Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Your reply about Dasuya is highly appreciated but "Thats how we operate is an arrogant statement" Hope you know what I mean! I have asked people to get me references but it is difficult to get documents from MC office!

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

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe1992 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why you undo my changes , their was neither any source and second thing plz see the talk section the army was under DIWAN MISR chand a hindu khatri not under hari singh plz visit the talk page and see all the sourcesw further ask these sikh hero fans to provide source that from when did the hell hari singh become the commander of kashmir expedition. So have a visit and see it was DIWAN MISR CHAND a hindu khatri not a sikh who led armies into kashmir in 1819 and defeated durrani empire general jabbar khan. Therefore a sincere request plz visit that site and if you dont believe me ask these sikhs to provide reliable source who say that hari singh was the leader. 122.161.78.118 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you must follow same set of rules , their is no source which say that he lead forces into kashmir because history is clear from 1813-1825 Diwan Misr Chand was the chief of ranjit singh armies not hari singh nalwa, i can only urge you to remain neutral and adopt same rules as you have done in removing the whole "BHATI "article on the basis of source this shows your two sets of standard. Where was the source about that kashmir expedition then how you undo my edit and to expose your double standard go to bhati page you deleted whole page first out of frustration as i praised your "MOTHER" in abusive way but now you are not asking for any source . go and see the talk section of the same hari singh page i have added all these sources these sikhs are like muslims they try to show that they are the bravest in reality "HINDU GENERALS CAPTURED 80-90% OF SIKH EMPIRE FIRST IT WAS DIWAN MOHKAM CHAND AND THEN DIWAN MISR CHAND"122.161.78.118 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing one unsourced statement for another unsourced statement is not helpful. Find some reliable sources, as you have been advised, and then the issue can be revisited. I have no opinion regarding the current content as it is not something that I have yet read up in any depth. Feel free to stick a {{cn}} tag against what ever it is that you think is incorrect, and feel free also to replace it with sourced content. However, if someone does come up with a source for the contested point and you find one for your "side" of things then the likely outcome is that we will show both positions. We are not qualified to determine which of several sourced opinions is most valid. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for example that content reports "he lead the armies into kashmir" in short sikhs have made him commander of the expedition , i have given sources in the talk that the leadership was with Diwan Misr Chand and not with Hari Singh but as you have seen these millitant sikhs have started distorting history here and their and will claim we are bravest , no one objects but atleast dont distort history i have given sources in talk section of hari singh page , kashmir campaign was under misr chand not under any sikh.their is no doubt this is no ancient history this is simply propaganda by millitant sikhs. 122.161.78.118 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Later today I'll take a look at what you have said on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/news.html sitush i really want you to look into this, almost all the content on that hari singh page is referenced from this book by vanit nalwa who is considered to be a descendant of hari singh nalwa, she has criticized all hindus even those who were probably the greatest general of maharaja ranjit singh such as diwan mohkam chand, diwan chand, raja gulab singh of jammu, plz i really want you to look into this book this book is criticism of everyone apart from hari singh can we consider this a reliable work i dont know how you guys decide therefore plz see this the woman writer is simply ranting about her claimed ancestor many of the facts distorted all other "GENERALS WERE COWARD ONLY HARI SINGH WAS THE REAL LION" this is the basic thing which that books portray and further i will accept that book if atleast one more author agree with those contents on the basis of such work which is the only work which support those theory about hari singh. The work is more of exaggeration first of all the writer herself has not been cited by other scholars on the same topic.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the article talk page then you will know that I had already raised the issue of this source prior to your message above. I am seriously not interested in your shouty behaviour here: your general tone doesn't inspire a great deal of enthusiasm in me. You are ranting on various pages about the POV of others whilst aggressively displaying a POV of your own. Perhaps you need to step back from these articles for a while and let some more neutrally minded people sort the issues out? - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a read here. Thanks SH 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the real thing, both Victorian copies while researching at university and "live" copies I was a child in the 1970s. It is a penny rag and not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i would like you to seriously consider the source provided in the origin of sardarji jokes, it seems another creative story by a hurt sikh writer who is trying to show the same thing "WE SIKHS SAVED HINDUS" the historical authority of this is negligible . i would love you to consider the nadir shah theory this is work of another inferior sikh to declare that we save hindus first of all delhi in those times were all muslim populace city further no such history is told we cant allow columnist to become historians and use their columns as source of history. plz have a neutral look at that theory.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise their are various blogs which claims various things and are derogatory at many places can we use blogs or columns as source of history, that too where the columnist is clearly a hurt sikh trying to impose his fake history on others.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have had that page watched for a long time. If you have any issues with it then voice them civilly at Talk:Sardarji jokes. I suggest that you self-revert your edit to that article right now & take the matter to discussion. You may be right, you may be wrong but you are definitely going about things in the wrong way. You should add WP:CANVASS to the increasingly long list of policies & guidelines that I have pointed out to you. So far, you seem not to be reading any of them. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is for your recent work for Patna University. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratualtion! - around 5,500 on the day as compared to Richard Buxton (botanist) that got around 2,700 plus another 100 after the name change (I thought those original stats were dodgy). I wonder if it was the more interesting hook, the timing, or a combination of the two. I don't suppose we'll ever know. Richerman (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My money is on that hook of yours, all £3.27 of it. I don't bother with DYK very often but I shall be moseying over to you in the event that I try again! - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, pal. Happy to provide a tiny bit of assistance - my very first DYK review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete external links and sources. You are also deleting important articles written by honorable Nasim Yousaf. Mr Yousaf is a renowned scholar & historian. His articles are published by scholarly journals/publications such as "Harvard Asia Quarterly", "Pakistaniaat" and "World History Encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The external links fail our policy, as I have already pointed out to you. Similarly, the sources by Yousaf fail our reliable sources guideline. Regardless of his reputation, we cannot use self-published sources etc in this way. If he is of such a high standing as you say - and I do wonder about that - then why are those items not being printed by a reputable university press or similar? I also suspect that there is a conflict of interest situation here, given the extent to which Yousaf is being "namechecked". I urge you to self-revert and discuss this matter on the article talk page, after first reading the various policies and guidelines to which I have already referred you. - Sitush (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that Nasim Yousaf is so notable that an article concerning him has been previously deleted. He is certainly vain, but not much else that I can see - and vanity is not a viable indicator of reliability. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into your suggestion. I am sorry to say, I would not agree with your changes. Your changes are making the article on Allama Mashriqi irrelevant. As far as self-publishing by authors is concerned, I know, many scholars like to retain copyright to their works and do not get their books published through University Press/traditional publishers. Such authors are not interested in Royalty etc. You seem to be ignoring honorable Nasim Yousaf's contributions to academic journals, History encyclopedias, and other publications. Also Please keep in mind he has presented papers in scholarly conferences in the USA. Nasim Yousaf's articles are well researched and highly informative. Many people, I know, have appreciated his contribution on the topic; he seems to be an expert/authority on Khaksar Movement. He has edited and compiled digital version of "Al-Islah".

