User talk:Sitush/Archive 4

Sengupta
I was working on Pallar, and saw info about research done on matching Haplogroups to castes by Sengupta. That sounds familiar--is that a source that you've mentioned before as being discredited? Or am I confusing it with something else? I would almost assume it is, since I thought that even racial genetic analysis was nearly impossible, much lest something like "caste" level analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, genetics is a big, big thing in India and is taught from quite a low grade in schools. The problem from a WP perspective are several-fold:
 * there are numerous small studies of small groups which may or may not be statistically significant (and I use that phrase in the sense that statisticians use it, which involved "degrees of significance" as defined by use of tools such as chi-square tests).
 * the sources used have in my experience often been either abstracts or even marked along the lines of "not for publication", "draft", "not to be taken as gospel" etc
 * because of the comparative nature of the studies, it is far too easy to cherry-pick a sentence or two out of context. If this information is to be included then we need expert help. High school genetics classes do not cut the mustard.
 * this is WP, not a science journal. I am reasonably intelligent and my eyes just glaze over when I see this stuff. To the layman, it is pretty much incomprehensible. I have argued that this type of information should be included only if we can find a RS that provides a clear-cut statement in plain English. Perhaps something along the lines of "Caste X have been studied by geneticists and the current thinking is that they are related to/descended from/have their origins in Ycite"
 * particularly on issues such as the Aryan/Dravidian etc origins, from what I can gather it would seem that there is actually little agreement at all among genetic studies. Further, all of those genetic studies which I have bothered trying to read rely on self-identification: the subject's tell the researcher which community they belong to, etc.
 * it is another element of the warring: associating your community with origin X is similar to associating your community with varna X. It is rarely clear but there are reasons of prestige which cause contributors to introduce the info. It would not surprise me if this extends to the genetic researchers themselves.
 * ultimately, we are all related to some primordial blob.
 * Does this help at all? I thought not! - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding Sengupta et al, I do recall reading this one. I won't say that I fully understood it! What stood out was the use of weasely words - "indicative", "possible", "probable" etc - scattered throughout and the fact that it had to rely on historical sources in order to complete what ever picture it was trying to suggest. Those sources were the ancient texts that we know to be inherently unreliable. Not worth the paper it is printed on for WP, imo. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice it was hyperlinked; I looked at it, and found an easier reason to exclude it--it has nothing to do with Pallar (it's a general article about overall Indian groups). This actually looks legitimate, if only suggestive. The journal, Current Science has an extremely low impact factor (0.782), but it's published in part by the Indian Academy of Science. Scanning the article (though skipping past the deep scientific stuff), it looks not like they looked to the ancient texts to verify their claims, but, rather, considered whether modern genetics could help them understand whether or not the info in the ancient texts is believable (also considering things like linguistic and social evidence); the study is supportive of certain theories of migration, both into India, and possibly from India outwards to the rest of South Asia. It is, of course, highly speculative, but one should think so for a science attempting to guess what happened 40-60K ybp based on current genetic samples. I'm curious (in an non-WP way) what similar studies have shown. Alas, I must reserve my research time for either Wikipedia or something that will actually assist me in research topics related to my real life work. Nonetheless, since it has nothing to do with Pallar (other than that one of the many groups they studied were Pallar), it can't go in that article. I'd probably argue it shouldn't go into any article, not because of reliability, but more because of WP:PRIMARY--this is an initial research project, and it would be much more important to see where a review article on the subject of Indian genetics situated the results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's an easy solution for the Pallar usage. I was thinking more generally. It is a while since I read the thing but there were alarm bells ringing all over. Your point about a review article on the subject of Indian genetics is pretty much the same as my point about needing a clear-cut statement in plain English etc. The WP:PRIMARY argument is not one that I had considered but, yes, that also seems to be a valid position. I am so used to dealing with that in relation to old texts that I probably should have picked up on it for a modern one! - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamil kshatriya
Stop always pushing your POV!!!... You have removed sources contents!!!...Rajkris (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting revert by you, with an edit summary that says "we do not agree with you". Is that not POV? There are countless contributors to the talk page who have said that this is original research and synthesis. You have not connected Tamil Kshatriya to the rulers and so, indeed, it is. You have had weeks to do this and still cannot manage the feat. Therefore, per policy etc, it should not be in the article. You can add as many exclamation marks as you like to your messages but it does not change a thing, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many other editors which say this is not original reseach.Rajkris (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but have been unable to provide a single reference, other than Dumont, to support what they say. They have put forward the better part of 50 sources and none of them support their point. At some stage, you have to give up because even if you now find a source there would still be overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I do mean "overwhelming", to the point where it is not reasonable even to offer a "dissenting view". - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Troublesome? Should I be donning my flameproof suit yet again? Argh! but thank you. Much to be done on Khokhar, I think. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well my nickname is Asbestos Man now :p. --S H 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN
Even though you obviously know since we're talking about it right now on my page, just to be completely transparent, I mentioned your name in a discussion on WP:AN regarding User:Atterion. Feel free to comment if you wish. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

help!! sending this to you and Acabashi
HELP!! I tried to archive my talk page and its gone wrong!! pls help fix it for me, I have no idea where I am wrong. I was terrified of doing this, lol. Pls dont be offended if other user gets there first, I just need my poor page fixed - MANY thanks to you both for helping. Panderoona (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jat
Just so you don't miss it, you're at 3 reverts on Talk:Jat people. While, as has been discussed elsewhere, we aren't supposed to semi both talk and article, if another IP makes those same edits, RFPP the talk page, explaining the problem. I'm off in a moment, so I won't be able to attend. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Already notified Boing. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh you Gyan...
Some believe that Manipuris are a fine stalwart race descended from an Indo-Chinese stock, with some admixture of Aryan blood. Some scholars consider that the Manipuris are Kshatriyas as mentioned in the Epic, 'Mahabharatha'

Doing a little research for Manipuri Kshatriya, and found more Gyan loveliness. Also note that this same passage is also part of another Gyan book by a different author, though it appears to be more a compilation than plagiarism. I dunno, "fine, stalwart race" just doesn't sound academically credible post-WWII, if not even earlier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet a 3d Gyan book, by yet another author, with the exact same cut-past text. Wonder who wrote it the first time... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Gyan on sight unless it is definitely a reprint of a 19C work. And even then, check it carefully because they mangle the things. How they get away with it is beyond me but presumably copyright law in India is even more liberal than I thought it was. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another piece of copyvio: -Sitush (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Watch, original
 * Gyan

August 2011
Please do not attack other editors, as you have recently been doing.BewarePETeacher (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.BewarePETeacher (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Who? And where am I warring? - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like trolling to me, Sitush. I've left the editor a warning. They've been warned before, for vandalism and not making sense, but a little bit more rope may just be enough. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent actions
Dear Sitush,

