User talk:Sitush

Chandigarh Capital Region proposal

I've opened a centralized discussion there to handle a number of the different articles related to CCR. I'd like your input to see if I've broken down the articles correctly and if you think it's a reasonable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Carlos Slim

Hello. You have a new message at Free Bear's talk page.

Talkback

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

RE: Jats #2 < User talk:Abstruce >

Hello Sitush,

I am really sorry that I was not able to reply instantly after You posted a message of My talk page! Well, I have reverted that text, till we can resolve it; if I won't be able to convince You, then I won't add that again. But atleast, I would like to try and convince You :)

First, I would like to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War with You. The Hindu people believe that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, and a number of historians suggests the date mentioned by Me, in the added text to the 'Origins and genetic studies' section of the article 'Jat people'. We do have an article here on Wikipedia regarding that, its: Gita Jayanti. In this article it has been stated very clearly that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, so I thought that it might be safe to mention a date alongside. [Check-out the stuff here: http://www.google.co.in/search?q=mahabharata+war+5000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a].

But Dear Sir, I will be very honest with You, I live in India, and there is another school of thought here that suggests that maybe The Mahabharata War took place around 1500 BC. We even have such an article on Wikipedia in which this date has been mentioned, it's: Indo-Scythians in Indian literature. [Check-out the stuff here http://www.google.co.in/search?q=mahabharata+war+1500+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a].

And believe me, if You would try to google the dates of The Mahabharata War, then You will encounter both of the dates; isn't it frustrating? But, since the celebrations in India are done as per the older date, so I believe it's preferable. The two different dates could be due to the controvercies between these two theories: Indo-Aryans or simply Indo-Aryan migration vs. Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory One of the dates seems to have been invented to suit a particular interest, theory and propaganda. But, I believe I should avoid discussing that at the moment. So YES, I used it as a date to refer to The Mahabharata War (as per the celebrations of Gita Jayanti done every year in India). Also, in case You allow Me to add that text to the article, then i would like to refer to The Mahabharata War rathar then any such date, that's for sure.

I have a very interesting article to share with You: http://www.bvashram.org/articles/105/1/Mahabharata-The-Great-War-and-World-History/Page1.html (please do have a look!!!). By having a look at this article, You will realise that how confusing the history of The Indian Subcontinent is!

So, I hope it was not unreasonable to prefer that date over 1500 BC.

And Dear Sitush, The author C. V. Vaidya has been highly focused, trying to discover the history of ancient Hindu India, so I though maybe I should use his reference in the section which is dedicated to the Origin of the Jats. Like in his book History of Medieval Hindu India, he suggests that Jats are further mentioned in a 5th century grammar treatise by Chandra, in the phrase अजय जर्टो हुणान ajaya jarto huṇān”, which refers to the defeat of Huns by two Jat rulers under the leadership of Yasodharman. This gentleman seems to have been really interested to highlight the Jat History in ancient period. And as Jats are one of the 36 Ancient Royal Races of The Indian Subcontinent <http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_marque_royalraces.htm>, so I believe that their ancient history desverves some attention! Thought, let's not get involved into another topic, I personally do not believes in racism but I used this reference just to highlight that when people say that Jats power rose to prominance during the Mughal invasion, they forget that the Jats are a part of the Ancient 36 Royal Races, and have had kingdoms before as well. Maybe sometime in future I will raise this topic on teh talk page of article 'Jat people'.

Since the connection between Jats and Yadavas has been accepted on the page; so I thought that maybe it would be safe to add more text regarding the connection between origin of Jat ethnic group and The Mahabharata War, as a number of Jat people believes that they have originated sometime around the Mahabharata War, and have an ancestral connection with the Mahabharata War. I hope You are getting what I mean to say. As per the Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory, Jats are those warriors who were able to win The Mahabharata War, but had to migrate 'Out of India' due to political unstability of the region due to the war.

So, I thought maybe I should highlight the other side of the history suggested by some scholars. that's why I added that text. But, I have revereted it; and maybe it might be not reasonable to add the text as it is question as well, that shall be fine. But if You feel that the text can be added to the section, then please do let me know.

Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You cited one source. I asked a very simply question: what is the title of the chapter in that source? I asked this because I can see the original version of that source but the page numbers do not appear to match those that you cited. This seems to be because you were using a reprint. I am not quite sure why the above wall of text has appeared in response to a simple query but let's start from the beginning here since it appears that most of what you say above is unrelated to what you added to the article.

I did not ask that you remove the content from the article, by the way. I just wanted to check out the details because I could not make much sense of them. We'll work through stuff, don't worry. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Thanks You once again for being so polite. I guess I am just messed up with My own added stuff! I want to drop the idea of adding that content to the article, since I don't have enough grip over the subject. I am dropping the idea to add that content to the article. I think I would like to study the subject deeply and get to aware of the views of some more authors about the subject. I am sorry to reply a bit late. I discussed it with some of My friends who are students of history, to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War, but interstingly some suggests it around 1500-1400 BC, while some suggets roughly about 5000-4500 BC. If You ever come to know the very exact date, please do shate that with Me! P{lease pardon me, but I think I would like to go in more details of the subject and the earliest mention of Jats in any Sanskrit Literatute overall. Right now I am not in a position to discuss the subject, in case any user wants Me to. I believe it's best if I shall drop the idea of adding thay content at the moment, and do some more research. Pleas let it go for the moment. I am sorry for Your consumed time. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of Tea for You!