You have deleted all the important information including Nasim Yousaf's article in a refereed/academic journal ("Pakistaniaat"). By deleting information, you are damaging the article on legendary Allama Mashriqi. Kindly keep in mind, your wholesale deletion and your request to delete Mr Yousaf's page cannot be without a reason. I request you to refrain from making unnecessary changes. Please do not take it personal. I have given you my opinion now it is up to you to decide. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a vain scholar whose main line of work appears to be as a manufacturer of towels or something similar, and whose close relationship to the subject matter makes him unreliable as a source. He spoke at a trivial conference or two, and has been published by a couple of extremely minor learned journals (one of which does not even seem to realise that its website has been hacked for months now). He paid for an entry in Who's Who and has contributed to a not-very-good encyclopedia about - guess what? - his relatives. Please, tell me what there is to like about this, bearing in mind our policies. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dumping his valuable contributions. I am sorry, I cannot agree with you. You are cooking up stories against the most respected and a well-known historian/author (Nasim Yousaf). The bottom line is, you want his works and page to be deleted. Your language is enough to understand where you are coming from. Am I right?

I checked worldcat, his books are available in the top research libraries in the world such as Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Upenn, Yale, University of Cambridge, Toronto University. From my side you can delete whatever you want; you are certainly doing disservice to Wikipedia and many researchers around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are copyright libraries etc - it means absolutely nothing. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment speaks of your knowledge. You definitely need to do some research. Do not make unnecessary comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to discuss any further with a person with such poor knowledge. Go ahead and delete his page/references. Hopefully, it will please you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

read the anon IP attacks against you. They are intolerable. SH 08:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are only the ones that you can see! Some here were revdel'd a few days ago when they were operating from another IP (self-admitted). - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Rahulmothiya's talk page.
Message added 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Rahulmothiya's talk page.
Message added 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. You can search for copy of the print ads online too, they're pretty good and the tv ads are on youtube. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's interesting. Regardless of its growing readership etc, the ToI remains a crap paper in my opinion. They get too much wrong, too often and a lot of the content is so lightweight (the size 0 model info etc mentioned by the ads) that it makes me question whether we should be using it at all here. Frankly, it seems to me to be no better than, say, the London Daily Mail ... and that is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The print ads are actually better as they're more realistic, but there comes a time when we need to start checking if the "news" passes our RS guidelines as opposed to just the newspaper. —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean celebrity cruft etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just cruft, I mean real news. There are times when I've read four different papers the same day (ToI, HT, IE and Hindu) and three of them would have one interpretation of a certain news piece while the fourth would have a different one. Invariably, the fourth is mostly ToI and sometimes IE. Luckily, the poor editorial oversight hasn't spilled over to the Economic Times. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. And that is one reason why I like The Hindu so much. ToI & IE in particular even contradict themselves internally (sometimes on the same day!), and somehow manage to mangle stories even when they are based on agency reports. I've not had a great deal of experience with HT but it seemed ok on the odd occasion that I've taken a look. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Situch, I have added one column regarding hari Singh Deora in Chauhan Talk Page. please have a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.235 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I had already replied, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, will you stop it with Nair, Ezhava, and all those other articles you own. You seem to control what goes in and out, and, since this has gone on for a while, I will be seeking administrator attention. I am also considering filing at WP:AN/I24.107.242.174 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Yadav- although you are usually correct you're still edit warring there, and I will be filing a WP:AN.24.107.242.174 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Gorilla Warfare's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, seen your note there and responded. Another trip to a noticeboard appears possible! I am thinking of creating a Template:Top icon to record them, akin to the little icons that air forces use on their combat planes. OTOH, see the photo of the duck at near-top right above. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standing at the water's edge, whether a peaceful pond or some roiling waters, and watching how the ducks thrive and flourish and socialize and splash about, is truly among life's great pleasures. And watching the geese as well. And on Wikipedia as well. Life is sweet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a case here. 24.107.242.174 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. I am now definitely going to look at creating a template such as that described above! ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New outline. Far from complete. The Transhumanist 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have not forgotten about this concept - just getting a bit sidetracked. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the temple man book right now. Do you want the entire book or just relevant pages?Mayan302 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you have managed to get hold of a copy - I know the frustration of wanting a book for my collection & not being able to have it! Much as I would like to read the entire thing, that is a very big demand on your time. - Sitush (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:)Hmm.i ll give u the pages relevant to the discussion for the time bein [2].i am quite busy right now.i ll send u the rest of the book in a week o 2.scannin the entire book is time consumin.this pdf may not be very clear.i used a mobile app to make dis pdf.cya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan302 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this new guy is removin every sourced content frm the nadan article without any explanation.i won't near a real computer for another week.could you please look into it if u find time. I using my mobile to edit.it's very difficult