It appears you are mad at me for a lot of reasons. Especially for the Green Leaves shit. Anyways, I am related to that house, and am very knowledgeable about it, and know for a fact that it was built in 1838. And I do not have a COI. But I can understand why you think I do. I never should have created that AfD, because I was just mad. Also I've noticed that Green Leaves is not the only place you've been edit warring. Anyways, from now on lets avoid conflicts and stay cool. Atterion  Talk •Contribs   00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the pot is beeping the kettle here. Atterion, there is plenty of evidence in the history of that article, on your talk page, and in your block log that you should probably leave that article alone. Also, please don't make accusations about edit-warring without backing them up. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry, I was out of line making comments in Talk:James Tod ("award mills") and DRN (the James Tod and William Crooke bit). I have refactored the DRN comments and replied at Talk:James Tod as well. I do appreciate your (thankless) work at the caste-related pages. Keep trucking. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Kongu Vellala Gounders
why you removeing every one over there ?

last two generation of tamils will not use surname, clan with their given name, we will father name first letter as a initial

people mentioned over there were know to all in tamil nadu they were KVG, in Politics only 9 tamil nadu government ministers were belongs to KOngu Vellala gounder community even tamil daily clearly states this point

caste wise representation in Tamil nadu ministry http://www.dinamalar.com/news_detail.asp?Id=241980

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Time+to+realize+the+suitability+of+Federalism+in+Sri+Lanka+and+Some+aspects+on+the+barriers+of+Federalism+in+Sri+Lanka#pq=caste%20wise%20representation%20of%20tamil%20nadu%20ministry&hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=5i&xhr=t&q=caste%20wise%20representation%20in%20Tamil%20nadu%20ministry&qe=Y2FzdGUgd2lzZSByZXByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBpbiBUYW1pbCBuYWR1IG1pbmlzdHJ5&qesig=zmiqJodKnjog-iBrpLdaoA&pkc=AFgZ2tmLyxd1EY1ItUaQNTtarYRzmR6FDTUxQK6MNitMIHh0U4NY7Q3Bi_L0elysPZlzFmavK12lpIv1GjKCIa0abyR78_7-bg&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=caste+wise+representation+in+Tamil+nadu+ministry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1a2cc6000ca7d280&biw=1366&bih=682

even you deleteing many other known person of KVG caste to tamil nadu people

What is indent of wiki? and you delete good article of kongu vellala gounder with lot very good references(like peer rivewed journals)

and you deleted Kottam/clan names of kongu vellala gounder(list of kongu vellala gounder kottams) etc..

and you don't know tamil, see tamil daily references or tamil scolars books or you never understand about indian scoiety and caste ,diversity of people of india ,

