User talk:Sitush/Archive 13

Bangalore Tamils
see please talk on the article talk page before do the edit.Thank you Eshwar .om Talk tome 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC) I read your message from ‎Abhishek191288's talk page.i will consider that.Thank you. Eshwar  .om Talk tome 09:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

hi Sitush
I modified the article .Previous namely called Bangalore Tamils.i followed the neutral policies.Please could you read and give your suggestion .sandbox article.Thank you! Eshwar  .om Talk tome 13:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I will take a look soon. I'm a bit busy for the next day or two. You could always ask for comments from Abhishek, Rayabhari and others who had some concerns about the initial effort: they can probably give you some useful advice etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kannada Brahmins
Sitush, isn't the article in the Kannada weekly Prajamata of Bangalore an acceptable citation to support the fact that Vishwanath Ayengar is a noted Kannada Brahmin? I hope you will undo your action and restore the entry made by me. Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this. A redlinked entry citing a relatively obscure, 40 year-old offline source is always going to raise eyebrows, in my opinion. Although WP:NLIST/WP:LISTPEOPLE do not insist that an article on the person exists, it has become a sort of de facto position for caste lists. In this instance, WP:NOENG is likely to come into play also, and WP:BLP may do if he is still alive. Basically, "if it isn't one thing then it's another": no single issue would necessarily give sufficient reason to remove but the cumulative effect is considerable. The best way to resolve this would be to write an article about the guy, test the notability that way and then add to the list. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AAP again

 * I clearly said I intend to keep editing these articles (17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)), in response to which you promptly said "Hopefully somebody else can set you straight". So your speculations are just speculations, as is the rest of your advice. I have never been taken to ARBCOM if that is what you are asking, and neither do I edit using multiple accounts or edit as an IP. The only thing you (or any editor) can hold against me is that I am extremely clued in to AAP and IAC affairs and edit only in that zone - that admittedly makes me a so-called WP:SPA and I don't hide it, but neither do I publish it. I have already stated elsewhere that I have no WP:COI for these family of articles as I am not a member of either organisation. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM has nothing to do with it. Your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies etc, however imperfectly applied by you, is remarkable for such an inexperienced contributor. Perhaps the fact that you do not apply them correctly even when citing the things is the giveaway. Yes, your SPA status is a concern when combined with the generally poor way that you are contributing but, whatever, thanks for letting me know and let's hope that you are learning something from this mess. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These edits!
Hi. Whether the series of edits made by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" to article AAP are permitted as per Wikipedia policy? The history of AAP article shows that, almost all edits made by the user from 12.6.2013 to 16.3.2013 are deletions! (except three edits, out of 28 or so edits). At times, the deletes included sourced info(recently added by me). Is it appropriate for me to stay away from this particular article? I seek your suggestion. Thank you, all the best.Rayabhari (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The contributor is going round like a bull in a china shop, lacks clue and is being generally a bit of a nuisance as a consequence. They'll be getting a topic ban if they keep this up, in my opinion. If you are finding it too difficult to handle then by all means go do something else but I don't see any policy-based reason why you should stop trying to improve the article. Just keep using the talk page to explain things that cannot easily be explained in an edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RSN comment
Hi. I noticed your name at the noticeboard and was wondering if you could comment at this post. I've been getting feedback only from editors who've used the source in question in the articles they add to, so I don't think I'm getting a very impartial response. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blabbermouth is a source that I've come across on a few occasions and does seem to be used here. Whether it should be is something that I'm really not in a position to comment on - music plays next to no part in my life. You started the discussion yesterday and it is a weekend, so I'd be inclined to wait for responses from the RSN regulars. Also, have you tried searching the RSN archives? - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've asked other regulars too, so no problem. I see the site mentioned in passing in the archives, and the only post directly for it is this short post that hardly addressed much. Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't know
I see you are involved with this editor, is this strange to you or normal? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is strange but, for that contributor, seems pretty much par for the course. I'm not sure why you have started an RfC on a user talk page, btw, but I've just looked at some of those links and am pretty concerned about linking to potentially copyrighted works/permissions. If you have not already done so then you should raise the issue at External links/Noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't know the right procedure, I did it here but I wlll do what you say too, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am confused because he only edited India articles and that RFC, I don't know how he discovered it. MarioNovi (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea either but it doesn't matter. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bangalore Tamils
The first version appears to be at least partially copyvio from http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/apr192004/metro9.asp just in case some of the content ends up somewhere else.

I won't comment on the redirect. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd spotted some copyvio but not that bit. I have the feeling that sorting the various problems of understanding on one will be quite time-consuming. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ösel Tendzin
Hello,

Could you please look into this article? I note that this article seems to have gotten some controversial removal and reverting lately, but at the same time, the controversy section looks very POV too. i'm not sure if thats supported by sources too. So could you please look into it, if you can?

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Kachwaha
I put protection on the page for one month. I already had the page on my watchlist and saw your edit summary. Next time, put in a request at WP:RFPP as a wonderful, fantastic admin probably won't have the page in their watchlist. Titodutta, how much longer do I have to be nice to Sitush? This blackmail is torture. Bgwhite (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, B. I didn't bother with RFPP because it was a week or so since the last incident. Nagercoil, otoh, is going to RFPP if the IP reverts me again. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is faster to ask an admin instead of taking it to a WP page. In my pre-admin days, I took articles to RFPP or an admin based up on need.  Feel free to bug me anytime, as long as Tito is forcing me to play nice. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Banaglalore Tamil
Thank you for your message on my talk Page.surely  i will drop a a reminder on your talk page.Thank you. Eshwar  .om Talk tome 07:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

 * Hi Anwaraj, there is a consensus that we do not use Indian scripts (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi etc) in the lead section of many articles; that is, in the opening bit before the first heading. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, which in simple terms means that decisions are made by the community and should usually be followed even if you disagree with them. There are processes for causing such decisions to be changed but they are probably best avoided until you have gained more experience. I changed some things at Hassan Khan that involved categories. We have a message area for the Wikipedia India Project - see here - and there is also one for discussing categories in general. In this instance, I replaced Category:Members of the Lok Sabha with the more specific categories for Category:13th Lok Sabha members and Category:15th Lok Sabha members. All people who are listed in the two categories that I added are automatically a part of the first category, so there is no need to show that also. I also removed an image that was "redlinked": I've no idea if the image was not showing because there was a spelling mistake or if the image simply does not exist but there is no point in showing the supposed filename of an image that we do not have. The other big thing I did was this. It was good that you used sources but those sources must also be reliable - just because something appears on the web in a Wordpress blog, for example, does not make it suitable for use in an article. We have to be particularly careful when articles relate to biographies of living people. Some of the wording was also not neutral or involved original research/judgements; for example, His views on communal harmony is clear from his statements .... In addition, we do not generally use honorifics such as "Shri" and "Mr", and we have guidelines for how dates are shown in articles - see WP:MOSDATE. This is a lot for you to take in, so do not become disheartened. People will help you find your way around all these policies and guidelines as long as you are contributing in good faith, which you are. You'll probably quickly learn the basic ones and if you have any doubts or queries then the best thing to do is to ask - which is why I am pleased to see you here! Hope this helps you in some way.- Sitush (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jayalalithaa
Trust me i don't have any ill-intentions if that is what your implying - which i hope you aren't. But i will fight if i believe i have a point. To me adding her Brahmin caste is a part of her life and in all probability could have played a role in the person she is today - just as one wouldn't be surprised to read an article on wiki about someone in England mentioned as having been born to an aristocratic family.Fotoriety (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to the article talk page. However, this is a biography of a living person and while I do appreciate that you are referring to her family, some of them also could potentially still be alive. We don't mention caste in BLPs without self-identification, period. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey,regarding Bahar Dutt
Sir, According to my humble opinion I think the article on Ms Bahar Dutt should be deleted.I saw you edited the page a lot so please take part in the discussion and correct me if I am wrong.Uncletomwood (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557904702 your edit] to Bicycle helmets in Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558404575 your edit] to Magadh University may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560575160 your edit] to Bicycle helmets in Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bell bike helmets timeline}} Industry helmet standards were developed from the 1970s {cite web |url=http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm  |title=Bicycle Helmet Standards |publisher=Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute |date=26 February 2009 |

Jalebi
 A jalebi for you ''' Here is one jalebi for you. Jalebi is a sweet popular in countries of the Indian Subcontinent, specially in India, Pakistan, Bangaldesh. Hope you'll like it. Thank you. Tito ☸ Dutta 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bacchan
The issue of mentioning caste for Bachchan and his family has been discussed on the article talk page. There is also a link at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Trying to get round WP:BLP by referring to his family rather than the man himself creates an inference and is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Si Tush, you obviously guard these articles like a hawk and I admire you for that. Since, you are so well versed in Wikipedia policies and are indeed, "Proposer" of  many policies on India / Hindu related subjects, can you advice me on how to get the policy on mentioning caste of living persons changed ? After all, nothing is set in concrete, is it ? Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was recently discussed at WP:VPP because WP:BLP is a core policy. You are not going to get this changed any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi
Hi, can you please look into the article? I have removed material (social media "nickname", comments and opinion by Modi and BJP) that seems WP:Undue, WP:Opinion and not WP:Relevant. But, it's being added back in again and again. I have already reached the 3RR limit. Cliniic (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, apparently it was Rahul Gandhi's birthday yesterday and some think that is why the influx of edits came in. I'm tempted to think it is another strand of what is going to be a very messy few months in the run-in to next year's general elections. I know next to nothing about the man but it is possible that Modi and his BJP bully-boys (about whom I know a bit more) have figured out that Wikipedia is both influential and capable of manipulation. Either way, the issue of contributions to the article was raised at WT:INB and so there should be quite a few experienced people keeping an eye on things. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think Indian political articles are poorly patrolled and prone to disruptive editing. A month ago, the Sonia Gandhi page made it 10 days without anyone reverting controversial edits like Nazi connections etc. I believe part of the blame lies with me, since I had taken responsibility of patrolling her page (taking a break) but its still annoying to realize that nobody else bothered to revert it before I came back. Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply! Cliniic (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has reverted me again. He is citing the Narendra Modi page as a template in claiming the 'Pappu' nickname is relevant. I suppose you know what he is talking about? Cliniic (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read User_talk:Neo. and continue discussion at Talk:Rahul Gandhi. I have no opinion as yet regarding the suitability of the contributions. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * You should not have reverted at all. It is not your draft and you should not mess around with it. If you have any constructive points to make then I am sure that there would be no problem with you mentioning them on the draft's talk page. Even then, please bear in mind that the rules for userspace differ from mainspace and indeed a user could almost always legitimately WP:OWN the drafts in their own space. To a large extent, it is one area of Wikipedia that defies the "anyone can edit" mantra. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Will Open a thread in talk page in future. Enjoy the strawberries for now. The Legend   of Zorro  23:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Allergic to AAP?
I categorically state that i am NOT a member of ANY Political Party, specially not AAP, and I have no personal agenda/interest in promoting a person and/or political party. I am NOT operating under any pseudo-name, as most on wiki are.

An old inhabitant of this beautiful planet, I am enthused by the world wide phenomenon of citizens, specially the youth, protesting against the oppressive mis/non-governance by the elected few and thus followed India Against Corruption with great hope.

The agenda listed on the menu bar of AAP is a breakdown of the steps enunciated in the book for decentralisation - power back to the people. I think if the essence of a book is publicly acknowledged as the mission/inspiration by any political party, it should get a mention on the book page. "With Swaraj in mind, Kejriwal launches Aam Aadmi Party" http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/politics/with-swaraj-in-mind-kejriwal-launches-aam-aadmi-party/article4130337.ece

http://www.swaraj.info is a public page on different aspects of Swaraj (book) and does not "link an article to itself"

My present interest on the topic is only to help spread the news, as widely as possible to those who care, to participate in the happenings around, which in my opinion are for the good.

I had earlier contributed on Odissi, Mayadhar Raut, Madhumita Raut etc

"In your zeal to promote this anti-corruption messiah and his political party, you are overstepping a few marks and you are demonstrating the downsides that often come from someone operating as a single-purpose account." was totally uncalled for and an utterly biased statement validating the pertinent question raised in the heading. I have NO intention of getting into any war, let alone edit war, but I detest your wholesale deletion of additions rather than correcting the editorial mistakes, as you have done now. Thanks a lot. Ratanmaitra (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not checked the page, but looking at your comments even I am feeling that you want to promote something, especially when you say My present interest on the topic is only to help spread the news, as widely as possible to those who care, to participate in the happenings around, which in my opinion are for the good.. Wikipedia is not meant to promote causes not matter how good it is. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX .-sarvajna (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As per OED sarvajna, 'promote' also mean "give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase public awareness".