I have noticed. Similar behaviour going on elsewhere. Some of it is ok, some of it is less so. I'll try to keep on top of things but, in any event, the old stuff will still be retrievable from the history. Don't panic. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK.thanks.editin caste articles can b a real pain in the neck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan302 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

caste warriors such as yourself make it worse with all kinds of glorifications.Pernoctator (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just calm down, the pair of you. Mayan is quite protective of Nadar stuff, yes, but s/he has also demonstrated a high degree of willingness to co-operate. You, Pernoctator, have suddenly turned up & appear to be editing pretty much the same range of articles as I do. You clearly have been around for a lot longer than your edit history suggests, perhaps operating as an IP. That's fine, but some of your edit summaries are, shall we say, "punchy" and the one thing that (so far) I have not noticed in Mayan is a tendency to be a caste warrior. A bit of AGF wouldn't go amiss. Let's see if we can work things out between us. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a reliable source as per whom?it it your personal opinion? and where might be the citations for others? Nijgoykar (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already left a note on your talk page. We may have had an edit conflict. - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your edit at Nadan article.not every petty landlord or tax collector is an aristocrat right?.and they are ritually polluting too which means they are people of higher status than them.otherwise my understanding of the term aristocrat is wrong.one more thing all indian castes claim to be aristocratic or have an aristocratic past.lol.yeah no one worked in the fields or were labourers or menial servants.i hope you know this.Pernoctator (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We say what the sources say, and Hardgrave is still the source for Nadar stuff. He specifically uses that word and, if anything, our problem might be one of close paraphrasing rather than false statements - I am looking into that. If you disagree then by all means find another source that says so, and then we will have to show both opinions. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just felt the term aristocrat is wrong as per the standard definition.also know well about caste warriors on wikipedia.so thought their edits can't be trusted.anyways i will take your word on the issue.Pernoctator (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...where maybe you experise maybe used. This article, has some incredible nonsense and copy edits added to it. That seem to be removed and readded. Can you lend a hand? Thanks SH 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise?! Give me some time & I'll mosey over there. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can we remove native scripts? and use IPA.is this limited to only india related articles ?.i am quite out of touch.Pernoctator (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is complex and I am testing the waters a little. There was a RfC but it was very messy even in its closure. It applied only to India (which I am extending to mean pre-partition India in suitable cases) and the discussion was concentrated on geographic articles/biographies rather than castes/communities etc. I think it is probably best if you avoid the issue for, say, a fortnight. Let me take any flak and feel out where the consensus lies. Doubtless someone will kick up a fuss and everything will then clarify rather better than it has done so far. What we will likely really need is people who can handle IPA creation, and I am not one of those. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i personally would like the scripts out.there are lot of edit wars regarding this.Pernoctator (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And there have also been instances of some nasty insults etc masquerading as encyclopaedic info. But, like I said, the RfC was a bit of a mess and I am testing the limits. I have a fair few admins watching what I do and they will be quick to step in if something is untoward. Once a series of precedents have been set and are either unchallenged or resolved by challenge then we'll know where the limits lie. I'm afraid that the chaotic situation here seems pretty standard for India-related stuff. I recall one respected Indian contributor telling me on this very page that chaos is the way of life in that country, but I've never been & so cannot confirm! It's not a great idea to stereotype people but it was an interesting opinion, given that it came from "within". - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have always learnt never to stereotype people.especially a diverse group of people called Indians.(India is probably more diverse than europe).though agree partially with the chaos thingy.also if i am not wrong it was probably BBC's Mark Tully who once said chaos is the way of life in that country.Pernoctator (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tully may have said it, but here it was SpacemanSpiff or Sodabottle or someone like that, and it wasn't a quotation! If you want to experience extreme and consistent chaos then you could do worse than be a fly on the wall of my life. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These editors have been at it for quite some time now (see discussions at Talk:Ra.One, a day's rest won't change much I feel :) (Grateful for the break though!) Lynch7 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for your kind comments at my RfA! Lynch7 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed! Cinema is not something that interests me and I dip into that area more by chance than by design. However, this particular group of people are going to have to learn to rein things in a little and we have to start somewhere. Says me, who feels like he holds some sort of record for being reported at ANI etc re: India-related stuff!