Dear Sitush, Thank You for always being so polite, practical, and understanding towards the less experienced Users, like Me :) Abstruce (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop berating others

Hi,

The behavior edit1, edit2 is repelling. Please avoid it in the first place, and more even taking it to userpages to give unsolicited demeaning advices to third party against users. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, er ... - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want this trinket, just holler and I'll switch it off. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Might as well leave it there. I use Twinkle quite a lot but will read up on this. As I understand it, one advantage of this (sometimes) cf Twinkle is it auto-fills the edit summary with a "revert B to A", so if used judiciously it could save me some keystrokes. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You might be interested in what's being unearthed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi kshtriya

Hi. What do you think of Kurmi kshtriya, created by our new editor User:Prashantv79 (now indef blocked for personal attacks)? It looks like it's just copied from Kurmi, so do you reckon it's just a CSD:A10 speedy deletion candidate? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear selective copypaste with no new content, so qualifies for an A10 and handled as such. —SpacemanSpiff 18:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How did s/he do that? Use an IP? Thanks, both of you, for jumping in. The attacks were not too bad but were likely to escalate, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I reckon we need to stomp on these people/socks as soon as they start their attacks, even if they haven't quite got round to calling people sons of whores yet. A two-strike policy - one attack and they get a warning, a second attack and they're out -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am actually quite intrigued by all of this but doubtless the novelty will wear off, so fine by me. I would imagine that the probation suggestion at ANI carries some weight to actions such as that ... and don't dare you call my family dog of a son, or whatever it was :) - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Some nice ice cream in case you're feeling upset about the stupid jerk who vandalized your page. :)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, literally. However, I am not sure that $12k/month is sufficient recompense for enduring all these attacks. :-S Sitush (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Comments in this section relate to actions of TomPaul67, soon after blocked as a sock of Prashantv79 - I've decided not to remove, purely for the record. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sitush,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The user has been continually reporting me for being a socket puppet. I am getting tired of these false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPaul67 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IRC and Anna

Sitush, I would appreciate if you would not be involved in such a petty thing, see here the stuff I accept her to do on my talk page. As per policy a user talk page does not belong to someone and comments may be written and they should only be reverted by the user once they have accepted the comments and in the case that they do not wish to respond or if it is vandalism. I am to revert the edit that you made only once after that it may be considered edit warring. Thank you and good day. :-) -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush: Thank you very, very much for being involved. I hope you got my email. Best wishes, and hang tough. You're not the only one who is getting bugged. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got your mail last night/early this morning. Your current situatino with Thepoliticalmaster seems to me to be a form of harassment and as such I think that user perhaps needs to revisit the guidelines about who does what on whose page. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My adopter Steven Zhang has been notified about this, any corrospondence or anything you want me to do should be forwarded through him. Thanks. ;-) -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 11:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Per this it would seem that you should not even have been on Anna's page. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal with Humour?

(yes, I realise he can read this, but my opinion is no secret)

I can't tell if he's just being sloppy, having trouble digesting the material, or being wilfully obtuse either just to hassle us, or in hopes that we'll get tired of checking on his refs and just let him make changes based on incorrect cites.

Again, I don't want to get so paranoid I'm seeing socks everywhere, and if he were a troll he'd be the cleverest one we've seen yet, in terms of showing some willingness to work but also gumming everything up considerably. So I'll AGF and think he's a well-meaning but clumsy and vocal editor. Your thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Obtuse. I have said it before and others seem to be of the same opinion. Similar behaviour across a shed-load of articles. It is rather tiresome and, yes, sometimes pretty disruptive. I really am trying to avoid getting involved with him/her any more than I have to because the neighbours start to wonder what I am screaming about. Not a lot that can be done except hope that eventually something sinks in there. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, just went to look at his Talk. Pretty sure now he's not a sock of our other buddies, but more of just a bull-in-a-china-shop. Again, kind of sad because he's got some solid ideas and enthusiasm, but sheesh, how many times do I have to say see refs at top of Talk page. For that matter, calling things "unsubstantiated" despite the little blue number next to them... Will see how it goes.

That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page? Maybe make some of those banners for the top that say "if you're here to kvetch about "Shudra", see the following", "If you're here to cite Tyagi, see the following..." ? We can probably get the page down to 3 screens of useful data vice 40 screens of "Dearest sirs i must writ to say you are in gravest error..." MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, s/he is not a sock. I was wondering about some sort of banner, preferably visible in the edit window so that there is less chance of it being skimmed over. Not sure how they are done or even if the scenario I describe is possible but someone will know (any stalkers out there?) - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Like one of those things I've got on my Talk page, which you see when you edit it? Anyone can make them for their own Talk, and admins can make them for article Talks - if they can remember how they do them, and what they're called, and, um, yes, it must be hidden in my grey cells somewhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, checked Talk:2011 Libyan civil war. They have constant debates, and a non-stop parade of noobs coming in with clever ideas that have been extensively covered at Archive pages 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 23, etc... Here's what they use:

---

STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.

• For discussions regarding the main map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Gulf of Sirt Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Tripolitanian Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Battle for Misrata" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.