what is basic goal of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.83.11 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Guide!
Hello Sitush, I need some guidance from You. May You please tell Me that why this revert is acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadu&diff=444465166&oldid=444462821 ??? I agree with User:MatthewVanitas' analysis there. Do You also agree to that! Since there was a demand for the reference of authors who are non-Jat earlier by User:Bill clionton history, I not only provided two references of non-Jats, but also of non-Indians! I would be grateful to You if You could please share Your views here. Sincerely: -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 18:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Abstruce, I saw your edits pretty much as they happened but had a bad day. Sorry for not responding earlier.
 * I am in an awkward place with this one. My gut feeling is always to prefer modern sources over really old ones, especially when it comes to India-related articles. There was a lot of nonsense written about castes etc during the Raj period, and in particular from around 1860 to, say, the 1930s. I use the word "nonsense" advisedly: many of those old sources have been discredited by more modern academics etc. This may or may not apply to the ones you used.
 * On the other hand, old sources can sometimes have something to offer. An example would be using them to demonstrate the opinion that existed at the time, even though that opinion may have been revised by more recent studies.
 * I am really, really tied up with some stuff at the moment and my knowledge of the Jats is not great. MatthewVanitas has experience, is not related to India and has been dealing with this sort of thing for a while now. Generally, I would trust their opinion unless I knew otherwise ... but that does not mean everyone else does!
 * So, two thoughts:
 * see if you can find sources that are more recent, since this is never a bad thing; and
 * drop me a note in a week or so to remind me that I need to get a grip on the Jats issue. No offence intended, but I am quite likely to forget unless you do remind me - my brain is spinning at the moment.
 * And a final thought: do not panic. I tend to do that and it is not a good thing. We will get to the bottom of this issue and it is almost certainly better to "do as I say rather than do as I do". I am learning this myself, but very slowly. Things always come out "right" in the end. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill
OK sir,but I did not know how and where to debate on yadav topic on DRN.PLEASE clear me.and please dont rejects my points irrationaly.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion is at DRN. It is just like a talk page except please do not create a new section. I would advise you to read and understand all that has already been said there before adding any comments yourself. As explained at Talk:Yadav, the DRN thread is not for discussion of your theories about Ahir/Abhir etc - you can continue to do that on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks sir for guidance.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the issue and have the absolute right to express it in the appropriate place. I am sorry that you were unable to work out where and why the procedural things are as they are. Clearly several of us have failed to explain the situation as well as we might have done. You must let me know if this is still confusing to you.
 * On other other hand, you have learned something new and it is great that you have done that. It will stand you in good stead for the future here on Wikipedia, which I hope will a long one. You, me and everyone else are going to be on the "wrong" side of a decision from time to time. That is, a decision will result in something that does not appeal to us. We have to live with that because of the consensus requirements but, on the whole, this can be a really great place and there is little doubt in my mind that you have something to offer it.
 * One piece of advice that may help you is that you can always ask. Indeed, you are encouraged to ask. When in doubt or confused or frustrated or just plain lost, then seek another opinion. One way to do this is to make a note on your own talk page regarding what ever the problem is and add a tag to it. That generates a message and someone will be along shortly to respond. It is pretty much random, so you get a truly independent piece of advice, although obviously the respondant probably will not know the details of caste articles etc. It is very handy for procedural matters and the like. Or you can just yell at me - I am not the monster that some people like to claim that I am, honest. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas
Way to clean house. Considering it's about people, it's necessary too. Nice job. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Overdue, I reckon. It will grow again, of course :( Sitush (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian numbering help?
I was wondering if you could convert this into the Western style numeric system? Its written in the Indian numeric system and I am not sure how to convert it. The number is 30,56,579. Many thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is all explained here. I would be wary of converting from that system to a Western style if the article has adopted Indian conventions, but you could always stick the Western style in parentheses. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers. The whole article was written so poorly that I had a hard time distinguishing what was what, but I will do that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Independence day wishes
Happy independence day! Please review this page and reply on my talk page. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If this message is good enough, I will add bits to it and send to all Indians on wiki at around 6. Please suggest improvements. If you give good additions, I will add your name after mine in the message. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't, I am afraid. I am not even Indian. You are making a massive assumption on that page when you welcome your "fellow Indians", just like the Mumbai "sort of" spam that has been circulating of late. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * D'oh. I made an assumption that you are a member of WP:IND, maybe you are English. Although its not spam, its just wishes, info, and a reminder for WikiConference India. Anyways have a look at 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. I have formatted 77 refs. Will complete rest ~40 around today or tomorrow. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No probs, although I guess that someone can be a member of IND and still not be Indian. I have been keeping an eye on your work at that article. It desperately needed the overhaul which you are providing. I keep meaning to return to it myself because the general format is all wrong and there are numerous issues with the sources used. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually planned to spread the message, and now will, because there are 1893 Indian Wikipedians but only 285 WP:IND members, so, I realized that the WPP would do well with a few extra hands. So I even created a topicon so that Indians can just add that and become a member. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather have the impression that a lot of Indian and Indian-origin Wikipedians do not announce that fact and that of those that do, a fair number deliberately want no involvement in the project because it is such a hotbed., &  are three that I can think of who may know more about this whole issue. In principle, your idea is a fair one but I am unsure about the detail. Maybe it needs running through the project pages itself first? Just to get input etc? - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility and Assumptions of Good Faith
How about you drop the attitude and start contributing to the issue (at the dispute resolution noticeboard) constructively. The exercise is to get all the disputants to present their reasoning concisely and without unnecessary descriptions. Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the one who is offering to find extra sources, who is suggesting possible rephrasing etc. The other "side" is stonewalling. You do not know the back story. The entire thing is a farce. - Sitush (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ever come across James Burgess?
Specifically [http://books.google.com/books/about/Indian_antiquary.html?id=6BooAAAAYAAJ James Burgess's Indian antiquary , Volume 23]? I found an article with a history section relying heavily on this book, and I'm always doubtful of alleged stories of Indian history written in the late 1800s by British colonizers. I don't want you to join the article (you've got too much else going on), but this sounds like the sort of thing you might have run across before. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is the same Indian Antiquary then it was a quite well respected publication, founded edited by Richard Carnac Temple. I came across it while doing some work on William Crooke. Having said that, it is old, it had all the usual gubbins about anthropometry etc in it & it was essential reading matter for the colonial administration. So, a few grains of salt might be required. I read a few of them, purely for my own interest. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few at archive.org, btw. Use List of works of William Crooke to get a starting point if need be (archive.org has a dreadful search engine & the cataloguing is all over the place). - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill
Sitush you are in edit war.sorry sir,but honestly you should be blocked from editing at yadav article because you are not dicussings controversial things at talk page and apply your wrong concept in article.In Origion section you were starting with occuption of community in present and making conclusive statement based only on one auther.who's origion you are writing Ahir or ABHIR or Yadav or YADAVA.DO NOT threat new contributer.i have give so much respect it does not mean that i cant answer your baseless allegation.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, I have reverted you once and most of the content of the other guy who inserted all the rubbish yesterday. You, on the other hand are at about 5 or 6 reverts - against me and MV. We have tried explaining how things work but you seem not to be understanding. I have even asked you if there is any way in which we might try an alternate explanation to assist your understanding. You did not even reply to that one. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But you did not explain the so called deleted rubbish on talk page even once.why you are applying double standards.you are not understanding my points intentionaly.you are ignoring them and falsely blaming me.why you afraid fo discussion.are your motives match the interest of our reader and wikipedia standard?Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have explained the deletion. At length. It just seems to be that you do not like it. Honestly, Bill, you do not have a leg to stand on here because it was not just me who had issues with what I removed. Eg: Fowler&fowler and MatthewVanitas did also. Plus, most simply, much of that content was quite clearly contrary to the various policies, some of which have only just been clarified by an uninvolved third party at WP:DRN. I think that you may perhaps be listening a little too closely to MangoWong, whose interpretations of policy have been shown on several occasions to be quite wide of the mark.
 * If you have any issues with my recent additions then by all means raise them on the article talk page. But, please, do not just say "I don't like it" or something similar. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You should develop the habbit to discuss the topic on talk page first.i have it and i have done it every time.but you have now no moral authority to teach the lessons of debate to others.because you are not only voilating the policy of wikipedia but also involve in defaming some coomunity by inserting wrong,unauthentic,irrelevant,and baseless material in articles particularly in yadavs.you are involve in threatening the new userBill clinton history (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My first Wiki Article and Category here on Wikipedia!
Hi Sitush,

I have created My first Wiki Article and Category here on Wikipedia! They are as follows: I am quite excited about this; in-fact, too much excited! Though, I have made a sincere and honest effort there, but I do understand that it still may need some fixes. I invite You to have a look over there. And, please let Me be aware of the points that I may have missed, so that I may create even better articles in future. Thanks You for Your Moral Support, always! GOD Bless You
 * Korindo (the Raelian temple)
 * Category:Raëlian terms

Thanks! Sincerely -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done. It is not a bad first go at all and, yes, can be exciting. Go have a lie down! 


 * I have simplified some of your sentences (we really do not need to say "the first place on planet Earth", for example, since we know that Japan is indeed on Earth). I also removed your link to the Japan article because, per WP:OVERLINK, we do not link to countries.


 * The above are minor things but the big issue is that you rely entirely on the Raelians as a source for the information. This is not usually a good idea but I do realise that the cult-ish nature of them might make it difficult to find alternate sources. Could you perhaps search more generally around newspapers/news websites etc to see if anyone reported on it? I notice that you do have a link to a BBC story in the External Links section. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You for Your invaluable time and suggestions! I will definitely do as suggested. I will make sure that the article does have third party sources. Thank You again for letting Me aware of My mistakes in such a supportive manner. You will see that when I create an article next time, I will definitely take care of Your suggestion.

Thanks! Sincerely -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Yadavs have OBC status.. I think
Hi!

I was randomly viewing articles and came across Yadav. From what I have heard they are OBC (Other Backward Castes). No where does the page mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

http://scholarship.up.nic.in/list_obc.htm (Mentions Kurmi, Yadav etc as OBCs.)