As far as your RfA is concerned, what I said is no less than you deserved. I have complete faith ... until you block me. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded to Sitush, for their improvement of India-related articles. We are proud of you ! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our favorite WP:Primary aficionado has returned from holiday. Our last little dance. Judging from this he's still going the tl;dr route. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed. If they drift into areas that I have been or am working on then all I can do is hope that their habits improve at that time. If not then they are likely to get extremely short shrift from me this time round. No way am I putting up with the crap that happened last time. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help in correcting the article Kallar caste. This article is being updated with information with out any references. Kallar originally meant thief and were involved in banditary till the 19th century.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h7cBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&dq=kallar+thief&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hlUHT5-cOeGhiAeYzuyUCQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=kallar%20%20&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=03qFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA581&dq=kallar+thief&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LVcHT7y9LMmeiQes0cypCQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=kallar%20thief&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dbw4fXovC1oC&pg=PT102&dq=maravar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_1kHT4e2H4uamQWu_JCxAg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=maravar%20low%20caste&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dipped a toe into that murky pond recently and now have it watchlisted. I am dealing with a lot of other WP issues at the moment but, sure, I'll take a look at it when I can. Please remember that everything is still there in the history. If it takes me a week and no-one else turns up then just live with it for that time. There is no point in putting yourself in an awkward spot. Believe me, I know that from experience. If you have not already done so then please open a discussion on the article talk page. It will work in your favour if you are correct and the others continue with their behaviour.

As far as I am concerned, I need to read up on stuff and, like I said, I am a bit overwhelmed right now. I have nominated an article for "Featured" status and it is the first time that I have done this - the process is quite demanding but "I believe" in this one and want to see it through. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well played. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was just editorial machination. The edit summary for this one is pure genius! Appreciate your input on this FAC. We are not going to agree about every point that you have raised but the positives far outweigh the negatives ... and I have had ca. 3 hours of sleep in the last 72 & really need to get my head straightened. Tinnitus is driving me crazy. - Sitush (talk)

Hey, so far so good. Fix that pillar! Oh, I need to leave a note on general stylistic remarks, but I'll do it there. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a response to the Macaulay thing. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...sometimes referred to as simple past. So, not "Peabody has gone further", but "Peabody went further". These usages are dependent on context--AE and BE may differ. I prefer simple, but again that may be a matter of taste. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, on that hyphen: User_talk:Drmies/Archive_24#Brassicaceae. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust anything by a sockpuppetteer who's causing problems, and the NR listing name is the default. However, you're absolutely right about the COMMONNAME thing, and you're obviously not a problematic sockpuppetteer :-) so I'll defer to your judgement on the matter. As far as I know, there's nobody at WP:NRHP who would disagree; look at the name at the top of the infobox of Court Avenue for an example of an article with substantially different common and NR names. By the way, the only thing that should definitely remain Koontz is the title at the top of the NR infobox, because that's always meant to reflect the name given in the NR listing; Green Leaves is given as an alternate name, while Koontz is the primary name. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and, yes, the infobox should show Koontz House. It definitely did but it was subject to to-ing and fro-ing due to the sockpuppet. BTW, your faith in me is not universally held: I have been accused of sockpuppetry on a few occasions and at least one of those did end up at WP:SPI. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say, I am not sure that I can revert the move. Can you do the honours? Or even honors? - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But why couldn't you do it? The only edit in the GL history was the creation of a redirect from me moving it from GL to K, and any autoconfirmed user can move a page back in such a case. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that I could move over a redirect. It is a vague memory of something I was told by another admin. Clearly, I've got that wrong - I'll have a go using a sandbox. Sorry about creating unnecessary work for you. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "jatland.com is GFDL but an open wiki". What do you mean by "open wiki"? In what way is Wikipedia less open than jatland.com? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at jatland.com is generally non-existent unless they have mirrored our content. As with us, they have a lot of people wanting to push a pov but their articles also contain a vast amount of original research. Or, at least, the couple of hundred or so to which I have referred did so. Obviously, just being an open wiki fails WP:RS and I regularly have to remove citations to it. User:Qwyrxian is aware of the situation and we did at one point consider whether a filter might be worthwhile. I vaguely recall considering asking User:ReaperEternal about this but cannot remember if I actually did so. As things stand, I just do a search every few weeks, check the sourced article and inevitably find that there is nothing worth keeping. BTW, that article title contained Hindi script, probably because the contributor is a new to us and does not understand disambiguation. The real oddity is that I spent 20 minutes or so checking the usual sources for Indian castes/communities and was unable even to confirm that this group exists - it could be a complete hoax, although it could also be the case that the community is incredibly small. There are some such communities that had < 50 members, for example, when the last caste census was carried out in 1931 (& at least one "community" had just a single member!). - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are working on the article in the creator's sandbox. I do not understand this at all as we already have Mohanbari for the place. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I need to stop for a bit. I see that is a redirect. I'll go have a lie down. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was lucky for me - I did not check for a Mohanbari article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was screwing up big time. Grabbed two hours' sleep, which is something of a record for the last few days. Sorry for all the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For delicate thoughtfulness and not abandoning a fellow-in-distress. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just stopped by to say Hi :) Nice to meet you.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sitush, Does wikipedia not accept the on-line articles as source. The article is sourced in that sense . This is a poor uneducated community , the numbers are not always important.Most of them are not aware of their identity. Only the name they know.Not even are they aware of the meaning.If the policy is depended on the number then you need a plebiscite , is it?Definitely that is not possible. Arniban Ssej 06:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