---

We could do something like this, for "Shudra vs. Kshatriya" (and include the for/against refs list and rebuttals), and for "Martial Races and Tyagi". Honestly like 95% of the page is about literally just including the word "Shudra". I wouldn't say I regreat adding and citing the term in, but man did it kick a hornet's nest! Is there some way we can archive everything and then copy-paste back in the few things we want to keep? Can we manually archive, or should we just "archive everything over 1 day old" and then copy-paste back that which we want to keep? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs simple, auto archiving. It gets messy otherwise. Perhaps create a page in userspace (and get it protected), then create links to it as per the Civil War article notice. It can go in my userspace if you want. If things settle down then it really ought to be a subpage of the India project because a lot of the things cross over from one caste article to another etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, can we just auto-archive everything, and then set the Archiver for whatever the standard period is (30 days?) subsequently? The page is just massive and useless now, so it'd be great to auto-arch the whole lot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is it now, MV. Just do not respond to him. I will do the same. It is completely pointless. Let him take it to RfC if he wants to do so. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I left him a message explaining how I'm not going to get into this further. Is there a WP term for closing off communication, but for legitimate reasons because someone is just fillibustering, talking in circles, etc? I don't want to look non-collegial, it's just that nothing sinks in for this guy. If he tries to get some "consensus" at Talk:Kurmi I'll continue to ignore, and if he makes article edits based on the kind of misreading he's been doing, I'll simply revert with a clear analysis of simply that edit. If he keeps this up, would ANI be the place to file a complaint about a serial troublemaker? Not malicious, but simply blunders into everything, refuses to listen, and fills up entire pages with that garish yellow sig... MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the person is simply repeating the same arguments over and over again, and not responding or practically ignoring your responses, the usual term is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If the person is doing it so regularly that it's hurting the ability to actually edit the article, it's WP:Tendentious editing, which is a form of disruption, and can sometimes lead to a block. I personally wouldn't recommend trying to get one though, until after you've done some form of DR that gets a resounding response against xyr position; if the person continues tendentious editing after that, you can take it to ANI. The problem is that, depending on the exact mood of ANI and the exact evidence presented, they may ask you to take it to an WP:RfC/U, which is a huge pain and rarely accomplishes anything productive. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please dont take ownership of articles

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Kurmi. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You and MatthewVanitas have assumed the ownership of the article as per the evidence above.

• Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing.

• ::That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page?

Wiki is an open community. You are not following guidelines by doing what is evident by your comments above. I will place the same warning on

MatthewVanitas 

80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV

80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By reverting I meant your un-redirecting Kurmi Kshatriya. Sorry, I could have been more precise; dealing with a few problems simultaneously. And I didn't admit any wrong "POV"--I admitted that I misread a fact, and I corrected that, and provided a link to other references supporting the underlying point. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Our POV is based on how we interpret the facts. You are one of the nicest persons I have met today, both offline and online. So anything you say I will accept it without any issues. To me, above two posts look like an attempt of ownership. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: This discussion was copied onto WP:NPOVN, in order to criticize the behavior of Boing! said Zebedee, SpacemanSpiff and myself (as "admins", even though I'm not one), as well as yourself and MatthewVanitas. It's at WP:NPOVN#One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi if you feel like commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning on term Shudra & repeated insistance on keeping it on prominant places in articles on Hindu communities

Hi,

A general warning is given here about terming Hindu communities as Shudra.

More legal info here details on discontinued use of the word Shudra and relevant punishments if 'insult or injury deliberately'.

This is regards to inclusion of word Shudra as also insistence on keeping it so, on pages such as Yadav ( edit example 1, 2, 3, more can be seen on the history section of the page here).

Please desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understan your point here. What has hcsingh.com got to do with anything? - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The substance of the article explains in details the significance of word 'Shudra', its discontinued use in India, and so on along with punishment if insulted thereof, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should I believe him? Why are you even pointing it out to me? You are indirectly threatening me with legal action. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The point of the site is the substance. I am not threatening anyone. Reverting edits should be good enough. The legal situation in India should be understood, too.

For the record, I will not take any legal action. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well shut up about it then. I am reverting nothing, and asking me to do so after pointing me to that site is indeed a prima facie threat, regardless of your "for the record". You can go take a running jump.

I do not give a toss what a random website says about this issue. I am working off reliable sources and putting the issues into context. You are just being an obnoxious idiot. Reliable sources say that caste X is/are/were shudra - what are you gonna do about it? Do you really think I care what the law in India says about using the term? The only way I would care about it would be if I was writing an article directly related to that law. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought that laws in India carry weight on Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they do not, but thanks for confirming what your intention was. I hope that an admin passes by and blocks you for this. You have been little but a nuisance ever since you appeared - threats, copyvios sufficient to warrant a CCI , numerous warnings for warring and tendentiousness etc. Incorrigible, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My intention? Lets see, I don't understand how someone can threaten legal action on Wikipedia when laws don't extend to Wikipedia at all.

About tendentiousness - it is about edits, not talk pages.

threats - where have I given threats to anyone please point out because otherwise it is incorrect.

warring - giving secondary sources(as in Kurmi page) and requiring secondary sources can not be called warring. I would rather not read much into what you mention. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just go away. You appear to be unbalanced, other people have noticed it, and while I am sorry that you have these issues I want nothing to do with you here. I do not want to end up being blocked etc because of dealing with someone who is just out to pick a fight. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've lost count: has he actually brought up the same "HC Singh" blog post as a "totally not a legal threat" about a half-dozen times now? If the guy is a troll, he's an awfully good one. A blog post as a legal warning? Really? Six times? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire situation is chaotic and there is no doubt that there is an element of piling on. I could live with that if only things didn't start getting dragged across umpteen forums. I have lost track of the number of times I have tried to get it back into one place. And I gave up trying to bring some order to that place. We seem to switch between people who cannot focus discussion matter into a relevant section and people who think that every post needs its own section. However, in this instance, TT's flipping from one stance to another, his forum shopping and general scattergun approach became beyond my ability to deal with in a polite manner, so the best solution was to ask him to desist from adding this page as yet another one of those forums. I regret some of the language I used above and have apologised for that.