Giving 'correct' information: 'My present interest on the topic is only to help spread the news', is what Wikipedia does, promoting awareness/knowledge/news(and not views), without hypes and/or value judgments (promotion, marketing), accessible by anyone interested from anywhere. Ratanmaitra (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ratanmaitra, but Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of spreading news - see WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, if you wan to discuss matters relating to development of the Aam Aadmi Party or Swaraj (book) aricles then I'll hapilly do so at the relevant article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Sitush, you are being pedantic now. Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, happenings in Brazil now, etc., all are/were 'news'! Thanks, anyway. Ratanmaitra (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The cited examples were not argument of 'similarity' but illustration of ‘knowledge’ germinating from narrow definition ‘news’, though vice versa not always true. All arguments have counters, gravity depending on the context and predisposition of the evaluator, and should never be dismissed (deleted) perfunctorily; otherwise, very essence of universal collaboration gets lost, in spite of selfless work put in by many.

Sleeping on my thoughts, fearing entry into esoteric territory, decided to share it on your frequently visited page of ‘wiki-experts’. Ratanmaitra (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Similarly, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". One difficulty with articles on Wikipedia is keeping the things focussed and when the article concerns more-or-less current events then it gets very messy. We really, really should not have articles on such subjects and instead should allow some time to pass so that when we do write the things we do so with the benefit of hindsight and a sober review of the sources. Otherwise we end up with messes such as 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree but leaving out contemporary issues is an easy way out, surrendering unique advantage of Wikipedia being on real-time. Hindsight does not provide the dynamics of an evolution, and runs the risk of 'your views vs my views', without reasonable means of checking on the 'facts', as it happened.

Sources are indeed a problem though may be overcome with a rider on its origin/interest/association regarding its accuracy, independence and reliability, and leave it to the reader to form her/his opinion. Same event written/broadcast differently, even with hindsight, is well known, 'extraneous factors' influencing 'facts'.

I agree to merger of 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement with 2012 Indian anti-corruption movement, the same movement evolving over years, but not to deletion of 90% content. I believe all sides should be suitably represented as there is really no "absolute truth", its always your (editor's) truth vs mine. Ratanmaitra (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

INCOTM
We are approaching towards closing this month's nomination. Few days in hand. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 00:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and, as I expected, nothing much is happening. I will be giving it a nudge but - honestly - having my name associated with it is far from being a positive. I have a certain reputation and it is not one that necessarily sits well with a role such as this. But, like I said, I'll give it a nudge. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * INCOTM has been successful. Remember everything was quiet for last few months and there was no nomination etc. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 00:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tito, I don't deny its past success. I've seen it even though I chose never to be involved at that time. I do not intend to be involved now: my only role will be as a co-ordinator, a postman. It would be absolutely fatal to the concept if I were to begin editing/commenting on stuff anywhere after the point where it is nominated. I just happen to think that even having my name attached to the process is, if not fatal, likely to be the kiss of death. I've said it before but you really need to appreciate that I have upset an awful lot of people with my work on India-related articles and that the manner of my editing pattern (especially the frequency of it) can tend to give the impression that I am trying to control/own things. I am well aware of the consequences of what I do and while I think that on balance they are beneficial, it should come as no surprise that a lot of people think otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sitush, I am thankful to you for being there to save a lot of our articles from those who do not completely understand wiki policies. Also, I'll be willing to work on the INCOTM as there are plenty of articles which could be in lot better shapes. The Sino Indian war, for one, is pretty horrible from NPOV considerations. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Kuldevatas of Goud Saraswat Brahmins
You should probably just nominate for deletion or keep up the unreferenced tag, I'm pretty sure you aren't suppose to blank it. --AshFR (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just trying something out and I told an admin - - what I had done. It probably wouldn't work but it isn't exactly a core article & my intent was to self-revert in due course. No need to lecture me. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Playing the game!
I would like you to have a look look into the activities of this student user, who, in the past, has been blocked, created new accounts to overcome that, run multiple accounts, ostensibly retired very recently to bypass any other action that might have been taken against him, and reemerged today in his latest incarnation as The Rahul Jain, with the definite article, and a user page that is his article about himself. I have only had dealings with him at AfDs, as he has a habit of going there, instead of discussing the matter at the talk page of an article, if he disagrees about something in it. For the most part, his AfD nominations have failed and he has usually been the sole detractor. But I do think this user is playing the game, even allowing for good faith. I note another user has already mentioned this here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rahuljain2307.2C_again. The Rahul Jain has deleted such comments on his talk page.Thanks.--Zananiri (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the newest account per WP:SOCK. He can keep one account, but this bouncing from account to account is just ridiculous and disruptive. It doesn't really matter which one, so long as it's only one, and not a new one every few months. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's saved me some trawling through old debates etc. Ta! - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll see how it goes.--Zananiri (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems he will be allowed to use some account and my headache will continue. neo (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If they stick to one account and the disruption continues, then they'll get blocked for increasing lengths of time. On the other hand, if they sock then they'll get blocked for that. Basically, they have been given a last chance to change their ways. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ...
.... for butting in on my talk page. I thought I was reasonably clear but apparently that wasn't the case! Equally apparently, my American sense of humor didn't go down too well :) --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. Well, no probs to me, although it seems not to have been appreciated by A N Other. I'm getting a bit tired of the arguments of late - ANI, AfDs, BLPN, RSN, Yogesh et al at numerous articles, grindingly slow stuff at Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia - and now Talk:Jat is kicking off again. It's not even school holidays yet but the silly season seems to have set in. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was nice to see Khandke and oranges show up to support restrictions on moi. Good to know I can always rely on those two :) Oranges, in particular, seems to have lost it completely with the arb election stuff. Still, I suppose it was silly to unblock DS - I'm a bit fed up with the culture of blocking that seems to have taken over the pedia but that's no excuse. Meanwhile school holidays are in full force here and I'm busy juggling kids and issuing ice cream bribes for good behavior! --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oranges, in particular, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I predict a short shelf-life, likes Mango. (Try juggling ice cream and issuing kids as a bribe. Erm, maybe not the latter!) - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait--American sense of humor? I read somewhere yesterday, RegentsPark, that you have a clear Pakistani POV! What gives? Also, Sitush, nice dog, but mine is bigger. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I have mentioned you at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good block. I've suggested on a few occasions that he tries to avoid putting his foot in his mouth at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you, as a traditional colonialist, should use the subjunctive there. Hey, I'm teaching Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave--do they read that on your side of the pond? I might show some images from Congo Free State, though it breaks my heart even looking at them. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines/Pogroms
Did you find anything in your source re the cow protection movement? And do you have any other suggestions for improvement? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll retrieve it from beside by bed later, when I'm in a fit state to climb back up the stairs! As for other suggestions, well, I sort of put aside my thinking due to the DRV. This is a very touchy subject and will need some care. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the DRV to try and dial down the tensions, epic fail as the kids say nowadays. But given the way blocks and topic bans are being handed out now makes me figure I had best copy it to mainspace soon or I may never get the chance to Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha - Originally Kayastha or Shudra debate
Hello Sitush... There were n number of debates regarding the origin of Kulin Kayasthas on the related talk pages, and whether five Shudras or Kayasthas (later granted Kulina status) actually accompanied the Brahmins invited by King Adisur. Now, like reliable sources which are considered as reference(s) for this article, mention them as 'Shudra servants', similarly there are other reliable sources which mention them originally as Kayasthas. For example 'Tales of Bengal' by S.B.Banerjea (page 28, available on Google Books) mentions that Adisur invited five Kayasthas with five Brahmins. Similarly 'Bengal and Assam' (available on Google Books), actually a report on the Reconstitution of Provinces by Govt. of India, also mentions on Page 104 that five Brahmins and five Kayasthas from 'Kanouj' were invited and were settled in Bengal and formed the Kulin Brahmins and Kayasthas respectively. Similarly, we can find other sources as well. Based on the existing sources mentioned, and based on these new ones, and considering the huge debate through ages, will it not be fair to mention in the article on Kulin Kayastha, that there are both the opinions among historians. I believe this will make the article all the more neutral and make it all the more complete. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Best to post this on the article talk page and see what responses you get. I'll certainly look into it but you are unlikely to get a detailed response from me today. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply. Anyway, I am going to post this on the relevant talk page as well. You may later on let me know your opinion as well. Ekdalian (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Request you to go through the sources, and let me know your opinion, so that I may proceed. Ekdalian (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot. Sorry. I'll go through the stuff later today. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For 'Tales of Bengal' by S.B.Banerjea, the url is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RsXK6DUO4i8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=tales+of+bengal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HyzJUfuNDYmzrAfztoDoBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ (see Pg 28, and relevant pages), and for 'Reconstitution of Provinces of Bengal and Assam' by Govt. of India, the url is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PuhWAAAAMAAJ and you may search for 'five Kayasthas' (see Pg 104), full view may not be available. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to: Revert at Kayastha
Sitush, I certainly did not intend copyright infringement - if the source is appropriately credited, I didn't think there would be an issue. But I defer to you on this matter.

Also, regarding the substance of edit itself, regardless of what was decided among a separate group, my edits were meant to improve the language - I'm sure you'll agree that the following discussion of Kayasthas' varna status is awkward, incongruous and repetitive:

"Other sources...describe [Kayasthas] as 'a mixed caste', variously thought to be composed of people from the Brahmin, Vaishya and Kshatriya varnas or 'Brahman-Sudra (lower caste)', and sometimes Kshatriyas."

I would respectfully suggest editing the sentence to read more clearly and concisely per the below:

"Other sources...describe [Kayasthas] as 'a mixed caste', variously thought to be composed of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, as well as Brahmin-Shudras."

I appreciate your vigilance in monitoring this apparently controversial page, but I hope you'd accept my edits as not being part of the unsourced, agenda-laden additions that we've commonly seen.

Best, Melotown


 * The entire thing seems to be being revisited now at Talk:Kulin Kayastha. Might be worth you getting involved in that discussion. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal Self-Realization Order & Self-Realization Fellowship
See the talk page regarding this Have we wanted long enough? Would like to merge the two. thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those articles drove me potty. Isn't still involved with them? Without consensus (or even input), any merge would be a bold effort. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

R.S. for Religion
Hi. How to find out a reliable source for religion of a person like, Rama Jois? Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For any living person we need an explicit statement from the subject themselves published in a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Dougweller says. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Samra
Sitush, you have deleted the entire content on the Samra page under the presumption that "no evidence that Sumra=Samra... I find your conjecture funny, you seemingly sounding Indian by name. You should know that both are pronounced in Hindi absolutely similar. It was the Britishers problem that they mispronounced most of Indian names... Jaipur was called as Jeypore, Brahmputra was called as Berampooter, and so on. Sumra, or Sumrah or Samra are all different pronounciations of the same surname. Can you please revert the misguided deletions you have done! Kulveer (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you really happy with the vandalisation and bullying you have been doing in the name of editing, without even a debate on why you are deleting that information repeatedly.Kulveer (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the transliteration issues can be challenging. The only way to resolve them is to find reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

... and another "Rajput" saltmaking caste: Lonia
Again, caught another article which had clear cites to People of India stating the caste was Rajput. The actual book (with the group spelled "Lunia") says nothing like that whatsoever, so I dug up a few other cites showing this caste was in a similar status with the Mahar and Chamar, but had sought to re-define itself as Kshatriya.

Again, I'm sympathetic to the fact that Sanskritisation had real life-or-death advantages in the 1850-1950 period, but this constant whitewashing of history rather than admitting the endemic oppression and discrimination really gets my goat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * has it right regarding The People of India: the "national" series is ok but the "states" series is a waste of paper. Former was published by Oxford University Press while Kumar Suresh Singh was alive but the states volumes came later, were published by various houses and although KSS's name is on them, he didn't do much. They basically reiterate the crappy Raj sources, often with only vague attribution and even more often with no attribution at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that might be worth noting somewhere on some kind of "Caste article resource page" or whatnot? Not to make more work for us, but there are some rather perennial "why can't I use Gyan/Tod/Thurston????" questions, as well as some go-to works like Jaffrelot and the like that could be worth compiling in one place. I still find the old Britisher books to be of some use as historiography rather than history, but have been increasingly taking care to explicitly mark them as such whenever used. Note in Mahar, similarly, I had to caveat that another editor's addition, Jyotirao Phule (he of the "Mahars are the true Kshatriya") was a social reformer from a century ago, not a professional scholar writing today. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think PoI has been mentioned at WP:RSN. I can add something to my stock list at User:Sitush/Common. I've given up on the likes of Thurston, Russell, Tod etc. They are generally useless and I see no need to perpetuate historical curiosities based on silly theories that in some cases were outdated even before the books hit the shelves and in at least one case was acknowledged to be so by the author (Ibbetson). I still have the germ of an idea to write an article about this school of thought in the Raj: an umbrella article that links the various biographies to the theories of scientific racism, martial races, criminal tribes etc and the massive impact it all had on the censuses, the perceptions of the caste system and so on. It is do-able but there are least another couple of hundred sources I'd need to read before attempting it! - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi situ
Could you consider this Reminder?!My sand box article waiting for your review Sandbox article;:).Thank you Eshwar .om Talk tome 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm off to bed shortly but will take a look at it tomorrow. Thanks for reminding me. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kashi Math Edits
Hi, Kindly let me know the Removal of Two Important Personality details who are related with Kashi Math directly. Inside Guru - Shishya System, The Madathipathi, Patta-shishya, H.H.Sudhindra Thirtha & H.H.Samyamindra Thirtha was Source able which were directly related and much required for the article. But you removed