Replied on article talk page and sent it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

while cleaning up lists of notable kunbi and maratha people.i find some people who were listed as kunbi also listed as maratha.do you have any idea what separates a kunbi from a maratha ?.Pernoctator (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of similar examples, especially among the more widespread communities (eg: Yadavs). Just go with the sources. If the source is ok then use it, and if the end result is that they appear in two lists then there really is not much that we can do about it. However, if it is a BLP entry, the source has to demonstrate that they have self-identified, and so would need to be of a pretty exceptional nautre (eg: an interview). You will probably end up with lists containing about a dozen or so names, having pruned the other 90%. That is my experience, at any rate. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush

U have reverted my edits in the article Rajput. I want to ask what is there to discuss?

To improve the article, I added italic fonts ... What is to be discussed here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.159.235 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not just add italics. You removed valid requests for citations and you added the word "later". You have no means of knowing who converted when, nor indeed whether it is or is not an ongoing process. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush

Can we discuss it here ?

U posted a link of WP:RSN. I checked the page. Nowhere I found that Gyan is not a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.143.72 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a wiki account. U may discuss on my account's talk page also. I am the same user who posted a message in this section from IP 1.23.143.72 just a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. It is also scattered over numerous article talk pages and other venues. Never, ever use anything from Gyan, ISHA or Kalpaz (the last two are the same outfit as Gyan). - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this [3]. But its just a discussion about Gyan publications with no conclusion. I mean Gyan Publications was never blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all of the others also? There is a preponderance of evidence and a fair degree of consensus. Look, I can get some people to join in this conversation here if you want but they will all say the same as me and many will have vastly more experience than me. There is no way we use stuff from that publisher. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all others as well. Nowhere I found that its has been blacklisted. Secondly, a user was earlier complaining that some Gyan books take content from Wikipedia. Its not mandatory that the book I am refering ([4]) is taking material from wikipedia. Moreover I was referring to the clan system of Marathas in reference to their lineage (Suryavanshi, Nagavanshi etc.), which is not even mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. So its highly unlikely that the content is taken from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already. Lynch7 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking content from Wikipedia is only a part of the problem. Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mikelynch

"I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already."

Please provide some source that it has been blacklisted.

@ Sitush

Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it.