I am usually willing to work with anyone who is prepared to accept the community's position (policies etc) and, I think, have never before asked someone to desist from posting here. He is fairly new in terms of period of activity but his contribution count would qualify him as something other than new, I feel. People are not always aware that although I signed up here years ago, I have only really edited since January of this year. I think that I posted more edits in the first week of January than I had done in the previous four years or so. So, in terms of time TT is about half as experienced as me. Around half his edits have been to talk pages, which ramble on and on, and of his article edits there are many, many copyvios etc as well as the issues which you have experienced recently. Yogesh seems to be trying to get the various messages through to him but I am not sure that it is really having much effect. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my post at Talk:Dougweller? I seriously think "good-hearted but obtuse" editors should be redirected into topics where they aren't POV risks, at least temporarily. Though maybe TT would be equally obnoxious editing articles about the red-crested Newfoundland swallow or the 1895 Chilean naval ship S.S. Budibudu, but I'd say it'd be at least one method to get him to work on an NPOV environment. I will admit, I've seen a few articles on issues tied to my personal identities that got me annoyed, but I had to admit in those cases I was unlikely to be able to address things neutrally, so I desisted. Despite all this insistence that "we need Indian admins to sort out Indian issues", I'd like to see more Indians covering non-Indian topics, and vice versa. Personally, I think it would be fascinatig to have some Indian editors factor in academic secondary resources by Chinese, South African, etc. scholars critiquing American interactions with Native Americans, for example, get some reputable subaltern studies academic material into the debate, written by people with no dog in the fight. Heck, I'd like to see more Indian history written by Argentine academics and added to the articles by Korean editors.

I don't know, in the grand Wikipedia scheme, if there's any practical way for admins to start smacking folks and saying "you clearly can't write about Turkish politics without getting upset, so take six months and go work on Australian history until you learn how to edit." MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans can be used. Indeed Zuggernaut is under the proscription of one relating to Indian history, among other things. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm familiar with them in generality (partially because of seeing what happened to Zuggernaut), but just pondering whether some blanket, more immediate/redline "you've been a pain for the last week, go write about birds" vice having a big solemn council to cover months of malfeasance. I suppose I'm just pondering whether some much stronger COI proscriptions should be coming into play as we expand to the Global South. Again, I think it's overall a good thing, though I do have grave concerns that we're expanding Wikipedia to the GS before we have the RS/academic resources to address the issues/grievances/concerns/interests of the GS. That has been one of my sympathies with some of the vexing posters: it is incredibly likely that the Brahmins went mucking with a bunch of records, and then mislead the British to exploit caste/varna. However, lacking good research on that, and having good research on the shallower view, WP portrays the shallower view. There are probably a metric butt-ton of important things to bring up about Uganda that are either oral history, mouldering in some archive, etc. but when a bunch of Ugandans get the internet en masse in 2018, it's going to be tough having to explain to them that they need RSs, even when RSs are going to be honestly inadequate.

In an ideal world, Wiki would stimulate academics into realising what issues are controversial, interest people, have harmful modern-day effects that might partially be assuaged by finally getting the "real story" out, etc., and then Wiki could portray their new findings once they publish. In a way, that's sort of what's been going on in the West for a few (and just a few) decades. Imagine if we had Wikipedia in 1950, articles on forced resettlement of Native Americans would probably be completely unlike what they are today, and whatever Native editors, progressives/liberals, etc pushing for a more inclusive view of Native perspectives would be told "well, Dr. Smith writing in 1923 said you Sioux are a bunch of savages who had it coming, so that's what we have for RSs".

There is a fundamental issue of WP being beholden to established academia/media, but arguably the solution to that is to fix academia/media, not abandon the concept of authoritative academic research. The great annoyance Kurmi is this week would be an absolutely impossible nightmare if we allowed oral history and personal belief. In any case, long ramble, but hopefully you catch the overall vibe. I'm not depressed or distressed about this (the big picture, I'm plenty vexed about Kurmi), but it is pretty interesting stuff, and Wiki is a real petri dish for these issues. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Posco India

Hi Sitush - I read wiki pages on original research and synthesis. I then went back to my edits, and reflected on what I wrote. I can sense what might have confused you, but I am not sure because your comments were broad and generic. If you have specific comments, please share them with me. I will incorporate them and then attempt to rewrite the section. I can see from your discussion page you are a busy person. So, if you prefer, I can rewrite the sections paying attention to NOR/NS issues, post them on your discussion page or on the Posco India page, and then you can take another look. Let me know your preference. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news. My comments were indeed broad-based but that was because the problems were also - just one of those things. Sorry if it confused you.

Just do what you want to do on the article and drop me a line afterwards. I can't promise an immediate response but I will review the edits for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller

I have mentioned you on Dogw's user page, FYI please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thepoliticalmaster

Thank you for all your help with the matter. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Moi? Glad it is sorted to your satisfaction, although my involvement was minimal. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi

I have nothing to add for some time, no offence meant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nipping Jāti lists in the bud