Spedian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They looked likely to be yet more copyright violation, they were undue weight in the article - a sentence or two would have done - and they were prima facie non-notable people. Go write articles about them if you feel differently. And please be aware of WP:HONORIFIC, which has been another big problem with your edits. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A notable person to one Country might not be notable for another country. Both Swamijis are notable persons in India. Both are Swamijis of Kashimath. So Giving honors for them is required. And I have never violated Copy Right anywhere in Guru-Shishya Topic Spedian (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, but you have violated copyright recently; and WP:HONORIFIC does apply - have you actually read that link? - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read it well. I have added "His Holiness" only from the English Verifiable Sources. Spedian (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you have not understood it. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

But Even When I'm adding that Two Topics with Valid Reliable Sources, you are simply removing. Why? Spedian (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've already explained. I think the problem here is that you are not understanding or are unwilling to accept. For example, our guideline for honorifics specifically says that we should not usually use "His Holiness" and yet you claim to have read it closely and still want to use it. Have you read WP:DUE? Do you understand that? - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Honorifics such as "His Holiness" should ordinarily not be used in naming clergy except when discussing forms of address" - from the guideline, linked at WP:HONORIFIC. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, Now I have added the same Topic without H.H or His Holiness. Kindly please Dont Remove it anymore Spedian (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed it, per WP:DUE, and removed yet more honorifics. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that Shri/Shree, Swami, Ji and Swamiji are also usually honorifics. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Cholas
Hi Sitush, could you take a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relationship of the Cholas with the Chinese, and check if there are no revisionsim/neutrality items going on there? As long as there are no gross misrepresentations there I'm OK with inclusion, but we both know that's not always the case, and not always easy to spot for the casual reviewer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a great deal of good faith to spare because of the history of poor writing in the subject sphere, of socking, tendentiousness, pseudo-academic essays etc. I cannot see the sources but that draft looks suspect. It is common for people to create a mix of synth/OR for these ancient Indian dynasties and while it is true that there is thought to have been trade between South India and China from a very long time ago, the Chola dynasty is not synonymous with the Chola people, finding coins does not really mean very much at all and there have been much more recent publications on the subject of early trade with India. The creator is going to have to provide copies of those sources if the article is to meet my criteria because the likelihood of misrepresentation is high. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to reach out to Wikiproject India. Thanks for the one-over. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Books such as this may be of more use than the sources that are present at the mo. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Untangling Vishwakarma (caste)
It looks like an admin bounced in and moved Vishwabrahmin to Vishwakarma (caste). I'm fine with the title overall, but also concerned about whatever data we're losing in moves. Also a lot of these drive-by IPs have a tendency to copy-paste old versions, but using the reading and not editing view so we get the "[3]" and "[citation needed]" artifacts. I'm particularly interested in getting the talk pages of the two articles merged, as there was a lot of discussion on the old Vishwakarma (caste) that's now obscured. EDIT: The admin archived it, all good. Any ideas how to deal with this? I didn't catch your comment until after I did some cleanup following the move, but do you need me to refrain until an admin can do some untangling? We may need to lock a number of alternate spellings to make sure people don't sneak in and bounce the article to a different title in the future.

The article is still a hot mess overall, but when I squint I think I can generally see some patterns which could be relatively easily/simply laid out for readers. It's not an unduly complicated caste-cluster, and it has a slew of alternate names but not so hard to address. Part of the problem is we have a few longstanding participants who "don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia", mysterious IPs, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as title hijacking etc goes, it will just have to be played by ear. As with the Exhava/Thiyya mess, invalid redirects/POV forks etc can be reverted and indefinitely protected as and when found, and the main article can be move-protected if that becomes necessary. As far as the content is concerned, it probably needs to be stubbed and restarted - anything that the IPs etc did is then redundant and, hey, if something useful is missed as a consequence of all the shenanigans then I'm sure it will turn up again at some stage. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Glancing around, the admin seems to have done a proper move/merge with Histories preserved and all, best as I can follow. So that part is good, and we're at a more NPOV title. One of my main concerns is the article is rather large but says very, very little. A huge chunk of the Distribution section is just re-re-iterating the various names of the gotras (which don't even appear to change that much across the South). We can probably trim that down to some "Gotras" section that briefly mentions the variety of terms used, make "Distribution" just a general description of the caste's turf, and take any actual real details and put them into a new "History" and/or "Social role" section. Fundamentally, we're looking at a Southern artisan caste which sees itself as united (unlike apparently some similar groupings of Lohana/Loha/etc elsewhere that don't claim common descent), and has a history of self-declaring as Brahmin and having at least some success claiming high status for having crucial work skills. The problem is, other contributors want to make the article mainly about "descent from a deity, so here's some Vedas" or "Vishwakarmas build things, things are built in India, therefore everything ever built in India was done by the Vishwakarmas." On past version had a huge list of the marvelous works constructed by this caste, and essentially none of the articles for the works in question mentioned the caste at all. So an aggressive trim and re-format seems doable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done that thing that I do; how does it look for a starting point? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Better! - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Watchlist did not notice
I am very busy these days (though I am coming online everyday), I am not following all discussions. To reply your question at WT:INB, so far we used to discuss on the main nomination page and delete the discussion after work's end. This month right after you initiated INCOTM, I took the nomination page to a separate page WikiProject India/Collaborations of the month/Nominations/2013 July, so that the nomination discussion can be preserved. The next discussion can be done at /2013 August. After creating such few pages, we can link those in main page as "See previous nominations". -- Tito ☸ Dutta 21:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Hi ! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
 * We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
 * Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
 * WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
 * Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Different
This article (P. Sathasivam) created on 29 June seems to be an almost verbatim copy of the press report, cited as the 3rd ref in the article. Please see: http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=802270 The person who has nominated it for merger, by mistake at AfD, after creating his own article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_.Sathasivam), seems to be worried about other things which he mentions on the AfD page - DYK etc. The 'early life' bit in his own article is also the same as that in the source I have quoted, which is copied in the original article. And, it appears, he has tagged his own article wrongly, too, as the suggestion, going by the revision history of his article was that his article should be redirected to the first one which is at AfD now. I hope all this makes sense. Pleaee have a look. Merci.--Zananiri (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC


 * I have just logged on again and note that the article I mentioned above which was up for AfD resulted in a 'speedy keep' after I sent you the message. However, very shortly after that it was tagged with a 'speedy delete' proposal. As the later article (created today) is actually wrong (the guy becomes Chief Justice on 19 July), surely it is the one which should be merged with the older one. Having said that, the AfD closing admin would not have known that that practically the whole article is copied from the publication I mentioned above, and the second article also carries the same stuff but has been expanded. Would it be all right if I remove the 'speedy delete' tag, or you may wish to do this, given what I have said. Something does not seem to add up. Many thanks--Zananiri (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused with this mess but if an article was determined "keep" at AfD then it cannot possible be speedy deleted. Speedy is only for uncontroversial stuff and in any event a recent AfD trumps it. So, if that is the situation then please do remove the tag and save some poor admin the hassle of even looking at this. Which article is the preferred version? I'll try to sort out the rest of the problems. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The user (Solomon) who added the speedy tag shortly after I sent you my first message, has added the bit I mentioned to you about the article having been copied from 'Outlook India' (revision history). The second article, created by  uncletomwood today, also has the same but  carries more information about the Chief Justice, though it implies that he has already assumed office. I think, exercising good faith, he should just have expanded the first article with the infomation he has added to the bit he himself seems to have extracted from 'Outlook India'. The 'speedy delete' tag seems to have confused the issue even more.--Zananiri (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually following some conversations on this talk page. Hence got this thread and added the speedy tag. Any confusion? The Legend   of Zorro  21:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P. Sathasivam is the more correct article title, so let's try to work on that one. I notice that P .Sathasivam now redirects there and presume that someone has deleted the speedy tag (haven't checked the history for either). I'll check for copyright violations etc in a few hours time but feel free to rephrase or remove any obvious violations in the interim. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is fixed by plain redirecting. So chapter closed. The Legend   of Zorro  23:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if there are copyright violations or close paraphrasing, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Somnath Bharti
Please do not edit war at Somnath Bharti.You don't own Wikipedia articles,I request you to don't delete contend add by me w/o discussion. TY  of  Walk 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TY  of  Walk 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop being silly, TY, please. I know the rules and I'm not the one who is breaking them. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sitush, You undid not only the image but also,other BLP info added in SomnathBharti article . Sorry but that's breaking the WP rules and as far as i know adding date of birth in BLP article, doesn't count POV or Copyvio's POV or agenda to promote. TY  of  Walk 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu
The List of 'Common Surnames' and 'Notable People' is very comprehensive in the previous version of Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu article. Please try to cite sources rather than removing the uncited content -- by a senior member from the community.
 * Aside from it being a somewhat lengthy and trivial list, the burden is on the person who adds the information. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi situ
Your wish dude.you can give your comments in my talkpage or else  the article talk page.which is feel best for you .you can.Thank you Eshwar  .om Talk tome 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Eshwar, I'm not going to be around much until maybe Sunday evening. I'll get back to you soon after that. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sit
What was that draft template you put on the anti muslim violence draft? I am being badgered over this one. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Userspace draft ? - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That be the one, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Accidental TWABUSE?
Sitush, you've reverted an edit done after a BRD process with the tags ESSAY, which seems to have no relevance, and TW. Is this accidental TWABUSE? I can't fix it if you've got a bot on the prowl. If you really have a reason to revert you need to state it - see TW.
 * I gave a reason, the matter has been under discussion for a while and no consensus had been reached. I assumed from your edit summary that you were trying to be bold in resolving the lack of consensus and I reverted you for various reasons which I immediately explained on the talk page. There is no abuse of Twinkle and I could have used "undo" except Twinkle provides the automatic "Good faith" prefix, which saves me a few keystrokes. My suggestion to you would be that you stop being bold regarding this particular issue. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just checked WP:ESSAY and, yes, that was a wrong call. Nonetheless, your addition was essay-like (non-neutral, effectively original research using vague phrasing etc) and this was explained. I got the WP:ESSAY confused with Essay-like - a rare but evident policy cock-up on my part, sorry, but it has no great bearing on the outcome, which was that you had boldly edited, been reverted and then boldly edited again. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From the reasons you've now added to the talk page it seems clear you've accidentally confused two different topic threads (over different edits by different editors). Kiwikiped (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on the talk. Whether confused or not, I'm still correct. It would, of course, help if I were not confused because that merely confuses others! - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly I think you are confused over being correct. Hope you're felling better soon. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Edits to Jayalalithaa Article
Hi Sitush,

I think you have misunderstood my edit to Jayalalithaa Article. I did not add or remove any content to that article. I replaced the old defunct template succession box with the newer one s-bef. I don't know why you reverted it. You have mentioned: but she is incumbent & may, for eg, die before 2016, which is irrelevant. If you look at the rendered page, it still says incumbent. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if she dies before 2013, that too can be represented in the new template. Hope I am clear, if not please let me know the issues you have with the new template. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem with using the new template but it really should say "incumbent", not 2016. 2016 hasn't happened and she may not see it, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It does say incumbent now too, using s-inc template which is designed exactly for this purpose. Also if you checked out the version of the page as it existed before I changed, it says 2011–2016 too. But if 2016 was your problem, I removed it now. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2016 was the problem. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Parsis
Did you check out List of Parsis? I'm pretty sure some aren't.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever even looked at it. Request citations and remove if none are forthcoming, although you should as a minimum also check the linked articles and move across any citation that you might find there. If the person is living then you probably do not even need to request a cite: if one does not exist now then you could likely remove the entry per WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It is a while since I've looked at the article but thanks. I might scoot over and see what has gone awry in the interval - I'm sure that something will have done so! - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your AFD's
Both reverted, and both deleted :) Cheers, D u s t i *poke* 16:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed. That you archive your talk page so quickly is a little concerning, especially given what had to say. But it is your talk page. I'll just maybe keep a closer eye on your NACs, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Carbuncle generally always has something to say regarding anyone's edits. I pay little heed to him/her. The overall conversation had come to a close, and in the interest of not keeping the drama going I archived it. I did speak with Prodego regarding the AfD that had also been brought up and he cleared it. You're more than welcome to watch my closes and provide input if you wish, I'm always open to constructive criticism. D u s t i *poke* 16:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. In that case, I must be one of those few about whom they have not commented, although I've seen their name around. I still don't think rapid archiving is usually a good thing - it can make it look as if the archiver has something to hide - but it is your choice. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I set the archive up for 1 day archiving because with my vandal patrol and such (in the past) there's been a long history where my talk page could get quite long, and I don't like that :) The archive box is there and people are more than welcome to search through it to check, which is why I put it there. If it continues at this pace, a week long or so should be good enough. D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Kamboj
Kamboj are considered :Category:Social groups of Pakistan and not :Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan. They are considered part of Punjabi people ethnic group. Delljvc (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These are clans and tribe of an ethnic groups are not ethnic groups themselves. The Sindhi tribes and clans are not themselves "ethnic groups". Don't revert my changes.Delljvc (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kachwaha
You were thought of: User talk:Anna Frodesiak