I don't think that there is some rule that only one reference is not allowed. The source I am giving is a book from Gyan. But the point is "Has Gyan been completely blacklisted?" If yes, then please provide the source. Otherwise, allow me to restore the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan has been placed on the list of Wikipedia mirrors and forks here. The front page of WP:MF states clearly and without qualifiers: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you have look over the article. i am dealing with a language warrior.who insists on using hindi script when thats not even her mother tongue.also likes to issue bogus warnings.Pernoctator (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sitush, just noticed you removed the caste information on Deepika Padukone. Instead of removing it altogether, I suggest we put it across neutrally. For instance, the fact that she is Konkani is neutral enough, but mentioning that she is Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin might be more problematic. I suggest we just mention the Konkani aspect. What do you say? Lynch7 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Konkani an ethnic issue? In particular since she was born in Denmark? In any event, I am happy to follow your lead on this one. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning Konkani is more informative rather than disruptive. "Konkani" is a fairly broad term, yes, its ethnic, but without the caste overtones. Lynch7 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do you want to do the honours? Or even honors? - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Lynch7 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before coming to conclusions without knowing the subject at hand, I would urge you both to try to understand the subtle nuances of the subject's identity. Swaroop Rao's edit makes it appear as 'Konkani ancestry' with a reference to an article that has 'Chitrapur Saraswat' painted all over it. Be aware that Chitrapur Saraswats DO NOT identify themselves as 'Konkanis', but as Chitrapur Saraswats. This community happens to be a very small community and this is what they call themselves. I'm looping in AshLin to educate you both. RicardoKlement (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely missed the point. DP is alive, therefore this is a biography of a living person, therefore she has to self-identify as a Chitrapur Saraswat and we have to have a reliable source for that self-identification. So far, we do not. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Padukone's sister was my wife's neighbour for more than ten years. The personal knowledge I have helps me to put things in perspective. Deepika Padukone is a Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin, a community which counts itself in few lakhs and by the epithet "bhanaps" or "amchis" not "konkani' which identifies the broader group to which the community belongs. Her parents are both Bhanaps and she was born in Denmark because her father spent a significant part of his life training there to become a world class badminton player. Her mother tongue is Konkani. However, that does not resolve Sitush's point about self-identification, so I guess it is no go unless we find an interview or autobiography where she says so. Identifiction as "konkani" is not suitable. Either it is self-identified or bust, I guess. AshLin (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I thought "Konkani" is a much broader term and could be used with a decent enough source, but this works as well. Lynch7 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have we then identified Deepika Padukone as 'Indian'? Has she ever self identified herself as 'Indian' ? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality was never a disputed topic on Wikipedia, not on the level of caste and ethnicity at least. Lynch7 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute or no dispute! I believe self-identification is key to establishing identity (based on what Sitush has been saying). Consider the case of DP, who possible holds Danish nationality. How do we know she is Indian? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute is No dispute; Having no reliable sources (self identified) for castes comes under WP:BLP. Nationality does not. Lynch7 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RK, the issue is now becoming pedantic. I already concur with Sitush & so does MikeLynch that without self-identification, we do not include the caste/community to which she belongs/is reputed to belong. Where does the nationality question arise? AshLin (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1, this is becoming too pedantic. Lynch7 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RK has a point.if anyone's interested then there is tricky issue about Salman Khan 's religion.see talk page.15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know then that DP is Indian? What reliable sources claim so? The only thing that comes out of a reliable source is that she was born in Denmark, by virtue of which, she would be a Danish citizen! How is she an Indian? WP:BLP doesn't mention anything about castes in particular (I've read the link, and couldn't find anything related to castes per say - unless I'm missing something). On what grounds are we branding DP an Indian? Just because she lives in India? Pandit Ravi Shankar has been living in the USA for too long... are we going to brand him an American? RicardoKlement (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your response. I myself had reported the User in question at ANI for edit warring who has resorted to name-calling several times despite being warned about being civil. I would urge you to look into it. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you were behaving particularly well. Even if you think that you have policy on your side, WP:3RR almost always means that you need to stop the warring. There is an exception relating to biographies of living people but you are advised instead to take the matter to the BLP noticeboard as it is tricky. Furthermore, the conservative solution (always a good thing with BLPs) was to leave out the information that you were repeatedly attempting to add. I doubt that the ANI report will come to much because neither party had followed due process, but I will take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the need for a block on my account. I was trying to protect the page by urging the user in question to discuss the RFC on the talk page. I myself reported the incident at ANI as I thought it was going to lead to edit warring. I have consistently warned the user in question about it on their talk page... specifically about name-calling. If there indeed was an RFC, it should have been discussed on the article's talk page... (like you provided the link on my talk page). RicardoKlement (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all the effort you took to ask the other user to start a discussion, you could have started the discussion yourself. Yes, there indeed was an RFC .Lynch7 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynch, I was not the one asking for a change :) RicardoKlement (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't anyone get irritated if bogus warnings of vandalism are issued.Pernoctator (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 3. I cannot see any relevant report at WP:ANI but you have presented a malformed report at WP:3RRNB. As I said earlier, it does not matter whether you are correct or not: you should not breach the three revert rule in a situation such as this one. If Pernoctator was unwilling to open a discussion on the article talk page then you should take that initiative. As it is, the pair of you have gone beyond what is acceptable. As your WP:3RRNB report stands, a reviewing administrator will not see much at all: it does not mention the article, it does not show the necessary 4 reverts, it does not show that you had warned Pernoctator and it does not show that you tried to resolve the issue on the talk page. All of those things are mentioned in the template that you have to fill in on WP:3RRNB. My guess it that it will be thrown out unless you fix those things ... and if you do fix them then the chances are that the report could boomerang on you. Sorry, but that is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is no rule saying that the one asking for a change should start the discussion. Sure, the onus is on the other person to discuss, but you could have done it yourself, and saved us the trouble, and probably yourself a block. Lynch7 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being irritated is no excuse for name calling. Sitush, if you believe that both of us had gone beyond what is acceptable, why am I the one to be blocked alone? I agree my report may be malformed - I don't care what comes out of that report - my only intent was to stop the edit warring and have an oversight look into it. It just so happened that you looked it and provided clarification, which I am completely okay with. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were both name-calling. School playground stuff, really: one starts, the other hits back in the same vein. I suggest that you both just get over it & remember to be civil in future. Furthermore, if you do not want to pursue that WP:3RRNB report then I suggest that you make it clear there and save some poor admin a bit of time trying to figure out what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, Sitush! I realize I was never blocked, but that you left a 3RR warning on my talk page. As for Lynch (aka Swaroop), don't put yourself in high light with the use of words such as 'saved US the trouble'. LOL. No one asked you to butt in to the conversation. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! You are being uncivil again. There is no need to take a pop at MikeLynch - he is welcome here. I suggest that you apologise. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts Sitush. However, when I have tried to preach civility to others, only to have it backfire on me, I don't see why I should apologize. I'm done with this thread! Happy editing! RicardoKlement (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should count yourself lucky that MikeLynch - who is an admin - will not block you himself for this continued incivility. As it is, I'll drop yet another warning on your talk page. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ricardo, please note that if you keep on being uncivil you might end up blocked. I agree with Sitush, here: your behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush (and talk page stalkers), I intend to start an AN thread to ask the community to place all articles dealing with indian castes under discretionary sanctions. You know better than I do what's wrong with the topic area, so I'll keep it simple, would you (or your talk page stalkers) be willing to help to gather a couple of diffs of general disruption (low-level incivility, POV-pushing, edit warring and the like) to convince the community we need those sanctions? Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide diffs galore, although I was really hoping that we could avoid this (you've seen my comment about it at User_talk:Pernoctator). Just the evidence from today and a link to past occasions when I have been dragged to ANI make the problems clear.