It's amusing how they demand special treatment from government when it comes to jobs/college admissions and also want to known as upper caste! Forward backward! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article did mention it but it was removed during a period of edit warring. It will get fixed but the issue at present is where to put it: someone has agreed to sort that particular issue out. These sort of things, by the way, are better said on the talk page for the article because then everyone who has an interested can see and respond. Nonetheless, thanks for bringing it to my attention - I may well have forgotten otherwise. I agree about the peciliarity. It is quite common on caste articles here, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no mention of their OBC status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Socks
In general, its best not to refer to other editors as "possible socks" like you did in this edit summary. If you have sock evidence, you should take it to SPI; or, if you don't have enough evidence yet, wait until you do to make the claim. I think the revert was perfectly acceptable, because the content was unsourced, but adding the unsupported socking claim isn't appropriate. I know that you do mean well with such a claim, but without evidence, that could be taken as a form of a personal attack (again, I know that's not how you mean it, but it's how it might be perceived). Instead, if you think someone is a sock but aren't ready yet to push a formal claim, gather evidence on a subpage and/or ask for other editors with familiarity with the subject to take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A moment of frustration. There have been some mysterious edits of late. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill
Not flush my talk page with warning unnecessarily.this not suits the behaviour of a senior editor.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill, if you knew what you were doing then you would not need the warnings. You have inserted big chunks of copyvio and templating a new user (as you continually claim to be) is exactly the right thing to do. I have expanded on the issue at Talk:Yadav, where you will likely get some third opinions. Please do not start taking yet another bad example out of MangoWong's book re: what can/cannot be done on your talk page. It is to your advantage to know about these issues. Copyrgiht violations are taken extremely seriously. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Bill, you have the right to ask that Sitush not come to your talk page for general issues(he doesn't have to follow the request, but will to be polite), however, you can't forbid him from placing neutrally worded warnings about your conduct. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to Sitush or you if later Sitush thinks you've crossed the line and need to be sanctioned (like you were for edit warring).  Our rules require that we warn editors before blocking them, so warning you is still okay for Sitush, that way you know when you're doing something wrong.  Obviously, Sitush can't just harass you with warnings, but if there is a legitimate concern, you should be notified.  And you are always allowed to immediately remove anything Sitush puts on your talk page--doing so is an acknowledgment that you have read the concern and no longer need it on your page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rao Balbir Singh
You added a speedy deletion template to the article, then, in your next edit with reflinks, removed it. Was the removal intentional? Just wanted to check to be sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is more weird than that. I removed citation #2 as it seemed to be irrelevant & I ran Reflinks once, then CSD'd. There is no way I ran Reflinks twice and no way that I re-added cite #2. Well, not deliberately at any rate.


 * The CSD was for copyvio but a couple of hours later I worked out that this may indeed be the same Singh as is now mentioned at Yadav, in which case an alternative would be to replace with a single inane statement that the guy was elected to some Raj equivalent of a parliament in 1937, citing Jaffrelot. I am just not 100% sure because the naming there are a few variants of the subject's name. It is complicated. My gut feeling is to remove and then recreate if some definite useful content/connection turns up. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive (again)
Hi Sitush, sorry to bother you again, only neither I nor Acabashi can see my archive? neither of us has a clue why and I wondered if youd pop over and have a look for me. Many thanks. Panderoona (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is there, but under a different archive number due to the initial problem that you had. I have temporarily redirect archive #1 to archive #3 so that the link on your talk page works. I have asked an admin to delete #1 and at that point will move #3 to be #1, request deletion of #3 and reset the counter. THat way, all should be good for the future.


 * You can always request deletion of pages in your own userspace by using WP:CSD rationale G7, which is done by adding to the top of the relevant page. It sometimes takes a few hours for someone to get round to it. Obviously, you cannot request deletion of your active talk page or main userpage, and there may be other obscure cases where it is inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sitush its all looking good now :) Panderoona (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * did it all, not me. There was (rightly) a concern that unless the counter was reset pretty much simultaneously then the bot might run and recreate the same problem. Very useful people, these admins ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi PP
I'm off to bed, but since the last IP editor is obviously a sock of someone (don't know if it's a blocked editor or just someone trying to dodge 3RR), I requested semi-protection. Depending on which admin adjudicates it, they may decide for full protection or even just to decline if they call it a content dispute, but I figure it's worth trying. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be time for an RfC to set things straight with reference to this issue, but only if you think that particular part can hold up now; if it needs more work, we can wait. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been waiting for Fowler&fowler to indicate that their additions are completed, then intended to go through the entire article. I have the feeling that F&F is now enmeshed in an unrelated difference of opinion with MangoWong at Mehrgarh, so we may be in for a bit of a wait.
 * I am unsure how an RfC would assist in any event. Won't people just keep ignoring whatever the outcome of the process may be? How does it advance things? Having never been involved in one - and only having glanced at a couple - I am unsure of the usefulness in a situation such as this. Basically, the article needs to be permanently semi-protected and of course that is not the way the project is intended to operate. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If an RfC shows community consensus on a particular point (especially if uninvolved editors weigh in), then anyone trying to subvert that after that point without new data/evidence/citations is edit warring against consensus. Right now, it's a little hard to say conclusively what consensus is, given the fact that many of the discussions have been derailed, or have been repeating the same info over and over, or whatever.  Plus, an RfC is part of the larger dispute resolution process, and shows a deliberate step to achieve consensus. One way of looking at that is that it is an attempt to stop the edit warring and stabilize at least part of the article.  Another way of looking at it is that it is a necessary step in the longer DR process which eventually leads to ArbCom.  I've already publicly stated that I believe that, eventually, caste articles will be a major ArbCom case, with a very wide range of articles placed under general sanctions--I simply cannot imagine any other future result, given that we are talking about [what I perceive to be] a clash of cultures here: WP culture, which says that "truth" is defined by what reliable sources say (where RS tend to be modern, academic, well researched analysis), vs. traditional Indian/tribal culture, which says that "truth" is based on what a local community collectively agrees to, generally based on whichever particular religious text, ancient carving, or British interloper supports their position. The road to stability on these articles is extremely long; but the only road I know is the one that uses our complex and (somewhat) painful DR process.  Note that if we ran an RfC, I'd say it should be very narrow to start (probably just on the varna issue). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kardashians/Jenners
I don't quite appreciate your tone, I feel as if you are talking down to me, perhaps you should stick to the facts and not add the whole "If you had bothered..." part. Also, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree that a brother-in-law is a trivial relation. I don't feel that way about my brother-in-law or sister-in-law. And, if we are limiting the relations in the family info box, then none of the Jenner kids (except Kendall and Kylie) nor Bruce (not blood related) should appear in articles for Kourtney, Kim, Khloe and Robert we wouldn't want to have any trivial step siblings or parents in the info. boxes. It is obvious that these not blood relations mean something to these people, if not why would Kim and Khloe have Bruce walk them down the aisle??? Also, who are you to deem the BIL relations as "trivial" I have seen the show and Lamar is just as much part of that family as anyone. Also, I would not deem these basketball player BILs as being a "minor" celebrity.Blueeyes8724 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate

 * ? - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Madurai wide Image
Hi Sitush, what about that illuminated photo of Teppakulam. i changed the image coz, panorama photo 'madurai dawn.jpg' has already been used at the infobox template. What was ur point of view to change that. எஸ்ஸார் (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Actually, you moved the dawn image to the infobox yesterday, presumably to make way for the illuminated image which you added today. Wikipedia articles are meant to be read; images are meant to convey some additional information. One panorama is enough, even more so when there are a lot of other images in the article and those images are actually informative. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 at ANI again
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Against better judgement... legendary dynasties
Was poking around Category:Kshatriya for some debunking, ended up checking out each of these, realising they were terrible text-dumps of completely unclear origin and not a single RS, with unref and merge tags going back years, so I decided to just BEBOLD and redirect them all to Lunar Dynasty. Here are the victims: Somvanshi Pathare Kshatriya, Somvanshi Kshatriya, Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare.