Opting out of this one would be completely understandable. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed the tone of the para
Why didnt you reply? I changed the tone of the para you edited yesterday and fixed the dead link. See if its ok.Mayan302 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Real Life intervened, sorry. I will get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here.. However, I am goin through Templeman and some other books.Will expand the article a little whenever I find time.Cya. TC.. Mayan302 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Digvijaya Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus ça change
Going by the articles created by this person about members of the same clan, with the same peacock expressions, and the timing of the keep !Votes today in quick succession at this AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vasant_Krishna_Sharma) from new IPOs, with no previous contributions, one wonders...!--Zananiri (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted that Afd, and added some tags. I'm starting to look into the other articles now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Divakar Sharma looks definitely notable to me, though could probably use some neutrality tuning; I've tagged Shanta Rani Sharma as possibly non-notable, though her book was reviewed in a relevant journal, and thus she may meet WP:ACADEMIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar page - good faith
Hi Sitush, I saw you have reverted my source info in vanniyar page by describe as "Reverted good faith edits by Prabhubreaker (talk): Not a reliable source (Gyan imprint) but in any case why are you removing alternate names?" Let me know what is "gyan imprint". Do you think it is not a source info? Book have ISBN and reliable source. Try to add more info. i saw your page you have more star but why you can't improve the page in better way. Regards, prabhubreaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Sitush/Common should explain it. However, you were also removing known alternate names for the community (Palli, in particular). - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sitush (talk), Just know about Jacob Pandian http://anthro.fullerton.edu/faculty/pandianPage.htm. He is not a stablemate. Please do verify before you use and dont blindy say he is a stablemate. I have added the Vanniya kula Kshatriyar and palli in vanniyar page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can never even be sure that the named author wrote the book. That's how bad Gyan are. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush (talk), Book have ISBN no: 978-0861321360 and then what is the problem with the book. Please know what is ISBN. It is not Gyan if it have ISBN. Hope you are sensible. And don't revert again by commenting "Good Faith" or "Gyan" when there is a sourced info with book ISBN no and dont waste both of us time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Plenty of Gyan Books have ISBNs,including arguably one of the most notorious ever found on Wikipedia - see ISBN 9788178357751.- Sitush (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading
Ramonadhar (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Dear Sitush, I can see that you too seem to have great interest in this particular article. I just want to understand if your hunting (for some specific source, I guess) is over. But, then, my point is, in any case, we cannot ignore these varied versions, even if you find something specific. As per our convention, we need to show all possible versions, especially when it comes to factual data. Therefore, I would like to request you to go through my composition as well (apart from your own research), and suggest on any point I may have missed rather than just editing your version and closing at that. Needless to mention, I am seriously looking forward to improve the content as well as reliability of this article. Thanks.

Ramonadhar (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Dear Sitush, thanks for your message. I can see that you are resorting to "blocking" as such. Anyway, I have checked the links as mentioned in your talk page and these are credible political leaders of national importance and I do not see the need to compare their write-ups with anyone for that matter. The content in their wikipage talks more about matters of national relevance rather than about them and the write-ups are generic as well. The topic I am trying to edit is with reference to "the 2011 Hisar by-election" and hence whatever factual and relevant information is available with respect to the "2011 Hisar by-election" is what I intent to update at least. However, I would again request that you point out what I missed rather than just editing your version and closing at that and I am open to any assistance as well. And just to clarify, my only intention is to improve the article with relevant factual data. Thanks.


 * Raminadhar, I appreciate your enthusiasm but we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. The key point is that he won the election, not that he got X number of votes while someone else got Y number and another person got Z number, etc. This is not about showing "all possible versions", since there is only one version here - the policy you are trying to quote is WP:NPOV, which concerns neutrality and not inclusiveness for the sake of inclusiveness. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

== Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Manubhai Shah Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ==

Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I have just noticed your curtailing of the article on Manubhai Shah and then as I was searching to determine how to write to you I saw that there was also a note for me saying that the whole article might be removed from Wikipedia. If you want to remove the article, that is up to you but it will be a great loss to society as Mr Shah was a very important contributor to the social and economic development of India among other things. I want to write on this further but am on a tight schedule and will be able to get back only after the middle of August. But I will briefly say that I think you have misunderstood a source of information here. You say that, "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." This is what was done in this case. The information you seem to have a problem with was quoted from a highly reputed Gujarati newspaper from the region of Saurashtra in India. Regional newspapers in different languages are often of very good quality and are highly respected for their professionalism and standards and that is not surprising in a large country like India with people speaking and writing in many different languages and there being thousands of eminent writers and journalists also writing in different languages. You might be aware of the existence of high quality regional literature in India. Since university days (which was a long time ago), I have tried to learn about leaders and movers who have changed the face of the world we live in, some of them are much written about and some go unsung but were no less important. When possible we need to inspire especially the youth of our world with facts about how people even from simple backgrounds can make a difference. And regional newspapers too can provide us with important facts and can become instruments of change. In fact Wikipedia itself is a wonderful example of a highly effective instrument of change. In my various journeys I came across this very important issue of the newspaper Phulchhab on the legendary figure Manubhai Shah and felt the need to bring some of the information to the notice of the wider world. Newspaper archives are a great source of knowledge and often this knowledge stays unrevealed. I felt it a privilege to bring some of the information to light. Manubhai Shah is a legendary figure who we used to listen to with rapt attention decades ago as he unfolded the plans and policies for the reconstruction and development of India. His life was the stuff of legends and it will be a shame if you were to misunderstand the source of information in this case as being inauthentic. Hope to return again in August. Take care. Pramathesh a (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC today
Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613

The circumcision one in the top ten is the one that surprised me!--Zananiri (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing here surprises me! The Monty Hall problem and an article about a dressing-gown or something similar are notorious examples. Some estimates say > 1 million words have been spent trying to sort out the first of those. And then, of course, there was the 2009 banning of Scientologists due to disruption. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Clarification
I do know you are an Unbiased person, But why such a biasness when it comes to AAP. When you know BJP wikipage is also violating the same rule. - If you are an Unbiased please bring the faith back. - Tall.kanna (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I've no idea what you are referring to regarding the BJP. I can't recall the last time I looked at that article. I'm certainly not biassed for or against the AAP, the BJP, the INC or any other political party in India - I'm not even in that country, I'm not even Indian and I cannot vote there. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, Then. Just Look at this page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP> and with an unbiased motive, please correct what you had done in AAP page as per your wise judgement.- Tall.kanna (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have other things on the go and am not playing hunt the thimble, trying to work out what you expect me to do about an unspecified something or another. If something is wrong there then feel free to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rebuilding back the confidence.- Tall.kanna (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I only realised what you were referring to when I saw Talk:Aam Aadmi Party. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Delhi Elections
I agreed on almost all points you have made.But I again have a doubt, If Spoiler Effect is a speculation. Then another party being Main contender is also speculation? - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a well known fact, supported by reliable sources that AAP will act like a Spoiler Effect Party in Delhi Elections. Weather it will win or not is a Speculation. -Tall.kanna (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this. The BJP is one of the two main parties in India; the AAP is an upstart new party. The sources - even the ones I deleted - were concentrating on the BJP, relegating the AAP to little more than passing mentions. Those sources were purely speculative and in one case were quoting an "unnamed source", and your contribution did not even get that right because if you wanted it to be balanced then you would have to note that although the AAP is seen as a possible irritant to the BJP it is also thought that the AAP won't actually achieve anything. For example, the source's unnamed source says “Unlike other leaders who think Kejriwal is a fleeting phenomenon, Modi believes he has the potential to damage us even if he doesn’t help himself too much in the process,” a source said An unsourced or poorly sourced "well known fact" has no place on Wikipedia. Seriously, you seem to have a big investment in the presentation of the AAP on Wikipedia and it is quite worrying - you are not coming across as neutral and you are coming across as someone who is attempting to publicise the party. It probably wouldn't be a bad thing to leave the subject matter alone for a while. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But If we speak of neutrality, then there is a common consensus among all noted media houses that AAP is a Spoiler effect Party. [|This Reference] and [| This] along with privious clearly states that AAP, although not a main contender, but will still play a key role in these elections. Please suggest me how to include all Parties and prominent persons into this article in a neutral manner??? - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the Indian election systems work but I would imagine that there is a cut-off date for candidate nominations so that ballot papers can be prepared. I vaguely recall that all candidates have to file affidavits and that those can be challenged. At the cut-off date, or soon after, the official in charge will probably publish a full list of candidates. Once that list is published we can list all the various parties that are fielding candidates, without commentary. I doubt very much that it would be worth listing all the candidates themselves because most of them will likely be non-notable people (see WP:POLITICIAN). Analysis of who had what effect on the election etc can happen after the event, with the benefit of hindsight and a lower degree of fervency. Almost a WP:NOTNEWS approach. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. The list of candidates should not be shown until they file their nomination officially. So does that mean that this article should not exist or only contain brief of which parties might contest depending on privious election results and noted reliable source??- Please guide me in this matter. - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have created it quite so early but it is valid. At this stage, the article could include basic info such as the date(s) of the election, the number of constituencies, a comment on the current governing party, a comment if the elections are happening out of sequence (I don't think they are - this is the normal cyclical election, not one called to make a point) etc. Links to an article that covers the Indian electoral process and to an article that either covers the last election or lists the multiple previous elections would also be good. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the direction provided by you. It would require a detailed research which I would do very soon. And Shall always try to be within Wikipedia Policies. - Tall.kanna (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha - Awaiting your comments
Dear Sitush...I 'll obviously wait for you till you confirm that your hunting (for some specific source, I guess) is over. But, then, my point is, in any case, we cannot ignore these varied versions, even if you find something specific. As per our convention, we need to show all possible versions, especially when it comes to such contentious issues. Therefore, I would like to request you to go through my composition as well (apart from your own research), and suggest me on any point I may have missed. Needless to mention, I am seriously looking forward to improve the content as well as reliability of this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a week now, though I understand, you must be looking for something specific. Would request you to comment on my version, especially if you have any reservations regarding any statement (although the entire stuff is sourced). And finally, I would obviously request you to go with this version (along with your suggestions, if any), which covers all varied and reliably sourced opinions regarding the origin of Kulin Kayasthas. Articles are meant to be improved, if you can dig into some source even later on, that can always be taken care of. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit out of sorts, sorry. I m trying to track down the sources because they clearly appear to indicate that your version gave undue weight to the non-Shudra point of view. Undue because it seems clearly to be at best a minority view and at worst a completely misguided, ambiguous interpretation of what those sources say, as explained on the talk page. I'm trying to use proxies into alternate views of GBooks so that we can resolve the snippet view issues. There is, of course, also the issue of focus because the article concerns Kulin Kayasthas and not any other variant. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always asked for opinions from all active contributors on the article, and especially you, regarding my version. I must take care of the valid concerns expressed by others. We can easily change the language a bit and mention that these are the majority opinions, and at the same time, express the other view, in this case, the Kshatriya origin, as a minority opinion. That way, we can eliminate the undue weight factor. But I don't agree with your 'ambiguous interpretation' phrase. You know better than me, even if we were experts on a particular subject/topic, we have no scope of original research, and have to rely only on reliable sources. Similarly, in this case. we hardly have much scope to interpret, and more so, since this involves a sensitive and contentious issue like the origin of a sub-caste. I must tell you that, and you may be aware that even historians all through had conflicting opinions regarding this legend or myth or quasi-historical story. Therefore like all other artcles on caste (for example, Kayastha), it would be logical and probably acceptable to all, if statements or the relevant part from reliable sources are simply quoted, without further interpretation (which is probably beyond our scope). As mentioned, your valid concerns regarding relative weightage must be taken into consideration, but at the same time, all such conflicting versions must be incorporated. Only one version is obviously misguiding, and makes the article not only incomplete, but also unreliable. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Omitting something does not make an article unreliable; it may possibly make it unbalanced, but that would be worst-case. There is a massive ambiguity in the few sources that you have found but I am still struggling to find an analogy by which to show it to you. Using a present-day name when referencing a historical event is not uncommon and you cannot assume from such usage that the name was current way back when the event happened. In fact, in the case of Kayasthas, it makes no sense. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your last point. But in this cae, it could be the other way round as well. Since we have done sort of background research on this topic, we all know, that all castes in Bengal other than Brahmins off course, were degraded and clubbed together under Shudras,though upper castes like Kayasthas & Baidyas, were considered as purer and superior among the so-called classes of Shudras. So, there is every probabilty that historians may call the original Kayasthas as Shudras, since as mentioned, all castes were classified as Brahmins & Shudra in contemporary Bengal. So this part will always remain ambiguous, and probably that has always been confusing for the historians as well. Therefore, since it is beyond our scope to sort out that issue,the only option to come up with a balanced view, would be to quote the varied opinions, and as pointed out by you, probably mentioning the majority & minority opinions categorically. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if sources explicitly say, for example, "the Kayasthas were originally Shudra servants who came from Ceylon with their Brahmin masters". Such a construct is not ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Though such a statement may not be ambiguous, and may be highlighted in the article, we still cannot ignore other sources holding a different opinion. The former cannot be considered as sacrosanct. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can if the other source is ambiguous. That is my entire point: we'd need something that verifies the Kayasthas existed as Kayasthas rather than as Shudras in Ceylon (as it was). - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough, if we can find such a specific source. But the probability is low, since the story is more of a myth. My simple point is, in the absence of such a specific source, especially considering the quasi-historical status of the story, major conflicting versions (considering relative weightage) must be stated. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But we cannot give any weight to an ambiguous source because, by definition, we do not know for sure what it means to say. We can emphasise (as I think is already done) that the shudra thing is tradition/myth/legend/whatever but we cannot set ambiguous sources against it. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the Shudra origin can be emphasised, but here this is the only opinion mentioned, which is misguiding, to say the least. And your last statement that "the shudra thing is tradition/myth/legend", is also incorrect, since the fact that this legend has varied versions is known to all conversant with Bengali castes & origins, especially historians. And that is reflected in one of the various sources I have cited, (one by Swarupa Gupta), which mentions that this quasi-historical scciological narrative was deployed to explain the realities of caste & sub-caste origins. And it also talks about the "five legendary Kayasthas brought from Kanauj by Adisur", who came as "Kayastha attendants".
 * And, by your standards, the existing source is also ambiguous. Since it does not spell out categorically that the Kulin Kayasthas were originally Shudras in Kannauj. And that is the reason you are hunting for specific sources mentioning this. Under the circumstances, my point is, if you fail to find something such specific, the current source, with its limitations, cannot be considered sacrosanct. And simcilar other ambiguous sources (according to you, since none of them categorically mentions your point), must be considered. Especially so, because this is a legend/myth. This is not something technical or scientific to the extent that it could be either x or y. In that case, in the absence of something as specific as you are trying to find out, all these varied opinions must be stated, and yes the majority ones may be highlighted. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Sitush...I believe, you are still struggling to find any specific source, mentioning categorically whether they originally existed as Shudras or Kayasthas in Kanauj. Honestly speaking, my personal opinion is, we are being over-strict or over-judgmental and trying to arrive at a conclusion, which even historians failed to, especially because this is not purely a documented historical event, rather as mentioned so many times, this is a quasi-historical legend/myth. You know, even there are various versions regarding who Adisur actually was and even the exact period when Adisur may have invited them. Therefore, it is probably useless fighting over such a mythical story, and probably impossible as well to ascertain the origins. Neither the existing versions categorically spell out what you want (probably too much for a myth), nor the sources I have cited. So, I would request you once again, let us incorporate the other version(s), highlighting the majority view, as already discussed. There is no reason to deny the minority view as minority view. Needless to mention, I sincerely hope, together we can make the article much more balanced and unbiased! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am not struggling at all. I've given you loads of them but have put out feelers for more. You are struggling to understand my point about ambiguity and I cannot think of any better way to describe it. However, you should also be aware that these things sometimes take months to resolve, and certainly a lot longer than a week or fortnight. Until then, the status quo applies because you cannot address the ambiguity issue. I can recall one sourcing debate about a caste situation that went on for six months or so, with pretty much no-one involved editing the article during that time. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just used the term casually. I never meant you are literally struggling. Please understand that this is not just about caste. It is about a legend, which is beyond chronological historical events. I know, any issue here can be stretched. But why? Suppose you find a specific source, does it prove without doubt that there are no other versions of this legend. See, honestly speaking, I have great respect for you for your logical & rational approach, that's why I took the trouble of explaining this through such lengthy dicussions. I don't think one can have any objection, if minority versions of a myth are presented like that, mentioning categorically that these are minority opinions. Therefore, primarily, this is not just another caste issue. Requst you not to take this personally. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that the ambiguity issue you have raised is totally irrelevant here. Honestly speaking, I have understood your point very clearly, and repeatedly mentioned in our discussions. The ambiguity issue could have been relevant, had the current source, or similar other source(s) mentioned clearly your point i.e. the Kulin Kayasthas existed as Shudras in Kanauj, when they accompanied the Brahmins invited by Adisur and came to Bengal. Since no one has come across any such source, all the sources must be treated at par, since they either state that the Brahmins were accompanied by "five Shudra servants" (existing version), or else "five Kayastha attendants" and very few as "five Kshatriya consorts". Your only valid point is majority opinion, which needless to mention, must be highlighted. Now, if you still don't understand this point, or accept the fact, then I have hardly anything to say. Defending existing version of an article just for the sake of defending will lead us nowhere. Moreover, this is, as already mentioned, not even a chronological historical event, rather simply a legend/myth/whatever! Therefore, it is too much to ask for exact historical background of this quasi-historical myth. And even, had there been a reliable source, or if I find one, mentioning that they existed as Kayasthas, will it be considered as sacrosanct? The answer is No. Probably that could also be stated in that scenario. But, all the versions, as available still need to be stated. That's all I have to say. Hope you have understood my point. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Sitush...I hope I could explain myself clearly. Awaiting your response!! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always put in that extra effort to avoid an edit war, and arrive at consensus with co-editors. You know, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." You may express your response to my explanation, which I believe, conforms to all Wikipedia's norms, or any concern, if at all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party
If you can improve the page. Improve it but dont be egoistic and Agenda section which you have reverted to is way below standard of wikipedia. If you can improve it as per your wisdom please do it but dont degrade wikipedia just for your personal predujices.-Tall.kanna (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not interested. Article talk page or nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is to inform you that a request for dispute resolution in regard to this matter has been filed at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Aam_Aadmi_Party. Please respond there. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been cooperating with the other user in many instances such as santosh koli section in [] and [talk:Sitush] but without understanding my point or explaining properly, the other user takes everything personal. - Tall.kanna (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to comment at the DRN item you opened, not here. Transporterman was just letting me know that you had opened that request for dispute resolution - this is standard notification procedure. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK-Tall.kanna (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent editing history at Aam Aadmi Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo
Your comments are welcome at this discussion: Talk:Royal College, Colombo. Thanks.-- obi2canibe talk contr 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, not again. I thought that one had been resolved! I'll try to look in later - am a bit busy with something else right now. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Book of Manchester & Salford
Hello, I do have a printed copy of this book and have used it to add information to several local hospital articles. If you let me know which hospitals you are interested in I will see what information it provides for them.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks. Ancoats Hospital is the one - I've done a fair amount of reading and will be expanding it quite significantly. Booth Hall Hospital could really do with its own article at some point. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work on Ancoats Hospital. The "Booth Hall Infirmary for Children", Charlestown Road, Blackley, is described on pp. 139-40: 750 beds; 3rd largest children's hospital in UK; convalescent home of 102 beds; 160 tuberculosis beds at a home in north Wales; 3 pictures.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Drat, 1929 is just outside our copyright permissions, I think, otherwise some historic photos would have been nice. There is an acceptable (copyright grounds - 1914) one of an Ancoats operating theatre on the Manchester Libraries picture archive but they've stuck a (c) Manchester Libraries mark at top left of it even though they have no legal right to it. I might revisit the thing and see if the mark can be cropped - see here. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Edits to Christianity In India Article
Hi Sitush,