The real issue is how you define the subject area: the linkage with caste is extremely deep-rooted in Indian society and that is reflected in our articles. People will war over caste in biographies, in articles about farming, articles about political parties and, well, you name it. It pretty much underpins Indian life, despite numerous official (and often self-contradicting) pronouncements by post-independence governments etc. Just how insidious the thing is can be seen from the subtext of recent comments by an IP at Talk:James Tod, where the part-revealed intent is to undermine an article that is currently at FAC in order to re-establish Tod as a reliable source for articles relating to Rajputs. It is a subtext, rather than "in your face", but it is there nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (ec)That would be a beautiful thing. I'm just about to go to bed...but two things to help point this in the right direction: first, you'll need to narrow down the scope (besides just the castes, there's also the "clans", the "tribes", etc.)...but you can't go for a general "broadly construed" because that would then include most locations in India, and many many biographical articles, which would be two much; second: would serious disruption be better, or recent? i see sitush started to address some of this...but i must to bed go now. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did have quite a lengthy discussion at WT:IN regarding this. Lynch7 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q: What does "keeping article under discretionary sanctions" mean? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Discretionary sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, it would entail a "one-revert rule", rather than the standard WP:3RR. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the much appreciated opinions! I (stupidly, to tell the truth) hadn't thought about how pervasive castes are in every aspect of everyday's life. I still think we need sanctions, however... Is there a way to circumscribe them so that they will be effective, in your opinion? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall seeing the discussion at WT:INB to which MikeLynch refers - probably before my time. I think that initially it ought to be limited to articles that are specifically about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc. It won't stop all of the battling/disruption but it would go some way towards it. You might want to include caste associations and political parties in that mix (the latter are often caste-based). You could include articles such as Forward class and Backward class but I don't think that the disruption there is too great at the moment; similarly, articles concerning varna concepts can be a nuisance but the disruption tends to be intermittent. Templates for the communities etc would definitely need to be included.