Oh hoh! Another cute little place for IPs to play chutes-and-ladders with varna. I've hacked out the list, moved the unref tag to the top (May 2007!). Fascinating topic, really some room to get into theory here, but an editable list is just a honeypot. I suggest we try to find some original list from some older publication (to be clearly labeled as one interpretation, not authoritative), as experience has shown it is simply impossible to expect IPs not to tamper with varna listings, or for lists of membership in any prestitgious entity (Royal Races, Rajputs, Ruling Clans, etc). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also doing some cleanup at Varna (Hinduism). I think that, for the moment while folks are laying low, it might be a good time to tackle some of the big, overarching caste articles. I think those are general enough that we can avoid ticking off any given Orkut cabal, and get some real progress made on some fundamental pages. Varna has some really bad copyediting, lots of redundancy, etc., really unsightly for a mid-high importance article. EDIT: "Varna" is class=start? Man, folks really dropped the ball on that one... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And who exactly are the "Rajanya"? Another word for Kshatriya, or something different? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Raj = king; anya = inexhaustible ... apparently. This may be an opportune moment for me to start using my free Credo facility, which for various reasons I have not really delved into since being granted it in May. As far as the general caste etc issues go, there is a limit to what I can handle, if only for my own sanity. I am also desperately keen to revisit some areas (including Nair) in a more in-depth manner than has happened over the last couple of weeks, and others that I have neglected for much longer. I also have a draft well on the way to being moved into mainspace and which has been spun out of a vague comment in the Kashmiri Pandit article, relating to the Lohana dynasty. It isn't great, but it fills a hole. So, sure I will get involved but I really want to get a lot of existing issues pinned down. This can be done, as Paravar has demonstrated, and I think that both that and Nair really do have the potential for GA. Sometimes it is about concentrating your fire, as the nuclar option people have said recently. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more of my "half-done" list is Malabar Marriage Act, 1896. I have the sources but have not had the time to completely integrate them. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points, and actually I think I've got a pretty good handle on those two articles, and don't really expect much opposition. After even a few minutes of searching I'm finding some great articles on struggles over varna changes. Check this link for just a quick paragraph or two on the local reaction once the Brits started trying to assign varna labels during the census: cue the (not surprising at all to you and me) attempts to add "Kshatriya" to jati names, as well as several cases where a community applied for several different varnas in hopes one would stick. Also Dalits applying to be recognised as Brahmins, which is pretty optimistic. Great material, and really goes to show how complex the issue is.

In whatever case, indeed probably best that you shore up your specialties rather than spread to thin. I greatly appreciate your weighing in at my Deccan articles (primarily Kurmi at this stage). I have almost no real support on those except for some helpful watchlisters who do reverts and admins for occasional blocks. I have one Maratha editor who is extremely quirky and difficult to deal with, though through patience over three years I've at least gotten him to footnote things, use sections and templates, and stop bolding all the time. To his credit he has created a large number of quasi-semi-suitable articles on Maratha clans (actually, he created almost every article on Maratha clans), so if he can just keep cleaning up his act that area might eventually work out.

I'm still baffled (well, I guess I understand why, but it's annoying that people could be so shameless) by how editors will attempt every rationale under the sun to avoid Shudra. I particularly am amused by folks who demand "Kshatriya" be in the second sentence of the lede, but once that finally becomes a losing case argue "you know, varna is such an obsolete concept, why are we even mentioning it?" The entire reason that I got on this kick was that I was seeing Kshatriya claims in a bunch of farmer caste articles, and while fact-checking on some totally unrelated puffery issue in the article (I think either Kunbi or Kurmi) came across the whole "how they attempted to re-define themselves" issue. At this point, any mention of "Kshatriya" outside of a Rajput article sets my little antennae quivering. Not that the Rajputs are immune to examination, just that such is a whole 'nother big sore spot I'm not yet ready to jam my finger into. Plus with Rajputs you have a related but distinct issue of dozens upon dozens of jatis who claim to be Rajput but are not recognised as such... and 75% of the time their articles make zero mention of this contested state, and just say "... a Rajput clan". I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Library Act article

Hey Sitush, this is a somewhat belated reply. I looked at that article and thought about it (which is why I didn't reply right away)... but I really don't have much idea at all what the structure should be like for something like that... it's really outside the realm I know anything about. If you want to start adding some information to the article, I can maybe help organize it so that it makes sense, but I can't do it the other way around. LadyofShalott 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding the info may be a problem but I'll see what I can do. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Land Acquisition Protests

Hi Sitush - I added two sections to 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. I have taken due care of NOR, SYNTH and NPOV wiki rules - each of which I like. So if you feel something is amiss, let me know. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have skimmed through your recent edits and there are a couple of glaring issues. One of these is very minor: WP:MOSHEAD is a part of the Manual of Style used to govern the format and other issues relating to Wikipedia articles. In part, it is an attempt to ensure consistency within an article and, where possible, across articles. Newspapers etc usually have a similar thing. MOSHEAD says that titles to sections generally should be in lower case, except obviously for the first word and any proper nouns (such as the word "India"). Some of the sections that you have introduced need fixing for this.

Of more serious concern is the "commentary" which you have added and which really should be cited. Examples are:

At current population growth rate, India adds about 15 million people per year. India needs homes to house its growing population, schools to educate them, industries to offer them productive jobs. Homes, schools and industries require land.

and

Since its independence in 1947 and through 1991, India’s economic progress was slow. With market reforms and economic liberalization in India starting in 1991, India has emerged as a rapidly growing economy. This economic growth demands infrastructure to bring supplies and more efficient production tools to all of India’s economic sectors, from agriculture to automobiles

There are other bits similar to these.