I have made the changes in the article by collecting informations from various sources and I hope the changes made were almost correct.I have added six more groups in christianity such as Knanaya christians(Catholic and Jacobite),Bhramavar and Honavar churches and Antichian Syrian church and its split form in Kerala recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.226.88 (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw the primary problem as being a lack of reliable sources. We need sources for verifiability, so you need to cite then ones that you have found. However, there is another issue that makes me think you should perhaps first discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Christianity in India. That issue relates to consensus regarding naming of various Christian groups in India. I'm not overly familiar with these conventions - the sheer number of groups with fairly similar names confuses the heck out of me - but I think probably can assist. Sorry to be a pain about this and I realise that you meant well. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

revert
Why do you want to revert the regional name? Why do want to control the use of Malayalam Language?
 * I explained on your talk page immediately after reverting you. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi thank you for advice to take my concern to External Links Noticeboard. It does not seem in frequent use, but now the user that has also been harassing me because he thinks I have a vendetta to him, Wwwwhatsup, and his friend Stalwart, have shut it down. Is this allowed? . Wwwwhatsup stalked by like at Jeff Berlin and Stalwart admitted to stalking me and being unhelpful and putting a stop in my tries to figure out if these links are valid. I think if he wanted to really be helpful he would not just make things harder so I have to keep trying but would tell me how to do things. Am I doing everything wrong? You seem to deal with these types more often. Thank you, and sorry if I inconvenience you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't remember that advice and I'm just nipping out. I'll take a look at it when I get back, no problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what is going on here because there seems to be quite a long history, across various articles, talk pages, AfDs and so on. However, this series of edits by you was at best somewhat naive: yes, the info in the article body was not sourced but at least some of it was available in external links that carried exactly the same name (Players Music, for example) and it took me all of 20 seconds to find the relevant page on that link. What should have happened, ideally, is that you or someone else incorporated the external link as a citation in the article itself and then removed it from the Links section (except for any citations of his official website - that should stay in the Links section even if used as a source also). Does this make sense? I know that it is a bit more work but that particular example was fairly easy to spot and fairly easy to fix. Are you familiar with citing sources? - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I see you are correct. I did not notice the links section first and then when I removed it I forgot about why it was there, very stupid. Is a user allowed to close my request like here? not sure of rules for this, everyone i asked about these links thinks they are bad but does not want to get involved, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's do two things:
 * Please can you give me some links or diffs to the conversations where people have said the links are bad even though they have not "got involved". I'll see if I can work out why. As far as closing that particular thread goes, don't worry about it. It will be archived if no-one contributes to it for a while
 * In return for me looking into that, would you be prepared to attempt improvements of the Jeff Berlin article? The first step would probably be to put it back how it was just before you edited it, provided that no-one other than Wwwwhatsup has done anything since. Then you could look through those external links and see whether they support any of the unsourced statements. I'll keep an eye on it, and I'll ask Wwwwhatsup and Stalwart to leave you alone provided that you just stick to that article for a little while. I am on Wikipedia a lot, so you can always ask me questions and I'm pretty sure that the Berlin article can be knocked into better shape within a day or so, depending on how much time you have to spare.
 * How does this sound? If you are not sure how to get the article back to its earlier state then I'll do that bit for you. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 People who said links are a problem:  and you here . User has a history of COI editing and eventually admitted to creating the article for his site Punkcast. MarioNovi (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 Yes I will look at the article. But I can only see his discography may be correct but I can't find sources in the links I deleted to confirm anything I removed from the text. His official site brags too much and does not even have background. MarioNovi (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hindu-Islam
Is this an accident, an adjective-noun pair? (used by you at wp:ae) Ignore if you wish so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was intended to be a juxtaposition, ie : Hindu/Islam (or Hindu versus Islam). - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Should it not have been noun-noun; Hinduism/Islam, I.e. it should be Hindu/Christian or Hinduism/Christianity not Hindu/Christianity, i.e. noun-noun or adjective-adjective pair, i.e. Hindu/Muslim, or did you mean a conflict between adherents of Hinduism (Hindus) and the religion Islam? Just curious. Ignore if too much trouble. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I've never really delved into the nuances of Hindu, Islam and Muslim as words. I'll look at a dictionary at some point. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading an old American book that read " Majority of Hindoos in Kashmir are Muslims"! The meaning was that everybody from Hindoostan was a Hindoo, just like everybody from Afghanistan was Afghan! Also check www.thefreedictionary.com/Hindoo I do not know the full context of this thread but hope this was useful. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the word "Hindoo" was used historically to mean "Indian" (pre-partition India). The Raj has a lot to answer for. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Khomeini's family was called "Hindi" in Iran because his ancestors either came from India or had lived in India for a long time so it was not just the British or American who used these terms. In modern usage it, of course, means adherents of the Indigenous Indian religion but the actual origin of the word comes from River Sindhu with the S shifting to H in Arabic / Farsi. I personally prefer the word "Sanatan Dharma" for Hindu but that is a discussion for another day! Jonathansammy (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Your Help
Hi Sitush, I am having WP:Competence issues with an editor on several articles Diet in Sikhism, Damdami Taksal etc. I don't think he gets where he is going wrong. Your help would be most appreciated. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 07:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean then that is someone with whom I, too, have had some difficulties. However, I'm a bit tied up with another investigation at the moment. I think you pinged Qwryxian earlier, so perhaps they can find time to assist. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks very much. I can see a GA coming out of that one - lots of reading done. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Good luck with it! Stalwart 111  08:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Digvijaya Singh
Since my views on the retention of Batla House Encounter in Digvijaya Singh's WP:BLP are different from yours i welcome you to share your views in detail on the talk page of this article why this particular edit should be retained. If we fail to reach consensus, i propose to take this for Dispute Resolution.Soham321 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already have commented. The difference is, you are a known pusher of POV and I am not. If you want to take it to DRN then doubtless you will get your fingers burned again: I am not the only person who has reverted your removal and you are going to have to give it some time (days, not hours) before you escalate the issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you have gone over 3RR there, acting against two people. You've been warned umpteen times about this recently, by a whole heap of people. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist Brahmins
Hi, I thought I would bring this conversation about Buddhists born to Brahmin families here. Thanks for noting the problems found with Rocking It Loud. Checking the logs, I noticed that Rocking created an account at 15:57 on 14 April 2012. In fact, the last of Buddhakahika's socks were blocked earlier on that date ( and ). Since I watch the pages Buddhakahika was fooling with, I always wondered whether Rocking was a sock of Buddhakahika, but apart from editing the same pages, on the surface there doesn't seem to be a case for claiming the user is Buddhakahika. But perhaps digging deeper may create a case. Michitaro (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are a sock of someone but I m not sure who. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the other accounts are now stale for checkusering purposes (CU data are only stored for three months), so there is nothing a CU can do there. However, a case may be made using only behavioural evidence. As a side note, I have just skimmed over this guy's edit history, so I may have missed a lot, but, Sitush, why do you think he's a sock? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought so - thanks for confirming, Salvio. People who obsess about creating India-related religious coatracks, misrepresent sources, synthesise and have a history of point-y article creation usually are socks, fringe theorists or both. There has been a small amount of discussion about this person's contributions at WT:INB, which I linked to in the thread at Talk:Buddhists born to Brahmin families. I'll try to do some digging next week but my gut has been giving me bad signals about this one for a while now, and they seem to be shared by others, eg: . - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if this guy is into religious coatracks, then he can be blocked even if he's not a sock. Just read him the riot act and, if he misbehaves after that, drag him to WP:AE.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buddhakahika was promoting this religious figure named Zen Acharya and his projects like the Zenji Museum, so most of his sockpuppets put mentions of those around Wikipedia. I searched again today for those words and found references in History of Buddhism in India, but it turned out that was a section I missed when I was trying to clean up those promotional mentions last year (sorry!). I didn't find any suspicious editing of that one section in the last year. But it still might be possible that Rocking or others may have added such references only to have them removed by others. Buddhakahika also added fringe theories about Nio Zen (linking it to Shaolin) and other topics that could be searched. But it would take a lot of work and might come up with little, not enough to make up for the lack of CU data. Michitaro (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_July_11