NB: some of these issues transcend post-partition India: the net needs to catch Pakistan etc also. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just saying why just pakistan.it should include the entire subcontinent nepal bangladesh sri lanka et all.there are castes like Govigama in sri lanka and newar in nepal.please note the nepalese royal family's caste is also under dispute.whether they are kshatriyas or not ?.Pernoctator (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "etc". Basically, the entire Indian subcontinent. I am not merely assuming that Salvio is an intelligent guy - he is! Do you need my Paypal details, S? <g>- Sitush (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sitush, I was referring to the discussion around a month back. Somewhat related to this. Yes, caste is a touchy topic, and it takes while for non-Indians to grasp the "touchiness" of the topic. It shouldn't be a big deal, but for reasons beyond our control, it is. Probably the Indian subcontinent could be included in this? We don't have as much editors editing Pakistani/Sri Lankan articles as much as Indian ones, so problems there could be going undetected. Lynch7 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now, ML. I saw that as more of a general BLP policy issue (ie: a long-winded, repetitive exercise in explaining something that is already explained!). - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol i have never disputed anyone's intelligence.though mine has been and i am apparantely a worthless attention wh**** .Pernoctator (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough now. Lynch7 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. It's here. Feel free to tweak my proposal. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Sitush, I guess Chauhan article if made locked can be protected from intentional vandalism. Lets have discussion 1st for every point added there and based on the consensus those can be allowed to added. it seems some user are intentionally editing rather then adding more points there. Thanks.. 123.238.25.161 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last sentence but I do not think that the situation is quite as bad as it looks on the history page. There are a lot of IPs making a lot of poor edits but it isn't particularly disruptive - often, they appear simply not to be reading the article through before adding the point that they want to make, so it ends up being repetitive. Am I missing something? Is there an off-wiki thing going on at Orkut or something similar? - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old citation for bee-keeping and added it, the IP moved it so it cites something else in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see page 139-140. thurston makes a clear difference between devil dancer parava and the fishermen paravan.this is what he says about devil dancer parava 139-140.The Tulu-speaking Paravas of South Canara are, like the Nalkes and Pombadas, devil-dancers, and are further employed in the manufacture of baskets and umbrellas. Socially, they occupy a higher position than the Nalkes, but rank below the Pombadas. The bhuthas (devils) whose disguise they assume are Koda- manitaya and the Baiderukalu, who may not be represented by Nalkes ; and they have no objection to putting on the disguise of other bhuthas. Paravas are engaged for all kinds of devil-dances when Nalkes are not available.image is for the devil dancer parava which has been printed in the succedding page.there is also a photo before 139 if you see.Pernoctator (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also see 143 there are three caste which answer to the name parava.Pernoctator (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, well spotted. I've reverted myself. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush,
I saw your edits on the Fanny Crosby page, and was wondering if you would take a look at Wesleyan University? I've been going back and forth with an IP editor for months regarding citation bloat... While I've cut at least 100 bad/irrelevant citations out, I could use some help (even with all those cuts, the article has *gained* 60 citations since September anyway!). Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have a vague memory that article may have been subject to a lot of controversy at one point, and possibly even socking. The citation bloat seems pretty clear at first glance but I'll take a more detailed look at it & at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate any and all time you spend on it. Yeah, I recall that as well and the IP in question seems to be the same guy (at least in terms of verbage!). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... few things on this. Why are the images outcasted & left on one side? Why is this Muhnot Nainsi given special attention at the end? Cant he be just mentioned somewhere in the article. One excitedly clicks on him hoping he is someone similar to Tod to actually read only two lines. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhnot Nainsi is listed in See also because they were also specifically a historian of Rajasthan. It is not necessary for me to expand that article also, although hopefully somebody will do so eventually. I am not sure what you mean by "outcasted"; well, not in this context anyway. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse not! But why not just hyperlink him somewhere in the article itself; where his book is mentioned. I meant why are they all right-aligned? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call: I've moved it inline. Regarding the images, well, that's just the way I prefer them. There is no rule saying that they must be alternated left/right, or whatever. WP:MOSIMAGES just says that they can be dotted around except in the lead section. Only one person other than yourself has ever commented on their positioning ... and it was not even me who put them there, although I do approve! - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Well.... that images thing was just an opinion. When mixed, they look part of the article rather than they-are-related-hence-added (also my opinion). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It might be also be connected to screen sizes etc, or maybe it is just that I really do not usually care much about images. I'm more of a words person, so tucking them to one side perhaps suits me better. I should find a psychologist and ask! - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush, as you can see on my talk page and Alarbus's, I asked him to work on Washington quarter. I got it through GA somehow and am thinking of improving it. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Is that also the case with United States Bicentennial coinage? They've rather messed up at Death of Adolf Hitler and I was concerned to see no article talk page discussion on that or on Washington quarter. I don't care less what style is used, but there was a clear misunderstanding of how things work & so I was checking a few others. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they've retarded the death of Hitler article. Good job abetting that. Alarbus (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm pretty much it on the coin articles these days since RHM22 retired. Thanks..--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a silver dollar here, from the 1890s. It was given to my grandfather on the day of his father's funeral (poor sod broke his neck playing football - soccer, that is). I've no idea who gave it to my grandfather - we have no US connections as far as I can ascertain - but that death made him an orphan. Aside from that, my only experience of numismatics beyond day-to-day reality is a paragraph or so at James Tod. When you have sorted out the US stuff then perhaps you should start on the Bactrian ;) Best. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I looked at James Tod and thought it might be a good candidate for my kind of improvements (and I just about always flush out lurking problems), but I'm just not feeling like bothering. Alarbus (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — been peeking, and see an issue needing fixing, already. Alarbus (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with "improving" things provided that there is consensus for it. Indeed, there is nothing wrong - in the WP sense - in making matters worse provided that ... etc! You can always be bold but you need to know when to back down gracefully if it turns out that your boldness was, well, too bold, If you think that something is not right at James Tod then you are free to take a stab at it. It is not my article or indeed any other person's. OTOH, it is at FAC and you have been complaining about people trolling you or something because of some issue(s) there, so if your intent is to make some sort of point to them then it may not a great idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you hear what Sue Gardner said? We have to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. Alarbus (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. (a) I am deaf and (b) Sue Gardner does not run the show. The latter is an awkward chicken/egg issue for her, that, but given the problems that she has been connected with in the sphere of India-related articles, well, perhaps it is for the best. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sitush! I admire your contribution over wikipedia articles but request that articles, particularly about ethnic groups etc. be writted only by people knowledgeable about them or those belonging to them as there is not enough information about most of them on internet. I have rewritten the article and will continue to add to it as and when I find time. thanks. truthalwaystriumphs —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Please self-revert now. You are removing valid, sourced content, you are edit warring and you are at the very least working in tandem with HistoryofKushwaha in a manner that is disruptive. Feel free to discuss your points at Talk:Kushwaha, where there has been a thread running for a few days now. Sources do not have to be on the internet but they do have to exist and they must be reliable.

The article has already been semi-protected because of IPs who were doing exactly the same disruptive edits. I should warn you that I had already filed a report for a sockpuppet investigation. Hopefully it will not reveal something that is untoward. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that was not a joke. As you see, I have made just a few edits in less tha a month. There is no war. Request people with little knowledge about particular ethnic group to keep off. Little knowledge (particularly gained from Internet) is a dangerous thing. If you continue to write recklessly, I would have to report you. truthalwaystriumphs —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I am reverting you since you will not do so yourself. Now go ahead and report me. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well man, take this as a last warning. If you dont revert back to correct information and continue to present a malafide information, sit pretty and risk being jailed for cybercrime. I have spoken enough. There is no rule in the world which allows you to present malacious information,(including wikipedia codes)O . enjoy the liberty till it lasts.. good luck.--Truth always triumphs 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talk • contribs)

Please read our policy on legal threats. I know that your reading list is now quite long but there is not a lot that I can do about this, sorry. You claim to have read the rest, although it is not evident from your edits today. I suggest that you self-revert at the article sharp-ish, and retract your comment above. You are now facing investigations not only as a sockpuppet but also for breaching the three revert rule (see WP:3RRNB). Frankly, unless you do something quickly I suspect that you could be indefinitely blocked from contributing to English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]