Not unlike Tamil Kshatriya, there was little online academic attestation of the terms themselves, and again no idea where the huge screeds folks included came from. Lunar Dynasty has ridiculous huge genealogy lists... and accompanying massive influx of "little tweaks" from IPs. Those two events occurring together is generally an indication that said long lists are completely untrustworthy after such "tweaking" so I'm going to propose on the Talk that we just junk the list (and honestly, most of the article) and just see what happens. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh...Lunar Dynasty. I found that article a couple of days ago when I was researching an addition to something (don't remember what)...I actually navigated away as soon as possible because that artilce is just...so...bad....that the thought of fixing it made me cringe.  Plus, I will be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) if there are not loud loud objections to any removals.  One minor thing to keep in mind, if you are going to get aggressive on that article, is that, since that is an article about religious issues, the restrictions on primary sources are a little more relaxed.  People still can't say "Religious document X proves that Group Y is in Caste Z", but you can use the religious sources to say "Religious document X says..."  as long as what follows that is as close to a literal reading of X as possible. Of course, interpretation of the docs still needs secondary sources...why is it that every time I follow a link or look for more info on articles related to India, I feel like I have an 80% chance of running into something cringe-worthy.  At least on Lunar Dynasty I can walk away and not feel too bad (after all, there's a lot of unsourced stuff all over WP), but when I run into a BLP filled with unsourced, negative claims.... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

fomenting caste related calumnies...
dear sitush your work done on indian caste namily(kurmis,jats,yadavs,gujjars...etc)is absolutely mix bag of baloney and promiscuous reading.The chutzpah shown by you is chundering wrong cognizance in the picture.I dont have to be rude to you, but i disdain those who meddle in the matter in which they dont possess any command.In the talk pages of all these caste i have seen people bickering about something or other and you have been the one with the dictatorship role,you should refrain from such kind of behaviour coz it ain't gives a very flattering image of yours to general readers..The image of a incinerator that you have now can be worked upon,i m not an enemy of yours rather a friend so i do really hope you can work on this and please if i sound bit hurting than please forgive me and i m not at all in a pugnacious mood at this very moment of jotting down this section...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.9.158 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What specifically has Sitush done wrong? Please note that all work on Wikipedia articles must be based, not on what we "know", but based on what reliable sources say.  In general, Sitush is one of the most diligent editors in looking up sources, reading them at great length, and editing so that our articles accurately represent those sources.  Now, you should know that on the talk pages of many of those articles, some people don't like this method--that is, they don't want to follow Wikipedia rules, and instead they just want to write whatever they think is true.  That's a problem, and, in fact, reflects badly on them, not Sitush.  Hope this helps explain the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian dear if you really think that you guys are here for clean up,i just saw some thing which i cant believe ...just have a look at these ..i mean jatavs(chamars) are the lowest people in caste hierarchy and are included in scheduled caste by indian govt,and the wiki show that they are kshatriyas .i mean none of jats,rajputs,yadavs,gujjars or kurmis dont even allow them to enter there door step and you guys are busy in proving these caste as shudras and not even cared of cleaning kshatriyas baloney from lower caste chamars(jatavs).so what do you have to say???or is it that you guys are working on these 5 castes only and taking out your enimity from some users by vandalising the information of these kshatriyas caste...no matter what you guys write in wiki by picking the worst matter these caste namely(jats,yadavs,rajputs,gujjars) are still goona be proud people because whatever is written in wiki has nothing to do with practicality...so what would one make out of this when one get to know all this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.9.158 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress, and has close to 4 million articles. Sorry that I don't watch all of them. The reason why we've been working primarily on only a handful of castes is, well, in all honesty, because other editors have been highly resistant to allowing the articles to be raised up to basic standards--they would prefer that the articles stay unsourced or badly sourced, so long as they say what they want them to. I also have other articles and projects on Wikipedia that interest me far more than Indian caste articles, so...yeah.  However, if you see something on Wikipedia that is wrong, and you have a source to verify other information, be bold and fix it yourself.  That's the Wiki way.  Now, if you add unsourced info, or remove sourced info, or whatever, someone may revert you.   You may have to go the article page and talk about it...and talk about it. And talk about it, and use dispute resolution, etc. etc.  It will be decades before Wikipedia (which, I would like to remind you, is a 100% volunteer project) is even close to being a consistently reliable high quality source. And you know what? Some articles will never get there, because there is too much resistance from people with vested interest in preserving misinformation.  But, we all do our best. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

james tod
i know much more about indian history then you know and your constant lower caste edits itself shows the reason, go to the talk page of james tod and have an open discussion then see how i will puncture your theory which you have continuoulsy showed against upper castes.NISHUKUMAR (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion campaign
Please stop this campaign against articles that I have created. The only possible reason that you could have selected Magherafelt Sky Blues for deletion is that it was me who created it - otherwise you would have selected numerous other articles for similar clubs that were created by other editors. Stop now. Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I was looking for clubs with Blues in the name/nickname to settle a pub bet. They include obvious biggies such as Manchester City. OTOH, if you are creating poorly sourced/fail to meet GNG articles then they will be PRODed etc. You know how to avoid that. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page semi
I have semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours, to stop the current wave of attacks. If you really don't want it on there, let me know (I'll be on for a little while longer). Also, if necessary, if the problem continues past 24 hours, we can also re-add it. Personally, I don't like my talk page being semi-protected, I've had to do it occasionally for short periods. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed. I am not a great fan of the idea but right now the incoming seems to be consuming a lot of the time of other people who probably have better things to do. Let's see how things go. Thanks to all for handling it. Expect a blog post and a reference to my mother being a dog shortly. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually Salvio giuliano must have gotten to it just before I did; looks like he did a little less than 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I haven't been contributing to these debates enough (been quite busy at work), so the current wave of attacks doesn't include me. I feel like a slacker now. Don't forget what William Blake wrote: "Listen to the fool's reproach! it is a kingly title!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It related to an article that you have had no involvement in at all. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the link
I think it is being unduly fussy to remove this link. I have tried my best to get a better link for papiya ghose on the web. This I gave only after I had no other choice. --arunbandana 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise also we know we can't provide reference to support every word we write on wiki. --arunbandana 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)


 * We rely on reliable sources, not just any sources. The link was clearly not reliable in my opinion. If something is not verifiable to independent reliable sources then it simply should not be mentioned. If you believe that the link which you provided is in fact reliable then you can always seek a third opinion by raising the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. You may be right. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Points of Grammar
Dear Sitush

U have reverted my edits related to the use of 'near' and 'cater' in the article on Patna University by mentioning that they are 'plain wrong'. I am not saying that u are wrong by using the way u want them to be used in the article. But I want to assert that it is more common to use them in the way I wanted them to be used. At least they are not 'plain wrong' at all. May I request u to consult a standard dictionary and respond to me. Perhaps we would be both following the spirit of the wiki in that case. --arunbandana 16:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A college "caters for" its students; it does not "caters to" (sic) its students. Well, not in any work concerning grammar that I have ever seen, at any rate. On the other hand, a college is "near to ABC" is moot; you could arguably say that it is "near ABC". Since one was plain wrong and the other made no odds, it was simpler just to revert them both. Especially because it also improved the flow of the language.