Did you see this? I didn't see it until after the event, but to call that Hindi newspaper the leading Hindi newspaper in India (last comment) because of its circulation is a travesty. Like saying the Sun is the leading newspaper in the UK for the same reason. The mind boggles. Why should I believe the rest!--Zananiri (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see it. Since the AfD closer acknowledges an error there is little option other than to relist as stated. DRV is not about sources but, yes, the claims about the quality of the source are valid, the article creator has a fair few problems and the entire thing should indeed be relisted. Someone needs to do that and it would probably be better if the someone is not one of those who has previously nominated it at AfD (WP:TE). I can see no real difficulty in countering the claims to notability that have been made thus far: they are a house of cards, built by somewhat dubious architects. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Numbering Prime and Chief Ministers
Actually, British prime ministers seem to be the exception to having a "number". Presumably because it goes so far back in history that there is debate as to where the numbering begins (even Robert Walpole is only "regarded" as being the first).

All/most other countries' heads of government/state seem to be easily numbered. For eg: the 8th Aussie PM Stanley Bruce, currently at FAC, or the 22nd and current Canadian PM, Stephen Harper (a GA).—indopug (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. It seems bloody stupid to me but if that is how it is .... - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Blueyarn (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Retaliatory: you are the one at 3RR and I've explained the problem to you. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * stop your disruptive editing. stop deleting reliable source. Blueyarn (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566401326 your edit] to Kashmiri Pandit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Aljazeera, the estimated population of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir Valley in 2011 was around 2,700-3,400. Those who left the Valley are now

I hope you don't mind
I might have told a little white lie. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit does not comply with wikipedia guidelines
I wish to bring to your attention your edit on the Digvijaya Singh page in which you replaced an existing edit with an edit which does not comply with wikipedia guidelines. Please see the talk page where your edit is being discussed. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC) In the Digvijaya Singh page you are reverting edits which are blatant examples of vandalism which is a good thing, but in your edit summary you are marking them as good faith edits. I find this inappropriate. Soham321 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of having reverted vandalism on that article. If I considered it to be such and worthy of remark then I would say so. As for my other contributions, I'd rather you didn't tell me what I should or should not do; after all, you seem not to have even worked out how to use talk pages yet, let alone understand policies regarding BLPs, POV etc. Right now I am doing something else, and I will get round to the Singh stuff in my own good time. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Vellaichamy Nadar College
I don't know why you have removed the history itself.

-Vijaya Kumar Poun Raj 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayhbk (talk • contribs)
 * WP:COPYRIGHT, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Pakistani pages
Your mass revert to my category Social Groups of Pakistan has been reported for mediation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Delljvc (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you didn't use the "vandalism" word in your ANI report. Was that a boomerang I just saw flashing by? FWIW, I've not even finished reverting yet but will stop pending a decision at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike
I serendipitously chanced upon "Keep calm and carry on" and declared that hence forth that would by my motto, now I notice that you too display it here. Perhaps "great minds think alike" :-). Happy editing! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Digvijaya Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Lancashire Regiment
Sitush, it struck me that Joseph Jordan may have joined a Militia Regiment. This might fit in with your source saying "he had no opportunity to go on active service" - Militia tended to stay on home defence duties. The list of stations 1806-1811 should help to nail this down e.g. what units were stationed in Milford Haven between 1806 and 1811.

I believe that the senior Lancashire unit was the "1st Royal Lancashire Militia (Duke of Lancaster's Own)" - later 3rd Battalion, King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster). Might easily have been rendered as "1st Royal Lancashire Regiment" or "1st Battalion Royal Lancashire Regiment".

Also, have you tried searching The London Gazette here? I would have thought that his appointments would have been gazetted. "Joseph Jordan" will probably return thousands of hits, but "Ensign Joseph Jordan" and "Surgeon Joseph Jordan" may be more fruitful, particularly if your limit your dates to 1806 / 1807 (depending upon how reliable these dates are). Hamish59 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Then I bothered myself to search.  This is his appointemnt as Ensign
 * ''Commissions in the Royal Lancashire Militia, sgned
 * ''by the Lord Lieutenant.
 * ''First Battalion.
 * ''To be Ensigns,
 * Joseph Jordan, Gent. Dated December 12, 1806.
 * Joseph Jordan, Gent. Dated December 12, 1806.


 * Woah, I could hug you! It seems that you've resolved a tricky problem here and I'll be ok to link to King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster). In view of what has gone on, I wonder whether it might be best to create 1st Battalion, Royal Lancashire Regiment as a redirect to that article and append links to this and the MILHIST discussion on the talk page of that redirect - just to keep a permanent record and in view of potential claims relating to WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Err, no. Linking to King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) would be incorrect as the 1st Royal Lancashire Militia did not become part of the King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) until the Childers reforms in 1881 and would therefore be anachronistic.  (nb see Regiments created)
 * 1st Battalion, Royal Lancashire Regiment would also be incorrect as he joined 1st Battalion, Royal Lancashire Militia - not at all the same thing. One needs to be very precise with titles, hence your current problem nailing down this unit.  Particularly in Lancashire where there were a lot of units / regiments / battalions.  As an example, the Sherwood Rangers and the Sherwood Foresters may sound like the same thing but were very different.
 * You might like to create a Royal Lancashire Militia but (no offence) I suspect you are not very familiar with the details of the British Army Regimental System - totally arcane! I personnaly would hesitate to do so as I do not feel that I am sufficiently au fait with the Militia in particular.
 * As to WP:OR - you have a source that states he joined the Royal Lancashire Militia (the London Gazette) and another source that says he joined the Royal Lancashire Regiment. As an author, you must select from these sources and I would suggest that the Gazette is a far more reliable one (in this instance): a source on medical matters is going to be less reliable about the minutia of military unit titles.
 * I will pop a note on MILHIST. Hamish59 (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not remotely familiar with the regimental system, despite being British and having more than my fair share of relatives disappearing in the mud of Flanders etc. As I said on the MILHIST talk, the thing baffles me. I agree about the Gazette point - I've used it myself a lot in the past but another aspect of my ignorance was assuming that Ensign was too lowly a rank to be gazetted. I'll await developments regarding linking. Your guidance is much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Da nada. Hamish59 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about: 1st Battalion, Royal Lancashire Militia (later 3rd (Reserve) Battalion, King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster)) Hamish59 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Afghanistan
Peshawar was the second Afghan capital, until the Sikhs pushed the Afgans back to the Khyber pass. So yes the border wer different pre-1850. Thanks<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

NPA
When you start swearing you play right into their hands. Why don't you report him for WP:NPA? Or are you too busy badmouthing Californians? JanetteDoe (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I won't "win" in a report and thus it just wastes everyone's time. This is a WP:DRN situation, some who frequent that noticeboard will be watching and they seem to hate my guts, so I may as well go all in. That person is an obscene pov-pusher, determined to put a gloss on their hero, while I'm the one expanding the article and doing so through use of academic sources etc and trying to show all sides. That said, I didn't attack them with swear words but I am bloody frustrated with them. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Digvijaya Singh
Your behavior in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh has now been reported in WP:ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_complaint_about_User:Sitush Soham321 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ta. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
I have replied to your objections. You should be able to accept Gait now for the particular use in Kamapitha, because D C Sircar does the same. Chaipau (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the consensus is will be fine for me. Mine was a general comment regarding just how unreliable these Raj sources usually are. You certainly could not use them for demographics etc but if the consensus is that they are ok for possible geographical boundaries of Assam then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more on Raj sources. But Gait, I have seen, is an exception because he relied on local sources, not Raj documents---very clearly listed in his report from 1897 (http://books.google.com/books?id=RwvgAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA98&ots=A8HU7Duvxj&dq=e%20a%20gait&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=e%20a%20gait&f=false).  You would find that he was more sound in his research than many Indians who followed, and who relied exclusively on Raj sources (I can name a few from Assam); he OTOH relied on coins, inscriptions, manuscripts and very interestingly, "tradition" (oral history, which is the fad now).  You should probably discuss your latest views on the page, so we could all benefit from it---because you will have to help build the consensus.  The main issue here is whether we can use these boundaries as historical facts.  As Sircar has pointed out, they have no historical value.  Chaipau (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, maybe you are too busy, but I had a question on my talk page for you. If you are too busy it is ok. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied, with apologies. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal from categories
Hello, I noticed that u removed 2 articles from certain categories which are related to religion. That is information which might be important to some, and since such categories exist, with considerable population, i was wondering if u could shed some light on the removal, cheers. Mentabolism (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ok got it, WP:BLPCAT, thanks Mentabolism (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Living people need to self-identify their religion if it is to be included in an article concerning them. That usually means finding an interview in a reliable source or something that they have written. Category:Indian Christians was full of what amounts to original research because that requirement was not met. To be honest, it looks like a lot of them had been categorised based on their name or based on a (sometimes sourced) statement that they were "born into" a Christian family - religion is not inherited. I'll finish cleaning it up today. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you removed Category:Indian Christians from Michael Madhusudan Dutt‎ but not Category:Bangladeshi Christians (he was dead 100 years before creation of Bangladesh. The Legend   of Zorro  08:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that one and I might be revisiting it. I think there was some sourcing but the issue of India vs Bangladesh is a tricky one and I rather think I've got it wrong. I wanted to check WT:INB because there has been a discussion fairly recently concerning how to treat that situation. My own view was that the Bangladesh one should go but my memory was that the discussion said otherwise. I did remove the Bangladesh cat from one article also but that was simply unsourced. Feel free to revert what I did, although I'm sure that the guy should not be in both categories (just as a lot of bishops were removed from Category:Indian Christians because they are already categorised in Category:Indian Roman Catholics etc). - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This biography of Michael contains the quotes you removed here. I have no idea if http://www.poemhunter.com/ is a reliable source though.
 * An unsourced potted biography written by an unknown person and published on a website whose "About" page merely contains statistics and nothing about provenance? That is chocolate teapot territory. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rajput Mali
Sir,

I have made some more contribution to the Page Mardorva Rajputs and Rajput Mali, but from past few stances there has been a continuous intervention from your part. It is a request that all the information given on these pages are true and have their proper reference

Regards N.J.S Gahlot — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.J.S.Gahlot (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please can you go to Talk:Rajput Mali and explain why Mardorva Rajputs use the same name but should have a separate article as you were creating here. I am aware that there can be confusion with naming of castes but I am also aware that there is an awful lot caste-ist puffery and separatism knocking around Wikipedia. It is no good you explaining here because other interested people will most likely not see it. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Manchester meetup
Hi Sitush, because your name is on this notification list, I'm just letting you know that there will be a Manchester Wikimeet taking place on 25 August. Perhaps we'll see you there? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567671649 your edit] to Harikumar Pallathadka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P in short) is a prominent Indian Right to Information RTI and Social Activist