Having said the above, the general idea of providing background information is excellent and it may even deserve its own article if one does not already exist. I will look into that and let you know. In the interval, if you could perhaps polish the issues I have mentioned then I'll wander through it in more detail, just to check the citations etc. Overall, I am impressed: it is evident that you have paid some attention to the various policies and that is very welcome. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for the specific comments. I will fix all of those shortly, one by one. I also appreciate the words of support and encouragement - it is always good to know what to improve and what to sustain. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the comments from Yogesh and you on the talk page of 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. I replied. I await your comments. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for additional comments from Yogesh and you on the talk page of 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. I replied. I await your review. Thanks.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Message at my Talk Page

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at CHAK 001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, we had recent discussions regarding my use of the templates; some users were a bit offended despite that I only used the level 4im template as a test. Is that the reason why you believe my edits were a bit disruptive? Please see the discussion at my talk page. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahirs

sir, i did not deleted shudra word only mention cowherders seperately and some ancient kingdoms of tirbe.i dont think i have done any wrong thing by editing through cited sources.if you not allow some flexibility than how a good article evolve.i think i have right and duty as a contributer to edit from cited information.i have provided sources before editing at discussion page.i hope you will consider my point.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for considering my point.i have alredy cited some useful references of Cowherders and ancient kingdoms.so may i make my point in article?Bill clinton history (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Koontz House

I noticed you said on Koontz House that the date of construction was uncertain. The construction was in 1838, by Edward Forniquet, and was bought in 1849 by George W. Koontz. That needs to go in the article Atterion(Talk|Contribs) 20:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot do that without a source. The article currently lists the various options. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ganga move

The move proposal was closed as there were more !votes, in this edit[1] you so lucidly explain how numbers do not determine consensus, could you help on the Ganga move?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. I have never looked at the article you refer to, nor commented wherever the move discussion was. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, it was an wp:OSE trap that I fell for, the offer was in sarcasm, I'm sorry you missed it. You see I wanted to convey that "everybody knows that consensus is not about counting heads, but in Ganga's case it wasn't practised", not your fault.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RS

I was told by a wikipedian that these following three sources are unreliable [2]. Is that true? Pass a Method talk 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Prima facie, the sources look ok per Wikipedia's general guidelines for reliable sources but you would be better asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine after reading the specific guidelines for medical article sourcing at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles).

I have my doubts that the BBC would qualify in this instance, and the NHS one is a bit "glossed over", but I do not have sufficient experience of sourcing in that particular subject area. The first of your statements, by the way, is an extremely close paraphrase of the NHS source. This in itself will be an issue, for which there is an essay at Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing.

Sorry that I cannot be of more assistance. And, for some reason, I now find myself crossing my legs, tightly! - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not really willing to post in that link you pointed me to, because the most active current admin there is the person i'm in a dispute with. I'm gonna wait it out for a little while to see if he responds himself, if not, i'll just post at WP:RSN instead. Pass a Method talk 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & ...

Indeed when I reported the IP user's disruptive edits the first time at Sudhamoy Pramanick I had avoided the V word at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection on 12th July and also at User talk:220.225.6.45. Appreciating that the V word is strong , the User:220.225.6.45 seems to be repeating such activity at a regular frequency - his/her edits are not productive. Plz suggest whether it's worth semi-protecting the page. Anyway if someone is so interested in editing, it does not take a long time registering oneself. Tinkswiki (talk) Tinkswiki (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the IP has already exceeded the point where semi-protection functions, it is a pointless move. I will add the page to my watchlist & see what develops. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, see WP:SILVERLOCK--IPs never reach a point beyond which they can edit semi-protected articles; even those few static IPs we have that have thousands of edits and are clearly a single person still can't edit semis. Only registered users with the 4 days and 10 edits can edit silverlocked articles. Note that I haven't looked at this article and have no opinion on whether or not a semi would be appropriate--just clarifying how it works. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I was getting registered users mixed up with IPs. If anything, this appears to be a very slow edit war, so I am inclined to let it run and just see what develops for now. It is easy to keep on top of the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess by Silverlock you mean Semi-protection - that's what I'd asked for initially - such that unregd users can't tamper with. Tinkswiki (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment

This picture of Jayalalithaa which you have put back from the commons site is consisting of people along with her which does not serve the purpose of depicting herKumarrajendran 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why you are interested in putting the picture of Jayalalithaa to which i had a valid objection. she is shown with other people, which does not depict her office nor are they important people worth mentioning. I am sorry to say that you are being adamant and you have something personal against jayalalithaa, If you have a picture of Jayalalithaa you are welcome to put it but it should be an induvidual photograph. If you cannot do anything about it just remove all pictures depicting her, till we find an appropriate pic. I accuse you abt being biased and instead of helping build wikipedia site which is depicting Jayalalithaa. I am condeming your actions. I wish that action should be taken against you. Kumarrajendran 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It was removed due to various concerns: copyright, licensing and non-free use. This has been explained to you by various people in connection with other images which you have uploaded over quite a period of time. In this particular instance, you muddied the waters by changing the image attached to the filename on four occasions over roughly three days, ending up with one which can be found on a website but which you claim is "from my collection" and "I hold the copyright". It is true that you may indeed own the copyright of that one etc, although it seems unlikely. There were three others "behind" it which you definitely did not own the copyright for and which failed the non-free use criteria.

I can assure you that I have no interest at all in Indian politics; I do have an interest in ensuring that the Wikipedia policies etc are followed. I can also assure you that I queried the situation with other contributors. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

article: Jat people <about the removal of content>

Hello Sitush,

Sikh-History has reverted some of My contributions to the article: Jat people. I have some reasonable doubts and believes that the information should be on the page. I have also shared My views for this. The explaination for the reverts, does not seems to be fair enough. You are quite an experienced One. Could You please put some light on the issue under discussion there. So, I respectfully ask You to please join the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people#Experts.27_Assistance_deeply_Requested.2C_about_the_Guidelines_of_Wikipedia. Section: Experts' Assistance deeply Requested, about the Guidelines of Wikipedia. at Talk:Jat people. For whichI would be grateful to You!

Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agnieszka Fijol

...is a 'herself' so far as I'm aware. Agnieszka is a Polish girl's name. (This is in connection with your remark to User:Bampublore.) Peridon (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bugger! I am afraid that I fall into the category of people who continually get confused about the gender of others. It has been worse: I recently called Woohookitty a bot. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. No indication other than the -kitty whether m or f (or other...). This is one reason (apart from the mickey-take on userboxes) why I describe myself in the third person on my userpage. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I try to use them, their etc but fail far too often. It is of course a big deal if in article space; outside it, well, there is an ideal world of gender neutrality and there is the real world. Just chip away at it where I can and when I remember. I make no claim to be perfect and am not going to lose any sleep over it, although I do understand why some people might. Nonetheless, the Agnieszka error was daft: Agnes, Agnetha and umpteen others follow the same root (although that itself is dodgy ground, eg: Hilary can be male or female; Simon and Simone share the same root but are different gender). Minefield. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Another plate...

Well, although I will make changes to my talk page soon, please do accept my apologies for the earlier incident at my talk page (now archived). Your reward is below...

CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 09:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not having a great day, so this is a pleasant surprise. Thank you! - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for helping to clear up Akrura. Its very much appreciated Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs. There is a bit to add around the Kamsa and gem/jewel issues. You might want to have a go yourself. this has probably got some info to keep things moving but there are still gaps because it seems to assume some prior knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will copy edit whats left of it and then see what I can add from the source you gave me. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

what to do

Hello, Yadur was once a place in India with an article, then it was moved to Yadur, Shimoga leaving Yadur as a redirect page. Unnecessary, but links can be fixed or it can be moved back. Then it becomes a WP:SIA page, so the links from the redirect, which are the responsibility (by courtesy) of the page-mover are a shambles. I suspect the mover of the page has no great interest in sorting out these little things as he appears to have greater ambitions so what do we do?? Multiply this for the others and we have a mess. I would go for WP:Afd on all the set index pages created as I fail to understand any need for them, be abused a bit, and sort this out quickly. Comments? Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

PS The pages that link to Yadur, a set index page, just about destroy my browser! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

I sort of understand why it has been done this way, although I notice that the template for ambiguous populated places which is inserted on the page doesn't in fact mention Yadur.

Populated places are inherently notable, and I assume that the two redlinks at the SIA do in fact exist in the real world. If they do exist then Yadur should definitely be in the template; if they do not then life becomes a lot easier. SO, let's break it down into small chunks. Firstly, is there any chance at all of creating even stubs for the two redlinked places?

As for your PS - I think that is because of the huge templates listing all placenames in a district etc. We may have to take that issue to the India project talk page, which I am trying to avoid at the moment because I will just get told off for being a colonial throwback again ! - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Small chunks, if more than one have articles we have dab pages; if only one we do not; Next chunk- move an article, leaving a redirect page behind, with links to be fixed in due course, OK. Next chunk- convert that redirect page into an article with a nav. template, creating a bunch of new links to a wp:sia article then the links are stuffed. So once when you clicked on a link to Yadur in an article you were directed to the article (or via a redirect after a move, which can be fixed); now you are directed to a set index page and there is no way it can be fixed because none of us know which of the links were to the original page or to the new set index article via its template. Creating permanent stubs is seldom a solution (if it was a dab page it should go straight to speedy delete, as a set index page it is a monumental stuffup). I feel the perpetrator of this shambles will not be quick to help, even though he/she started with a reasonable argument,Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

Yes, I understand the principle and the problems. I am not sure of some of the specifics, though. Eg: Doncram has in the past somehow swayed the community that it is legitimate to have redlinks in dabs etc. More pointedly, I am not sure if an SIA can be taken to AfD - it may have to go to MfD. Can this mess be reverted by restoring the status quo ante on the various pages? I will appeal to the stalkers. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback at LoS

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

Huge revert at Dhangar, but I'm back on it

I went to go work on Dhangar, though I was vaguely under the impression that there were things wrong I'd fixed before, but there was nothing on Talk. I did a huge chop, and only after that thought to look at History: turns out you did a lot of chop on it in June, but then some 2009 account that has barely touched Wiki in 2 years swooped in and reverted it all with a simple "undid vandalism". I'd already added some refs and made some tweaks in mine (yours was mostly chop, yes, not adding too much?), so rather than undo mine and go back to yours I left it at mine, and I'll keep an extra-close eye on it, and send a note to the reverter about tossing around "vandalism" and not communicating over huge changes.

The article is still pretty bad, though in pretty standard caste-cruft ways, but since Deccan is unfortunately kind of my thing I'll take charge and keep chipping on it. It was 4.4k hits last month, so not as heavy-traffic as Nair or Rajput, but still worth cleaning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It should have appeared in my watchlist. I must have clicked the mouse twice or something. All articles are worth cleaning, whether they get a few hits or gazillions. Right now I am pretty much at a loss with how to deal with the current goings-on and would be happier if there was any light to be seen at the end of this tunnel. Thanks for taking Dhangar on. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For Kurmi, and to a lesser degree Ahir, probably best bet is to just hold the fort and prevent any significant changes made in haste. That should free us both up to work on less contentious articles for a bit, which (should it come to a conflict) helps to keep clear that we're serious editors doing major cleanups, not SPAs or POV pushers. It is unfortunate, but I have had plenty of caste articles that didn't stir up major contention, or resolved faster. Though Kurmi was awfully quiet for months, and then just suddenly exploded. I do agree with you that something a little untoward is going on, but I can't pin it down, and don't want to tar a whole group of disagreeing editors with the same brush. For Dhangar I think we'll be okay for a bit, as the main interferer who reverted you barely uses Wiki. I did, however, add Shudra cites, and that's pretty much the red flag before the bull. I have momentarily considered whether I should just do caste cleanups and just avoid varna issues since that brings in simply scads of protest, but the ornery side of me doesn't want to self-censor just to save time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if an article says X when in reality it is Y, the least you should do is remove the incorrect statement. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudheendra Kulkarni