 * Now, this may be the outcome of some subtle differences in linguistic style of which I am unaware, as for example with US English where people "write A" but in English English they "write to A". In the case of the article, I happen to know that it was written in "English English" because I was the person who pretty much rewrote it some months ago when merging various forked articles. In this situation, the general principle is that the style used at the outset is the style that should be maintained. Hope that this helps (to) explain. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

At the outset I must thank you for the response. I do have the regard for your achievements on wiki. However I would like to quote LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary English in order to stand by what I had conveyed regarding the use of "cater" and "near". As it is mentioned in page number 233 of the dictionary, Cater for sb/sth also cater to sb/sth (phr v) : to provide a particular group of people with things they need or want. This means both(cater to/for) are equally correct. One can be used in place of the other. In no case can the the tag 'plain wrong' be used for 'cater to' in this context. Similarly 'near to' may be correct but the use of 'near' is equally correct. And both these are acceptable according to British English or 'English English' as we can call it. For me deletion is not the issue as much as the tag 'plain wrong'. Even the deletion should be done after giving an opportunity to justify. arunbandana 16:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) arunbandana (talk)


 * Suggesting someone consult a dictionary while spelling "you" with only its final letter... How precious. Lady  of  Shalott  02:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if my use of the short form of 'you' is inappropriate here in any way. arunbandana 16:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) arunbandana (talk)


 * I have learned something, but it changes nothing. The edit summary reflected my knowledge at the time and was in good faith. Some things matter and some do not: you acknowledge that "caters for" and "near to" are acceptable, and a quick, very rough GSearch suggests that in the UK (where I would imagine that English is as English as it gets, although US English is increasingly common) the term "caters for" is more widely used by a ratio of 2:1. Yours was a pointless change which did not even improve the flow of the relevant passages. It has the appearance of being an edit for the sake of editing.


 * Wikignoming for spelling, grammatical issues etc can be a very useful thing to do and generally it is much appreciated, but when the result is "no net gain" then why bother? Just leave it alone, please, and I would suggest that should you come across the phrases again somewhere else then you leave those alone also. The best that such an edit achieves is "no gain" and it runs the risk of irritating some people. As with debates regarding split infinitives etc, such changes are not worth the hassle. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Curious.
Why does this IP's who is draw a blank? http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=50.11.153.223 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try this. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It does work. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonder why Whois doesn't work? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who cares? - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Get well wishes!
Sorry to hear about your accident. Here's hoping you feel better soon. (Or are feeling better by the time you log in to read this.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I add my sympathies and hopes for rapid healing. Lady  of  Shalott  04:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, that sounds awful. Can the doctors not suture is back?  If there's anything I can do, please let me know.  Meanwhile, here's wishing you a speedy recovery.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Get well soon - I'm so sorry to hear about your accident. I hope they can save it. My thoughts are with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * !?!???!! Trying to brick up that wall again?! I hope you feel better soon !!! Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Best wishes from me too; I hope you get well soon. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Get well soon Sitush!--Sodabottle (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My Wishes... Get Well Soon! -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughts. It is bloody and sore, as well as bloody sore. But it was not completely detached & so there is hope regarding feeling etc - had a bit of work done by a specialist something or another (not sure what, as my hearing aids were AWOL at the time). Next time I need to trim a toenail I will try something a little less drastic. Will try to keep away from here for a bit because I am concerned about how the meds may affect my editing/judgement. Some would doubtless argue that it is already wayward. - Sitush (talk)
 * Sitush! What? You're too old for this stuff--besides, you have a brother. Let him to the more dangerous work, such as grooming. Hope you get better soon. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone above seems to know what you did to your foot (I know that part as the Lady posted about it on the good Doc's TP), but get well soon! (as that seems to be the gist of everyone else's message!) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Spiff. I was using an angle grinder when some idiot threw something in my general direction. I saw that something (a pizza box, as it turns out) from the corner of my eye, reacted to avoid it & sliced the grinder right through the steel toecaps of my left boot. The toe is a bit of a mess but the positives are (a) it was not completely severed; (b) the heat of the diamond disc pretty much cauterises; (c) the cut is straight rather than jagged. Another positive, although probably rather specific to me, is that I don't have a lot of sensation at the end of that toe anyway, a consequence of frostbite while camping in sub-zero temperatures (-19C, IIRC) at Glencoe many years ago. The slice is across the knuckle joint, so it ain't likely to bend again and there will no feeling beyond that point, but the real issue is infection & the compromised blood supply.
 * I am being careful about editing because I am doped on pretty strong painkillers (downgraded to Tramadol today), and from past experience of the things when I broke my hip they make my ability regarding comprehension even more weird than it already is. So, I'm back editing but am trying to time it to suit and just doing the plain obvious rather than developing stuff. If I mess something up now then I could claim extenuating circumstances, but this is my decision and therefore the responsibility would also be entirely mine. Trying to be careful ... and considering opening a campaign against the production of pizza boxes and the existence of idiots. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Disambig at Bhim Singh Dahiya 
Hi Sitush, I'm really Sorry for replying so late to Your message on My talk page... but, I'm really very busy these days. Actually, I'm looking forward to initiate a new business. Yes, no disambiguation is required over there. Dear Mate, please note that I've only checked that no disambiguation is required over there, and that He's only concerned about the Phonetics, and I am sure about this! About the Goths... well, besides Him, some scholars do claim this connection! Thanks! Sincerely: -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
If you feel like it take a look at the AfD for List of Miss Model of the World winners.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ''I'm glad you caught yourself here; I'm even gladder you're better than you were. Take care Sitush!'' Drmies (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Article regarding Mullanchery M Velaian
Will you pls tell me why you have deleted the awards..