Sikhism as ethnicity?
Hi Sitush, can you look at this edit and check the reference given, if it implies Sikhism as a ethnicity. I have read the whole document and it was not clear to me. --<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot use legal rulings as sources - WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Sikhism was the religion, and if there is an ethnicity, it would be referred to as Sikh? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a massive row going on off-wiki about all this stuff and unfortunately it is being brought into our project. Since court documents etc require interpretation and specialist knowledge of other court documents etc, they are primary sources and should not be used as verification for statements such as this. That is the simplest way to shut this one down - let the contributor find a reliable secondary source. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sitush for your inputs. --<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When you remove a category because it is the parent of another cat into which the subject falls (an excellent habit of yours, one which I appreciate), could you be a smidgen more explicit in your edit summary? I almost just reverted you because I mistook one of your edits (merely summarized as "overcategorisation") for a "he's not from Andhra Pradesh, he's from glorious Telangana, hurrah!" edit. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) (tiring of Telangana edits)
 * I do sometimes but, yes, not as often as I should. Will try to do better. And while we're talking Telangana, I presume that you are aware of the proposed state mess and the effect that is having here due naive and/or fervent separatists! There's a link in the "Useful stuff" bit of my user page that might assist. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I know more than the average non-desi American; but I'm not about to spend my time obsessing on the details of legislation, passage, implementation, etc. The 'dual capital' situation in particular looks fraught with potential for trouble. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Response
It is quite hilarious that someone that quite obviously does not even look at pages they edit (reading all the sources on the page in 45 seconds? – or look here for an example where you actually delete a source with obvious self-identification, or here when a source is cited in the infobox for Christ's sake) has the gall to lecture others on editing. What constructive users do when they have a potential issue with another’s edit is take the time to demonstrate how a policy has been violated. Instead of sanctimoniously defecating a few Wikilinks in edit summaries and patting yourself on the back afterwards, try, I don’t know, reading articles for a change. Also with regards to Digvijay Singh its quite rich you delete well-sourced and notable sections of a page, and then turn around and accuse users who disagree with your edits of violating a number of irrelevant (to the matter, not in general, in case you were trying to Wikilawyer your way through that statement) Wikipedia policies.Pectoretalk 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My dear Pectore, you have no idea how quickly I read and assimilate information but please let me assure that I am a recognised freak in that regard, if no other, and as such have for the last 46 years had on/off involvement with the people involved in research at the audiology department at the University of Manchester. It is not, of course, necessary to read the sources: if they are not cited for the statement in question then that statement is unsourced, especially in a BLP. Unfortunately, your ability to select diffs is so poor that I cannot determine the veracity of your other accusations but I can assure you that you went on a spree of reverting me and then self-reverting and that you clearly do not have much clue regarding what has been going on at the Singh article, where you jumped in with seemingly no consideration for the very lengthy talk page discussions. If you would care to be more specific with your diffs then by all means I will respond accordingly - I am not infallible but, as your self-reverts demonstrate, neither are you. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at one of your most recent reverts. I did this and it is my only edit to the article. You reverted me with this but it seems not in fact to be a simple revert but instead a complex one, where you add a source that did not previously exist for the statement. I am gratified that you found a source for it - good stuff - but it does not negate the WP:BLPCAT situation that existed when I removed it. Basically, we have a shdeload of BLP violations and I got fed up of it. Which is better? To leave the violations in literally hundreds of articles or to remove and trust that someone will turn up and sort it out? The burden is not upon me to source stuff, although I do have a pretty good record in that regard. Articles concerning India are among the worst content that this project hosts - if it takes drastic but policy-compliant action to cause even experienced contributors to fix them then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You hae also just reverted me here, pointing to an external link. I presume that you mean this one because it is at the bottom of the page, per your edit summary. Of course, external links are not sources - BLP stuff should be cited - and in this instance the EL does not even show that she self-identifies anyway. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Manitoba
Hello I was wondering if you have thoughts on this. Wwwwhatsup originally accused me of being the person who keeps putting that there, which is why I know about it. I never heard of Manitoba before. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last of those reverts is definitely A Good Thing because the content was unsourced. I'll have to read the sources that were removed for the other two before I could comment but I'm assuming a WP:BLP issue. I've never heard of the guy either but, hey, I've never heard of most people, things and places that exist. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a BLP issue. The problem is that the sources are merely reiterating claims made by Snaith and there doesn't seem to be any independent corroboration. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Since this alleged legal situation never went to court and has not been subject to comment by Manitoba or his representatives (nor indeed any representative of Snaith), there is no real substance. This is based on what was put in the article - if there are indeed more sources etc then perhaps the situation could be reviewed. - Sitush (talk)


 * If you go into the history of this, you will the find same contentious info has been added and deleted many, many, times. The issue is not so much whether the events occurred, or personal agendas of the editors, but whether they are significant in respect to the subject, notwithstanding MN's predilection for adding negative information to articles. It was after I had just reverted one of these that MN's first attack on me happened, an attack so intense that one had to suspect a personal agenda, hence the suspicion. It is still hard to fathom why MN's attention is so firmly focused on my edits, and nobody else's. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation
Hi, can you clarify the problem with this, apart from sourcing? Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are writing about living people so "apart from sourcing" is a pretty major omission. Furthermore, given your conflict of interest with the subject matter and the often poor sources that you have been using - old geocities sites etc - I really wouldn't bother trying to fix it. /Let someone else sort it out if andf when they can. I am shocked that you have been able to get away with this sort of standard of contribution for so long; much of it seems to be based on your personal knowledge and on self-published websites and niche newsletters etc. It is appalling, imo, and certainly much worse than what Mario has been doing. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The geocities site was not used as a source. it was an EL to a photograph. If one went by your BLP rules nobody could mention membership of bands in any article, since they are almost always living. What you think of as niche newsletters are often satisfactory as reliable sources within the music projects. As you have said that you are have  no knowledge of music, and are in fact deaf, going on a destructive sweep of music articles solely based on their inclusion of certain multimedia links is questionable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My deafness has nothing to do with my ability to recognise what is or is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. I do understand that Mario has been a thorn in your side and has not gone about things in the best manner - eg: opening a RfC on your talk page - but there seems little doubt to me that you seem to think that the articles you are concerned with somehow have an exemption from our blp, original research and other policies. It is great to see an enthusiast - nay, someone whom many probably consider to be an expert - take an interest in such subjects here but it does not give you carte blanche and there is little doubt in my mind that you do or have had commercial conflicts of interest. I really do think that you need to take another look at WP:V and if it were not for the fact that I've got enough on my plate dealing with other issues elsewhere, my guess is that 30 - 40 per cent of the content of articles to which you have contributed would by removed by me. It is about time that this project got to grips with this type of "we aficionados like it so the rules do not matter" routine. If the rules get in your way then go propose a change to them. Obviously, I've done my research and I know who you are; I've no idea yet whether you have made that clear to other people but, if not, then I think you might be in a position where you should do and where you should note all your past and present commercial involvements. A tough call, I know, but this really is a rather ridiculous situation and I know that you are not a stupid person, far from it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:V quite well, often invoke it. The inclusionist vs deletionist issue is bigger than what we are dealing with here, but suffice it to say that usefulness is the aim of both sides. Generally, as one works constructively, hard application of WP:V is applied to contentious content. Otherwise, if information is unchallenged, softer options such as tagging are used. If, in a program aimed at a certain editor, prompted by another editor with a personal agenda, one sets about challenging all non-RS material in all associated articles, this is not good practice, I think you will agree. As for multimedia documentation, it is possible your disability might impair your judgement as to its value. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, I hope you and yours are well, despite the floods. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Now what do You say
The term "high tea" was used as a way to distinguish it from "low tea" in the article about the Afternoon tea. This is what was so far stated (until today) : Though it is often stated that the words "low" and "high" refer to the height of the tables from which either meal was eaten, this is incorrect. Well somebody removed  'this is incorrect', and this changs the whole meaning of the sentence.

The situation, Sitush, is now that the meaning states that : it is often stated that the words "low" and "high" refer to the height of the tables from which either meal was eatend. This meaning that the whole busines is about the tables. Now has this low and high tea stuff has to do with the social class   or the height of the table, or what? You are the British, who may offer assistance said Drmies, you should know. Warrington (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've not looked at the article but this sounds weird. I went to Cambridge University and, even now, that place has significant hark-backs to the golden age of the English country house etiquette etc. I've attended high teas as a consequence of that but I have never, ever heard of a "low tea" nor have I ever come across the notion that it somehow relates to the size of table used. I'm also fairly sure that high tea is not afternoon tea: high tea is practically a meal, involving hot food etc, whereas afternoon tea comprises cakes, sandwiches - a "light bite". But this is just my experience - I'll have to dig around for sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

- Sitush (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * refers to it as "An afternoon meal; may consist of a light meal (especially in southern Britain), or be a substantial meal (high tea) as in northern Britain; introduced by Anna, Duchess of Bedford, in 1840 because of the long interval between a light luncheon and dinner at 8pm." More info is in, which says "Tea seems first to have established for itself a particular niche in the day in the 1740s, by which time it had become the fashionable breakfast drink. It was also drunk after dinner, and as the usual time for dinner progressed during the eighteenth century towards the evening a gap opened up for a late-afternoon refreshment, filled by what has since become the traditional English afternoon tea, a meal in its own right, with sandwiches and cake as well as cups of tea (amongst the earliest references to it are these by Fanny Burney in Evelina (1778): ‘I was relieved by a summons to tea,’ and by John Wesley in 1789: ‘At breakfast and at tea…I met all the Society’; Anna Maria Russell, Duchess of Bedford (1783–1857), famously claimed to have originated the fashion, but as can be seen, it was around well before she was in a position to have any influence over it). In various other parts of the English-speaking world, teatime has assumed other connotations: in Jamaica, for instance, it is the first meal of the day, while for Australians and New Zealanders it is a cooked evening meal—a usage reflected in the tea, and more specifically the ‘high tea’, of certain British dialects, predominantly those of the working class and of the North (the term high tea dates from the early nineteenth century)."
 * And this, written by a food historian, might be enlightening. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While this seems to be the low tea point that, frankly, I consider to be absurd. (I've no idea what qualifications the author may have). - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your 100.000 edit. This may somewhat contradict your statement about being a 'lazy editor', if I remember that rightly. But maybe that was only for the dog articles. I remember you saying 'I like dogs, articles about dogs are really not something I'm ever likely to edit heavily'. So maybe that was only a statement for dog-articles...  Thanks for all your efforts on  digging  around for sources. But what is this than, I find  this is a bit  confusing. You stated above: I have never, ever heard of a "low tea" .  Who is using than the term low tea?   Maybe it just doesn't exist at all...  or? Have you got any well sourced stuff that is really telling on the subject :'The term low tea is not used in Great Brittain'? Warrington (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * HEy!!!!!!!!!!Now that was YOUR source  they removed !  Warrington (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Bink, though my preferences figure shows 99k? It sometimes feels as if most of that figure comprises corrections to my own typos! - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The automated list at Wikipedians by number of edits says you are at 102k, for edits in all namespaces. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Typos and second thoughts register toward a high edit count, which is why I also have 100k! Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Barry Gardiner
Hi There, I think I had added valid sources in the article with credible Indian newspapers as references. I hope that Barry's invitation is covered here and here. And Firstpost is Indian national online newspaper, which comes under notable references too. Please reconsider the removal of section. Thanks! - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the whole thing is up in the air at the moment and your contribution was very India-centric. I'm hoping to do some work on it later but already know (because I am in the UK) that there is more to this invitation than was said and that the media in India have not done a great job of covering it. For example, the BBC is reporting opposition from among the public, which is also what caused Modi to be "disinvited" from speaking in the USA earlier this year. I'm not saying that the article should omit the point but it is rather of the "breaking news" variety and leaving it for a day or so while the dust settles may be no bad thing. You are, I suppose, familiar with Gardiner's long-term support for Modi, which stretches back almost as far as the alleged genocidal incidents? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! Got it. But, like there needs to be NPOV, please try including this incident, wherein a foreign politician getting roughed-up by interviewer, if  you think it as a notable event. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the NDTV thing? Has that been reported in print or do we just have the video clip? You see, I am deaf and cannot cope with video stuff - I'm going to need some help! More generally, I'm hoping to assess some newspapers tomorrow, by which time the invitation should have been covered worldwide by what ever media wants to cover it. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Refreshment - just what I need now! Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dasam Granth
Hi Sitush, when you have some time, would you mind taking a look at recent edits to this article? I just restored a bunch of deletions from Jattnijj. I personally vetted the McCleod source and could see nothing wrong with it; the other sources are not accessible to me, but Jattnijj's wholesale deletions seemed a bit arbitrary. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. I'm not particularly good on stuff relating to Sikhism but I'll see how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Please, do not edit my father, Barun De's, page. You made changes to section that have remained there for several years now. If you have any questions, then ask me first. B_de2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.247 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Waar
Having read WP:FILMMARKETING, I now see why including the trailer might have been a bad idea. But as for your objection to the date format, please see WP:DATEFORMAT; the format I used is acceptable. Or was your objection to something else? GlaedrH (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was already using the dmy format, so introducing a statement in the mdy format runs contrary to WP:MOSDATE. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you referring to the consistency of format in the references? If so, then am I correct in believing that there was no reason to edit the date for the trailer in the body text (which you did), because MOS:DATEUNIFY doesn't say that the format in the body has to be consistent with the format in references? GlaedrH (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, just leave it alone, eh? I really don't have the time or inclination to engage in yet another bout of wikilawyering. I know good article style when I see it and consistent date formats are easier on the eye than inconsistent ones. I'm not even bothering looking at the links you give, sorry. You may be right or you may be wrong in spotting an exception, but either way I am definitely right. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to argue. Just making sure I understood your rationale for the edits, since I'm a newbie. But fine, I'll leave it alone. GlaedrH (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I rather assumed that you were not new because of your knowledge of obscure policies etc. The date thing is just an application of common sense on my part. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Req
Hi, please take a look at the article Brahmin. Would you consider Vepachedu and Kamakoti.org authoritative sources? --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * I looked at them a few days ago. The Vepachedu one may be useful if we can track down the sources that it cites and use those directly rather than citing Vepachedu itself. The same might apply to the Kamakoti website but since that is based only on one book, written a long time ago by a swami, even the original book is probably only reliable for the swami's own opinion. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree Vepachedu is useful. Unfortunately, Vepachedu does not cite sources for claims such as "Varna (the class) allows movement of people from one class to the other, while tribe or caste does not" -- no idea on what basis he makes such a claim. How about divinebrahmanda.com used as a reference for vishwakarmas / vishwabrahmins -- that website is a blog. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * That one is an aggregator - it claims that it "indexes media content (pdf and other text files) and content information located worldwide throughout the Internet. The services provided by www.divinebrahmanda.com is based on third party sites." So, again, if we could track down the original source used by the website then we might be able to use that source but if, for example, the source is not stated then obviously we cannot. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