Hi - you left a message on my talk page regarding my tagging this article for deletion. Ouch - you are right - it was a very bad tag on my part. Thank you for taking the time to point it out to me. Mark^Dask 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. I did it in part for reasons which do not really matter from your perspective, and I'm pretty sure that you do not make a habit of this. Plus, I have messed things up at least ten times today already, although I always blame it on my computer :) - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Education in India - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Sitush, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Education ! The WikiProject Indian Education is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Education System(Schools,Colleges and Universities).
As you have shown an interest in article related to Education in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

naveenpf (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajput claims

Working further on Dhangar, and it reminds me that, though far secondary to Kshatriya claims, Rajput claims are also quite popular, particularly in the Deccan area where I do cleanup. They have cites, but they sound awfully patchy (and one "cite" was just a comment that "Rajputs and Dhangars have the same gotras"), so I need to dig into those. Also having the same SYTH problem where Krishna's stepfather was (per the source) a Bharawad, but since the Bharawads are linked to the Dhangar somehow the lede claimed "Krishna's stepfather was of this caste." Pretty usual stuff.

If I do an article on gotra-cruft, someone a serious tool, somewhat a pressure-relieving unofficial essay on the practice, would you be interested in following the progress of that? Not asking you to write, just asking whether you'd like to be kept abreast, or kept separated from it so as not to be associated with my blunt critique of caste-warrior silliness? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, certainly. Start it in your userspace, let me know the details and I'll add to my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reported for 3RR

Please note that you have been reported for a violation of 3RR at the Kurmi article by me. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Where have you reported me? Not that I am too fussed because it will fail. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I should have mentioned that the report is at WP:ANI. Thanks for the morale boost.-MangoWong (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd place to put it when there is a noticeboard for the purpose. Not sure what you mean by a morale boost? It certainly seems that you are taking things personally. Anyway, I'll take a look but might not bother responding because it should fail without my involvement. Be wary of WP:BOOMERANG when you report things to ANI, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Diving into Kodava

Not at all to drag you in with me, but just for FYI I'm tackling Kodava. For starters, the lede says "Kshatriya" with three cites. One mentions them in absolute passing, another specifically says "other groups say they're jungle people and deride their Kshatriya pretensions" and the last (which I left) says it explicitly, but it's an Encylclopedia of Stateless Peoples, so not at all an authoritative work on varna. I'll dig more into it. Maybe it's just that fixing Dhangar has been too easy? ;) I did dig into Menoky (a Nair sub-caste) just a little too; their K. claim had zero gBooks backing, but did find some good data saying they were historically temple accountants (seems kind of danced around in the prior version). I would put Category:Kshatriya up for CFD, except it happens to be a great place to find articles full of un/poorly-cited K. claims. Fascinating place, India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

See diffs [3] and [4], your reverts happened so fast that I didnot understand that you are reverting, if you don't want explanations from me you are welcome to have your way, was providing diff for what I said on AN/I. Don't want to bug you on your talk page. Bye. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because that diff is already at ANI in connection with your comment, and you should know this because you have responded. Furthermore, the poster was warned by BsZ and then the content was deleted because it is clear trolling/attack content. It is meaningless and you know that. Feel free to keep winding me up with your inane, repetitive rubbish and feel free to recruit people off-wiki to step in here on your behalf. You have argued ridiculously with LadyofShallot, Boing! said Zebedee, Salvio and several others recently. Sooner or later, patience will run out. In fact, I rather think that it has in one instance.

Furthermore, since you now claim on your talk page that you need to learn (and it is regarding a trivial point where you won't accept the advice given even when it is in response to your own question & comes from an admin), it may be best if you do not advise other new contributors as I believe you have been doing. You have been extremely misguided in your recent interpretations of policy and it would be a shame if you pass that poor guidance on. Yes, we all make mistakes and we are all learning but the sheer scale of it is staggering. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kongu vellala Gounder Related article

you removeing base lessly everythink related to kongu vellala gounder article,i can't understand your intention, you does not allow any one edit,banning every one,even with citation

every one in tamil nadu knows the person was belongs to kongu vellala gounder but you say not belongs to kongu vellala gounder,and also allowing article with citations also

i can't understand what is goal of wikipedia by not any editors , or citations every think else

say to us what is u r intention?

every one knows kongu vellala gounder clan oriented people even journal of tamil studyies say ,partically we following u does allow put clan names over there

u deleting every thing , say to us what is your intention? in the earth no people like kongu vellala gounder present

115.241.3.134 (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia requires that content is verifiable using reliable sources. I think that I know which person you are referring to. If I am correct then the issue is that in lists of people such as this it is necessary to "prove" that they are indeed relevant and worthy of inclusion. This is usually done by linking to an article about them that already exists (a biographical article, almost always), but in this instance there is no such article. The alternative is to provide a source as a citation.

I am happy to help you with either of these options if you can come up with some information based on reliable sources, or to generally advise you regarding what makes for a reliable source etc. However, until one of those options is available then the name should not be in the list. Unfortunately, it does not matter to Wikipedia whether someone is well-known locally etc: they need to be notable and this needs to be established as I have indicated. Those are the rules, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't...

Please don't walk away from India-related work - there are so few people working on them, and we need as many skilled researchers and competent writers as we can get. I understand the frustration, but these things do take time to get addressed, and it is a slow and painful process - but awareness of the problems is slowly being raised, and we do have the most egregious abuse averted (at least for now). Maybe take a break for a few days (as I do), and ignore the people making accusations? It's only when they actually affect article content that it really matters, and that seems to be reasonably well under control at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)