moved it there when closing an AfD: they were only prepared to close if I or someone else did some clean up on the linked articles, which I finished shortly before tagging. If you could use your superpowers to clean up, source etc all caste-related articles before Christmas (this Christmas, preferably) then I'd be much obliged. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Review[edit] Hi. Kindly review my edits in Koraga people. Thanks for all the support. Rayabhari (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No problem. It is good to see someone digging around for sources on articles such as that. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] List of Jat clans[edit] Mkdw (talk) has asked me to undelete this and userfy to him. I am reluctant to go against the delete verdict of the AfD: please comment at User talk:JohnCD#Reconsider deletion of Userfy. I have also asked Spinningspark's view as closing admin. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, thanks, I'd seen elsewhere that a request had been made but have not yet got round to looking at it. Frankly, I am close to exploding with all the crap that is flying around and the fact that most of it appears to be related to impeccably polite but still unreasonable shit-stirring by one person. I'm off to bed and have a hospital appointment tomorrow. That is one of three that I have this week and concerns drilling a couple of holes in my head, so now is probably not the best time. I'll try to respond but, off the top of my presently-intact head, is this not something that should be at WP:DRV? Although I guess that means I'll then be dealing with the usual extremists among those who frequent ARS. Some among the ARS crowd are ok, obviously, and one even remarked on a rescue of my own once. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hope you remain in one piece for the present. Let me know if I miss the DRV kick off. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter[edit] The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter The WikiProject Articles for creation Newsletter Volume I, No. I – December 2012 Visit the Articles for creation homepage Project news Five changes have been proposed to the AfC policy. Join the discussion here. Another change has been proposed to the courtesy blanking policy. It involves CSDing distributive submissions. Discuss it here. The beta script still needs testing. Learn how you can help here. The backlog is at emergency status and another drive has been proposed here and suggestions on changes to the structure have been proposed here. Discussion on updating the backlog notification is underway here. A discussion on whether autoconfirmed users are allowed to skip the backlog is going on here. Discussion on users not adding categories and not checking copyvios is going on here. Backlog news[1] There are 1555 pending submissions in the backlog. You can help! Article rankings[1]  FA  GA B C Start Stub  FL List Category Disambig Draft File Project Redirect Template NA ??? Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WikiProject Articles for creation  articles by quality     Refresh From the Editors This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (talk · contribs) Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) Notes ^ a b Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache. Script corner: Stable: v4.1.15 - Beta: v4.1.16b2 v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code. If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) if you wish to help with development. Reviewing articles and more since 2005! Delivered 00:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist. Precious[edit] Elites in India Thank you, Labutnum of the Encyclopedia, for quality articles on people in India Under British Rule, such as James Tod, and for calmly carrying on, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congrats on Tod on the front page[edit] Was so glad to see your magnum opus hit the front page! I'm sure it will ruffle a few feathers in quarters-of-supporters, but hopefully the diligence you've applied in sourcing will give folks some new perspective. Nicely done, and maybe someday I'll get far enough along on Shivaji to make a move for GA/FA. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congratulations from me too. You're out for a little while? Let me know when you're back, because in the meantime I have fully protected everything in Category:India. All the best Sitush, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congratulations. Tod was protected by many of your friends, so much so that every vandal had already been reverted when I checked in. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Here's the diff showing how the article changed after its TFA appearance. There were some small but clear improvements made, and also some questionable lateral moves such as listing the non-notable Tod children in the infobox, though the word "three" was not such a great entry, either, for that parameter. The worst occurrence was quickly corrected: some fool moved the article to a stupid name, an act which I thought was not possible since it was supposedly move protected for the duration of TFA. Finally, the article sprouted one more interwiki link, so now there are three languages that have Tod articles, not two. All in all, a good show! Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It was move-protected when I scheduled it as TFA; another admin added semi-protection midway through the day, not realising that it was the TFA, and took off move-protection on the basis that there was less than a day left of move-protection anyway so it wouldn't hurt to end it a bit early... At least this proved to me that move-protection is still required for TFAs! BencherliteTalk 00:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] That explains it! I was wondering... Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] BLPN[edit] I have reported the Ali Ahmed Kurd article issue at BLP Noticeboard.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your name is mentioned at WP:AN[edit] See WP:AN#request admin help to close improper AFD. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC) But there's no need to look if you are indisposed. It's not about you. --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] notice[edit] I mentioned your name at wp:AN#request admin help to close improper AFD. Your commenting there and/or at the new AFD opened by Orlady about the List of Scheduled Castes would be appreciated. I personally would appreciate your truthful view about the validity of the topic for Wikipedia. Thanks, --doncram 02:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I missed the AN because it was quickly closed. Any opinions expressed by me on Wikipedia are just that: my good-faith opinions. The phrase "truthful view" is somewhat weasel-y, don't you think? Your misrepresentation of the nature of the AfD is, well, the usual playing with words. I assume that you are aware it is possible to be uncivil without resort to Anglo-Saxon phrasing etc? To my mind, you've done it here. And that's my "truthful view". - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] ..[edit] Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Good luck[edit] Drmies suggested not overwhelming your "little smartphone" with comments here, but... the heck with Drmies. Best wishes for a short and successful stay in the hospital, and a speedy return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Short support, for keeping calm and carrying on (see above), even under difficult conditions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yep. Best wishes and see you back soon! --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] And the heck with Floq, ficklest admin in the cabal. Glad to hear things went well, Sitush. All the best, and have fun at the meetup if you're going. Please tell everyone I said hi--or some British equivalent thereof (which probably involves the word "balls"? "bollocks"?). Drmies (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Close enough to earn you a cigar. "How are you doing, cock?" - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Break[edit] We have been engaged in a discussion at various pages, I am taking a break from Wikipedia, not that I won't edit at all, but I may not be able to be prompt in replies, so please consider that I have temporarily disengaged myself from our discussions, I have written my final replies to various threads, and that is all for the moment. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] No problem. We are closer to agreeing with each other than it may appear at first glance. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ezhava Page[edit] Hi, please see the talk section. I have replied to your query there. Thanks. Sreejiraj (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Macaulay[edit] thanks for input.. just checked, you removed it altogether.. that I think is better.. anyway, could you provide me with any documented reasons on why 'to impose modern mores on historical statements' is not good? It would be nice to have a perspective on editing. (I am not very clear of talk page editing, so you may get double notification of edits on my page and here!)Mittgaurav (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'll answer on your talk, then it is all in one place. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] OBC?[edit] Question. I've just found Vaniya Chettiar, and stubbed it. I found what appears to be a reliable source stating that they are an "Other Backwards Caste" in Kerala. Is that the same thing as an "Other Backwards Class"? I seem to recall you saying it's not. The ref is linked in the article; feel free to rephrase as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It is the same or, rather, it should in fact say "Class" rather than "Caste". That is not to say that they are a caste - it is just a statutory classification. I'll fix it now. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ah, I see that you did fix it. The next issue is whether they are still OBC. The lists change frequently and I think we probably need to use something akin to the ((As of)) template. The problem with that template is that although it is great for highlighting potentially dated issues on maintenance lists, it produces an output that rather implies the situation still is. This stuff is so messy and it is precisely why I am running into a lot of difficulties with a certain inexperienced person at present. My guess is we need to say "As of 1991[update], they were classified as ...", since 1991 is the year of publication of the source. Alternatively, we find the state list and that is not always available online. I'll dig around. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Would it be more accurate than simply to say "In 1991, they were classified...", which makes no implication about how long the classification lasted? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It would be no more accurate. However, Doncram is wanting to insert this info across many thousands of articles using the National Commission for Backward Classes primary sources. If he steamrollers that through, as seems likely at present, then all of those many thousands of articles will need to be monitored for changes at national level and a slightly lower number will need monitoring at state level. Your phrasing would still work then but it will become something of a maintenance nightmare when the usual puffery etc kicks in. Which is why the ((As of)) maintenance category might have its place. We could, of course, wait to see whether the steamroller continues. Right now, I feel like a tiny seed stood in its way but common sense may yet prevail. We are talking close monitoring of at least 5000 articles, and probably in excess of 20,000, in a sphere that is notorious for misrepresentation, abuse of policy and sources etc - we'll need some high-level means of keeping tabs on things, rather than individual watchlists. Category:Other Backward Classes might suffice, provided that each article is multiply-categorised as, in this instance, Category:Other Backward Classes recognised by the Government of Kerala and Category:Nationally-recognised Other Backward Classes, assuming of course that this particular community is OBC in both situations. Doncram means well but it really has not been thought through and he's getting upset about perceived incivilities that make me wonder whether he can see this huge task to its first-stage conclusion when the "your mother was fucked by a dog" crowd etc appear. An incomplete or out-of-date list will do more harm than good. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] BLP concern[edit] I'm a little worried: I don't actually know of any requirement in WP:BLP that people self-identify for ethnicity (of which we can assume caste/class is a reasonable analogue). WP:BLPCAT says we have to be especially careful with categories, and says we need self-identification for religion and sexual orientation, but not for ethnicity. BLPCAT is specifically more restrictive than general BLP requirements, is my understanding. Am I missing something? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] It was discussed at WT:INB and has been supported generally elsewhere by people who have no obvious interest in Indic topics. I am off out but check the linked discussions at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ugh. I'm going to have to raise the issue again at WT:INB...because many people, including myself, were flat out wrong before. WP:BLPCAT does not apply at all because it 1) only applies to categories, and 2) it only applies to religion and sexual preference, not to ethnicity. In articles across Wikipedia, we allow, in text, to make claims of ethnicity based upon reliable sources, and do not require self-identification. I think we decided incorrectly before, and I'm going to have to seek to set that right...my apologies, but this will mean me standing against not only my own previous position, but also that of yourself, regentspark, and other people working in good faith on these lists. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Whoops, my mistake, it does apply to lists. So, only the second point. It will be at WT:INB#Caste identification once I finish writing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Respect[edit] Home-Made Barnstar Appreciative of your recent help with current events. Clear minded and present, as usual. Ramwithaxe 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you! As explained elsewhere, I try to keep out of this sort of stuff and if it was not for a comment on someone else's page, I probably still would have done. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I think most categories could benefit from your polymath abilities. Agreed, however, working on the article can be psychologically demanding. I generally prefer my own forte as well. Ramwithaxe 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Abritrary break - Rohtak[edit] Hello Mr. Sitush, I would like to inform you, that all changes were reverted by you about Rohtak article. Please let me know, why are you reverting the edits done by users about city. After all the people staying here, would not contribute wrong. Some users have contributed incorrect and sparse information (see the Current Article) and you are letting that all information remain. I am sure the information this article is providing presently is not up to date and even so sparse to get to someone's mind. You can have a look to other articles or other cities of Haryana, so many users are changing the information about their cities, why not have look to them. Why are you only reverting the good edits done by some faithful users, to provide the viewers better information. Is there any personal reason, that you just want to make the City's Reputation to be down, even after there have been so many developments city and about all that, the information was added in article yesterday Dec 28, 2012. But all those changes were brought down, and replaced by your previous article state. I even provided the reference links, where one can verify the information, that I added yesterday, but still the changes (the hard-work) was reverted. This is unacceptable, as Wikipedia is an open source website. The other users have a right to change incorrect information to correct one, and if you are the moderator of India's Wikipedia, then make sure you are performing your job well. I shall be personally complaining to Wikipedia about your Behavior, and all what you are providing to users. Than you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.187.152 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi, I think you are referring to this revert. As I said in my edit summary, if you or anyone else wants to have another go with some of that info then feel free to do so. It is usually better to edit in small chunks - say, one section at a time - when when making large changes to existing content. Some of what was done was likely ok but much of it was poorly phrased, unsourced etc. Often I try to fix things myself but there are only so many hours in a day and recently I've been spending more time trying to resolve issues at 2012 Delhi gang rape case, where there have been and continue to be serious breaches of our policies in what amounts to a current event article. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Just a thought[edit] Seeing as you have 81,000 edits, and are autopatrolled and a rollbacker, and you've been editing 2012 Delhi gang rape case, is there any reason you haven't requested reviewer rights? It's probably one of the most-viewed articles under P.C.-protection, so the more reviewers who have it watchlisted, the better. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] Never really thought about it. This is the first time I've come across such a situation, although I know that PC only began/restarted recently. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] I see that the request page has a backlog. I'll read the guidance linked there now but it seems probable that I wouldn't be granted the rights any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]