1. one Award is from District forest office gov of India 2. one Award is from nehru yuva kendra which also gov of India 3. one Award is from Rotary Club which also gov of India

what is the problem here? what documents need to improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bose0123 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC) --Bose0123 (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya page
Hello Sir/Madam,

Why did you remove the lists of groups within the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nāgvanshi sections? You mentioned that there is/are main article(s) for this type of detail in your removal comments, however, which articles are you referring to? Please kindly provide a link to the articles, if you cannot, then I request you to place the list of the groups back under the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nāgvanshi sections. Thank you! :-)

KhatriNYC3 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At the Kshatriya article, under what is currently section 9 in the menu ("Kshatriya lineage") there are links to all of the articles you mention above. However, I'll put them here also: Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi. Please note that you really should provide a reliable source to support additions of the type that I think you intend. A blog is not usually a reliable source for this type of information.
 * However, I cannot see a single recent edit by a contributor with your username, although and myself did revert a series of edits that fit your description and were originally inserted by . Have you changed your user name? - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

with all do respect, there was reliable source citations for the Khatris and Aroras being listed on the Kshatriya page under the Suryavanshi section. Why did you remove these groups (i.e. Khatris, Aroras, Jats, etc). yes, I use to contribute to the page many months ago, and have been away. I forgot my username and created a new one today. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is odd, since I was not editing India-related articles "many months ago" & therefore could not have reverted your edits then, although I did revert as explained above but that was for Redaloes two days ago. Are you sure about your dates? In any event, if there is something in the article that should not be there then feel free to delete it, although if it is cited then it might be best to discuss the proposed deletion on the article talk page first if the info has been there for a while. You may also want to check out WP:SOCK, just in case. Although there are situations in which using multiple accounts can be ok, from what I have read so far this is unlikely to be one of those. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the history of edits on the page, you removed the groups (Khatri, Arora, Jat, etc.) sometime on August 15, 2011. I was not implying you made changes many months ago. In those multiple Aug 15th, 2011 changes made by you, you removed the Khatri, Arora, and Jats from the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi sections. These groups have been under these sections for years now, and were discussed years ago, and it came to the conlusion that they belonged there, so I am not sure why you yourself would remove those without any discussion on the talk page. Like I said, those groups have belonged on the Kshatriya page for many years...much longer before then you started editing Indian articles like you mentioned. So, please put those groups back under the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi sections.

KhatriNYC3 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find me a diff for the discussion then I will look into it. Have you now read up about use of multiple accounts? I remain concerned about you and Redaloes. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that have worked it out from the various talk page archives. You probably were, had a slight issue with blocks for IP socvkpuppetry, forgot that username, and then recently registered as .Would that bit be correct?
 * As far as the Kshatriya talk archives go, all I can find so far is people saying that your sources were not good enough, but I will keep reading it. The diff of my removal is here. Some detective work, hey? It would be a lot easier if you could provide this sort of information at the outset.
 * Anyway, I'll read through the archived thread later & see what were the various arguments for and against. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, what I see in the article talk page archives is a lot of arguing, a lot of page protection, a lot of probable IP socking, a lot of poor sources and a lot of original research. I see nothing that says the lists of names that I removed should exist as a list in the article, just various arguments about who is/was Kshatriya.
 * Now, if you go to Chandravanshi then you will see what appears to me to be a much better way of dealing with this issue. Believe me, Kshatriya may make sense to you but it is a horrendous article for any reader who is not already familiar with the subject, and this sort of defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fixing that article and moving detailed lists to more appropriate articles (thus reducing the complexity of Kshatriya enormously, and spreading the load across four other relevant places) seems to make perfect sense to me.
 * I rather think that there may be underlying support for this because I would imagine it to be a high traffic article and my removals appear to have gone unqueried for a fortnight. How about we both work to improve it and also to incorporate any removed content into the relevant dynastic origin articles? Reinstating just those communities which you mention would be hopelessly undue weight and, to be honest, they were the ones that appear to have been most disputed in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, much respect to your detective work indeed. Yes infact, my old name was KhatriNYC. I went to the Chandravanshi page, and I like the way they laid out the communities as "Groups claiming Lunar origin". Perhaps we can do something similar on the Suryavanshi page, and place the Khatri, Arora, Jat, and all other groups that you removed from the Kshatriya page and place them on to the Suryavanshi page, and then let people who have citations and references make updates on the Suryavanshi discussion board. This way, you reduce the amount of information on the Kshatriya page and allow the users who claim they have lineage in any of the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi sections to make their case on those pages, respectively. What do you say? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, what you describe is exactly how I saw things developing. I got distracted, sorry. The Chandravanshi list should really be presented in alphabetical order, as should the lists to be inserted into the other three articles. Just hang fire for a little while, though. I am not sure what the situation is regarding your new username and will have to ask someone whether you should really be editing with your original name or whether it is ok to carry on with the new one. I have the feeling that there is a little bit of protocol involved somewhere (perhaps a declaration that you previously edited as X but are now Y, for example). I'll leave a note on both user talk pages when I've got an answer. OK? - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. But in the meantime, lets get the ball rolling on adding the communities to where they belong on any of the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi pages. I will follow up with you in the next few days, thanks for your help! KhatriNYC3 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. FYI, the Great Minds consulted are of the opinion that if would be best if you insert at the top of your user talk page. It is intended for clarity and will avoid any accusations of you socking with your new account. It would probably be best not to log into your old account in future - just stick to the one that you have just created. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, any updates on adding the Khatris, Aroras, Jats, and other communties to the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi, and Nagvanshi pages? If you are not able to do this, I can do it, and I will add them back to the Kshatriya page as well. Thanks. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. We have misunderstood each other here. I sort of thought that you would be getting this ball rolling on the various Suryavanshi etc articles - my mistake, sorry. You are welcome to do so, though, since I am a bit tied up. What does concern me is your comment above that "and I will add them back to the Kshatriya page as well". That defeats the object. Yes, they should be in the related articles but there is no need to reinstate them in the Kshatriya one, precisely because they will be in those other articles. The idea is not to duplicate but to make things easier to handle overall. We have a brief summary in Kshatriya, which links to the main articles - Suryavanshi etc. Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edits of Patna University
Creating an article is not a problem as long as you have the sufficient time at your disposal only for wiki. You have to do a lot of research before hosting a reasonable one, though there are quite a few substandard ones available on our wiki. arunbandana (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I still think that compelling a part time wiki editor to go such a long way of creating an article about R C Prasad when he fulfills the criteria of Notability (academics) is not fair. The committed editors/administrators like you and others should not take it personally and allow the obvious standard stuff to be posted on wiki and not stick to the gun that you are authorized to hold. Otherwise the voice of sanity will always be stifled here. Of course there are a lot of unethical practices taking place at various places including wiki. But we are unable to distinguish between the ethical and unethical perhaps. arunbandana (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the edit summary of your recent editing for Patna University where you have reverted my edits perhaps in good faith. You are also advising me to create an article on the subject if I 'think they are notable'. My request is that you should read the cited reference and then tell me whether R C Prasad is notable or not. If so, then why to delete, why not to allow it to remain when it meets the criteria of Notability (academics). Of course I would like to create an article on him in due course. arunbandana (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I understand that the bulk of new articles are created by relatively new contributors. Sure, some are of a rather poor standard but not all are such and since the project is timeless you can take as long as you like in creating a draft in your own userspace. I can help you out with that, if you want.