B_de2002
Sitush, The information that I have given are all authentic. They have been on this page since the page was opened several years ago. Please, don't edit them. I am sourcing them as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.227.188 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, you are not; you're adding unsourced, non-neutral info to a variety of different articles. And now that Sitush has called my attention to several of the articles you've created, I've nominated another one for deletion. Also, is there some reason why you aren't logging in to your account to edit? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to discuss on the article talk page, not here. You clearly have a conflict of interest and that the article has been allowed to remain such a mess for so long is no justification for it to continue in that way. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns are well appreciated. I was wondering if you could kindly reveal your identity. And yes, I am giving completely authentic information on these Wikipedia pages. How do you know I am not giving authentic information? Citing of the sources will be done as and when the sources come up. But semi-protecting the articles without letting the author know may not be entirely justifiable. But of course, you are the administrator here and you do have the right to decide. Please, do, because I have other things to do as well. And information on the people the pages were opened or on people whose pages have been semi-protected can be put up elsewhere on the internet or in some other public sphere where Wikipedia doesn't rule the roost. Wikipedia isn't the only source of the most valuable and value oriented information. I simply don't understand why it can't be mentioned in Kumar Suresh Singh's page that he was indeed a member of the zamindari family of Nayangaon in Munger district in Bihar, or why the section on the ideology of Barun De has to be spruced. And also, I do know what I need to do. B_de2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.252.255 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, it really doesn't matter who you are or who I am, except where a conflict of interest might exist or where someone is thought to be sockpuppeting. I can assure you that neither situation applies in my case and that there are experienced contributors here who would vouch for that. To be honest, I think you have somehow managed to fly under the radar of common sense here for many years because most of your article creations and most of your other contributions simply fail to abide by our policies. I can understand that suddenly finding a lot of unwanted interest being taken in your work after being relatively unnoticed for so long must be galling but this project does not exist to memorialise your family and acquaintances. If subjects are not notable then they should not exist on Wikipedia and if statements are not verifiable then they should be left unsaid. The burden is on you to comply and, alas, with articles such as Sarat Datta Gupta, Jyotish Chandra De, Basanta Kumar De, Brajendranath De and Barun De you have failed to do so despite many years of leeway being given. Similarly, your more recent efforts at Kumar Suresh Singh and elsewhere have also failed. As you say, there are plenty of places on the internet where you could indulge in your whims. My suggestion to you would be to take advantage of those if you are unable to resolve the numerous issues being highlighted here. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Many thanks for the comments. Much appreciated the extremely valid points you have made. I have one more suggestion to make: please, feel free to delete the pages that you have mentioned here, or any other page on the Wikipedia that were opened along with these. And thanks for the nature of some of your comments: "I think you have somehow managed to fly under the radar of common sense here for many years because most of your article creations and most of your other contributions simply fail to abide by our policies". B_de2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.25 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush and Qwyrxian: Kindly stop messing around with my father, Barun De's Wikipedia site. Also, please do NOT touch my grandfather, Basanta Kumar De and great uncle Jyotish Chandra De's sites. I am taking offence to that. Their pages are now thanks to your wiki-activism on facebook as well. You have absolutely no right to touch their pages without the permission of the author. If you want you can delete them, but you cannot lock them. I must say this: you are the vandals on Wikipedia. And stop being so rude - haven't you learnt manners. B_de2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.244.48 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi
It was nice learning from you, I think it looks like you decided to give up on the external links too. Thank you for all of your help and kindness, MarioNovi (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, I will probably be banned from wikipedia by Wwwhatsup but I think I don't know how to handle it right. He said some insulting things to you I was shocked. MarioNovi (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They cannot ban you but as I've just said on Talk:Jeff Berlin, if the pair of you cannot stop the incessant sniping and stalking then you're both going to find your activities restricted. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin
I appreciate your editings on page Brahmin. The page is now organised, neater, concise and rich and overall giving a much better look. My thanks to you for this. But I wonder why Hemu's mention from the page is deleted. I know some people have claimed that he was a Vaishy (Bania by birth ). But no reference is given which confirms that he was born in a Vaisya family. The references given on page Hemu are wrong. They do not mention about his birth or parentage at all. Please check those two references. His father Puran Das was a renowned Purohit. Hemu was called a Vaishya or Bania because he adopted the profession of business when he grew up. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, although I've not finished there. As far as Hemu goes, there has been discussion at Talk:Hemu and it would seem that academic opinions are divided. While it would be possible to reflect all sides at that article, unequivocally stating that he was Brahmin on the Brahmin article would clearly be a misrepresentation of available modern reliable sources. The Hemu article is of course subject to regular disruptive and/or poor contributions and it is entirely possible that those sources have got lost there - I'll try to check it out later today but in the interval I am sure that you will find them in recent discussions on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you that on 20th and 21st Sept. 2012, you had made 60 editings on page Hemu and asked for 12 citations, which I promptly posted on 22nd Sept. 2012. Page looked balanced, concise and rich. I had requested you at that point in time also to freeze it as new editors may again spoil the page. I request to you see the status of the page as on 22nd sept, 2012 and comment.117.212.124.227 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is asking a lot of me and I'm not inclined to do it any time soon. There is far too much caste warring going on with IPs and although you do have the same editing privileges as someone with a user account, there are umpteen other people contributing to that article and I'll assume that at least some of them have reviewed subsequent events. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has given a single reference to say thar Hemu was born in a Vaishya family or his father was a Vaishya. So the present sentence has to be removed from the page.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been banging on about this for at least three months now. Don't you think that it is time to drop it? Just a couple of random examples from GBooks are and . There are many others under the various transliterations of both his name and of vaishya and baniya. I've explained on the talk page that I was also able to find some sources that referred to him as a Brahmin and that the solution for the Hemu article was to show both "sides"; the solution for the Brahmin article is to omit him on the grounds of uncertainty.It really is time to let this go because it is beginning to look like someone pushing a caste-ist agenda and that often ends in tears on Wikipedia, ie: with blocks, topic bans and the like. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With due respect Sir, I am of the view that Hemu's true identity should not be marred on Wikipedia. I have spent considerable time on this page, and some others since 2008 and have almost stopped editing after your threat 3 months ago. But consensus is not being reached. There should be a time limit for consensus.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what "threat" you are referring to but Wikipedia does not exist to provide hagiographs or denigrations of people, living or dead. Since there are indeed reliable sources that refer to him both as Baniya etc and as Brahmin, that is what we should be showing at Hemu in accordance with one of our core policies, ie; WP:NPOV. Since there is divided academic opinion regarding how to classify the man, it would not be neutral to include him in the Brahmin article without explaining that the entire inclusion is based on a one-sided, selective use of sources. However, the Brahmin article really does not exist as a means to rehash academic disputes that are only tangentially related to the general subject which, in this instance, is Brahmin as a varna in Hinduism, not any one specific person. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AAP
Replied on my talk page. Jheald (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sengars
Sitush, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. My first contribution was to create a comprehensive and instructive account of the Rajput clan. Post a period of inactivity, it came to my attention that the said article has become a breeding ground for constant edits and arguments on the data at hand.As a result, I have begun structuring the page to provide greater clarity.

I have made a study of your contributions and enhancements to the Wikipedia community. Although I am sure your concerns regarding my article are genuine,please understand that the referred certificates, manuscripts, books and papers from the concerned timelines have been preserved by my estate, the National Archives of India and the British National Archives.

The Imperial Gazetteer of India, Gazetteer N.W.P and District Gazetteers of the United Provinces are genuine and highly regarded sources of the British Raj era that may be found in the national libraries of Britain, India and even university archives at Harvard and the Oxford Press. To claim otherwise is not called for. Tod's has been criticized for certain inaccuracies but his accounts of the Rajputs and of India in general had a significant effect on British views of the area for many years. Moreover, kindly study the context in which the reference was used before you present his work as unreliable. On the other hand, I have many sources yet to be attached from the works and testimonials of Allan Octavian Hume, Sir Henry Elliot and various others. It would indeed be very helpful if you stop reverting unfinished and rather time consuming summaries as unsourced and non reliable before a user is able to finish his documentation and upload relevant material on the subject at hand.

I do not believe in personal vendettas. I welcome your insight and help in the editing process. Feel free to contact me and provide suggestions. An error brought to my notice will indeed be rectified.

I remain yours most sincerely Rohit Rohitsengar (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I left a note at Talk:Sengar. It would be better to continue any discussion there because it is more likely to attract the attention of anyone else who may have an interest in the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-added this one. Nominated the one of Commons for deletion! -- Tito ☸ Dutta 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nowt to do with me. The pair of you need to read Non-free_content_review and then decide which one goes and which one does not. I'm past caring - image-related work on Wikipedia seems to be for people with no real concept of law or logic. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They uploaded the (same) logo as free under PD-Text (i.e. simple text/design). Generally I prefer to keep the oldest one (and hate o replace images unnecessarily). I don't know about other logos. Tito ☸ Dutta 05:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So...
...you have started attacking my city now i.e. Kolkata? I live in Kolkata, but, my dynamic IP address (currently 14.99.244.227, Tata Photon+) will tell you I am browsing from Bengaluru or Hyderabad. So, I feel jealous of those Kolkatans who have got Kolkata IP address. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 06:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe! The IP may possibly be connected with the university - they seem to be hitting articles relating to academics and bodies such as CSSSCAL. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Archving and closed discussions
So you know, my archiving is set at seven days - that's not rapid archiving. I closed the discussion as my talk page is not the place for you and another editor to bicker with each other. If you want to harass John further you're welcome to do so on his talk page, not mine. Worry about your edits, not mine. I discussed the issue with a few admins on IRC myself and they each agreed that both of the AfD's that were brought to my talk page were appropriate actions. Perhaps you need to review a few policies yourself, such as this, maybe this, or even this. Don't post on my talk page again unless it's a notification regarding a talkboard or I will bring your conduct up in a RfC/U. Cheers, <font face="MV Boli"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *Let's talk!* 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with this post&mdash;I don't even know where to begin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd enjoy reviewing my talk page for an overview on the fun :) <font face="MV Boli"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *Let's talk!* 00:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IRC? WTF? Can't even do things in the open? - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did look at your talk page when I saw this pop up on my watchlist. I found your responses to be especially disappointing, particularly here when you tried to refer Sitush to WP:DICK in a rather unctuous post. If you are just going to shut down reasonable questioning of your pseudo-admin actions (relisting AFDs), then perhaps you shouldn't be relisting them. In any event, non-admins should only relist in uncontroversial circumstances.
 * Furthermore, linking Sitush, who has probably ten or more times your experience in editing, to WP:AGF is going to come across as excessively patronizing and potentially offensive. Banning him from your talk page over this calls your maturity into question. Lastly, your threat of a request for comment on Sitush's behavior is so over the top as to be patently absurd. It smacks of what certain admins do when disapproving of someone: rattle the block-sabre. Please don't engage in that type of behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a prior example of which I am aware. I've not been looking for a pattern or anything but, really, non-admin AfD work is always likely to be problematic except in the limited circumstances that I outlined here. Yes, Dusti reverted when I raised that issue but it led on to a fragmented discussion some of which can be seen here. I do understand that it is sometimes desirable to close a situation and I do understand that can be a subjective issue but I'm still getting the impression that there is something close to a cleansing exercise going on here. If you can't deal with the hassle of legitimate contestations regarding admin-like actions then don't make them. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)