 * However, on the specific point of Prasad's notability I think that the best venue is the ongoing discussion which you are involved in with at Talk:Patna_University. Spreading these things around probably will not achieve an awful lot. If you believe that Prasad satisfies the notability criteria then please could you explain in that discussion why this is so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of help which I would require in future. However I would like to clarify that I wrote on your talk page only after you deleted the content in 'good faith'. Otherwise the discussion on had come to a logical end. I still very strongly feel that R C Prasad's name must be included there on the basis of the criteria of Notability (academics). You may verify the reference that I have provided for the same. If you wish I can continue this discussion further on. arunbandana (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at User_talk:Muhandes. This is my whole point: discussing on numerous pages creates problems. Discuss it on the article talk page, since that is the central venue and anyone who is interested will be able to see it. FWIW, I note that Muhandes also felt that a separate article is required/queried the notability of Prasad. Nonetheless, I will not be discussing that specific person on my own talk page any further. I'll gladly assist you in other ways but this is not the place for that discussion. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lodhi
Sitush, Don't edit page Lodhi

sitush have you ever read rigveda, Manusmriti or Shiv pura if not than go it and see. You can have English translation of these oldest literature of HINDU/ Sanatan Religion. There u can find what lodhies are. I have already given few links. No where in Hindu scripture Lodhis are titled as Shudra, they are titled as warriors. U have read Jains book which has been written just 5 or 10 years back, you are give it as resource? Jains also have one gotra of Lodha,go and search it.It shows that these lodhas are converted to Jainism.

I can ready to give many sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Made you a few little gifts
Consider these a few little get-well gifts and thanks for your amazing work at Yadav; I just kept following the rabbit-hole:


 * Raghunath Vithal Khedkar
 * Vithal Krishnaji Khedkar
 * The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for that. I will sort out the caste association article at some point but am currently stripping out Goud while trying to develop a more general point about lists of caste notables regarding which has been offering some suggestions. Of course, Yadav, Kurmi etc still have further work to be done, for which I do have some notes stacked up. Less of the "amazing", though, please. This may sound awful but a lot of these issues seem to me to be a case of shooting fish in a barrel. I may be wrong in that view, I admit to still learning & being willing to learn, and certainly I do sometimes miss the subtleties, but when faced with blatant issues ... - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one am impressed, at any rate. I was chipping on the Yadav article, and had made some incremental progress, but once you arrived and we got that sockpuppet gone things really took off, and your breaking open the Khedkar issue really made a difference. Speaking of which, I made a category tentatively entitled Category:Ahir history, but not sure that's the right title. I want it to be a cat of people who've written on Ahir/Yadav history, and influential books on the subject, but "Ahir history" makes it sound like it's historical events which involve Ahirs. Would "Ahir historiography" be more correct? Not that the indidividuals were historiographers, but we as Wikipedians are writing about them out of historiographical interest in how Ahirs/Yadavs have been portrayed over time. I'm just not quite sure what layer we approach the cat titles from. Suggestion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Got just a stub of Ahir Yadav Kshatriya Mahasabha, and gathering evidence for User:MatthewVanitas/Rao Bahadur Balbir Singh. I'm surprised that nobody has written on him yet, and that he hasn't even really come up in the arguments over Yadav/Ahir. I do note that there seems to be some controversy as to whether he's a king of ancient lineage, or a community chief (one source notes the "so-called Raos of Rewari"), so I need to find the NPOVest take on that.


 * This is very good stuff. Like you, I have been surprised by the absence of articles in this area but suspect that it may be a consequence of the concentration on varna. Despite whatever Indian law may say, varna is as important as it ever was "on the ground". In fact, I have sources to support that statement, and some claim it to actually be more significant now than once it was.
 * The AIYM and AYKM are both deserving of articles, as were the other subjects that this thread already refers to. I've already posited that there may be need for forks from Yadav, but didn't take it any further. I have more info to add to Yadav but, as so often, have got a little sidetracked; in today's case, fixing issues relating to cites of jatland.com. They are now sorted and so hopefully I can soon get back to where I intended to be (although my work on defunct Mancunian engineering companies and English prizefighters of the 18C is no further advanced!) . Obviously, keep doing your stuff: this ferreting about for detail etc fascinates me and seems to have the same effect on you. It is just unfortunate that things seem to get disrupted on a fairly regular basis. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's one of the frustrating things about dealing with people and The Truth. They too often refuse to believe that everything comes from somewhere. They have no interest in hearing "in X year, somebody said, 'hey guys, I think we're Kshatriya!'" To them it's just "this is how it's always been". So even when you so nicely laid out the history of a family dynasty of history-rewriting that literally told folks to change their last names to sound sexier, people instead want to go back to "and thus did X slay Y with his mighty arrow" rather than admit that people just like ourselves were trying to puzzle out who was in charge of whom, who gets free stuff from other people, etc.


 * One thing I find fascinating, and encouraging, is that in many of these articles (Yadav, for example), the "new" version is getting just as many hits, if not more, than the "old" one got (disregarding the intermediary period of frantic pageviews), so presumably the people interested in Yadavs are just as inclined to read the new page about Sanskritisation and surname changes as they were to read about ancient ruins and "look these guys have vaguely similar names, we must be ancient!" arguments. It is my hope that this will get people actually thinking about history, vice just accepting whatever narrative (pro- or anti Foo caste) they've heard up to this point in life. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste folkloric reputations
You raise some interesting points about the Yadava's overall "image", such as can be substantiated by secondary sources or the analysis of socio/pol writers. I had pondered in the past whether it'd be appropriate/constructive to cite some of the old British accounts of the cliches held by the broader Indian community about various castes. A goodly number of them aren't flattering, but can be pretty enlightening as to social roles, etc. I found it particularly interesting (and of course there's not a whisper of this in their caste article) that the Sunar (goldsmiths) were pretty broadly distrusted in financial matters, yet trusted to come to a house and fit women for jewelry. Most of it just deals with the concern that the guy handling small amounts of expensive material is going to shortchange you. My favorite of the various adages was "if you want to see a tiger, look at a cat. If you want to see a thief, look at a Sunar." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it is dangerous territory because it is so subjective & difficult to balance. I am not too worried about it being a generalisation because that is true of pretty much everything in caste articles (eg: no way are all living members of caste X believers in Hinduism, but that is effectively what most of the articles say). In the case of the Yadav article, the fact that their self-glorification is already discussed in depth gives a little leeway but it would not surprise me if the consensus is to remove the Gupta quote. It would be a shame and it would be censorship, but weight is a consideration. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of such collections of impressions: I've quoted the man enough I figured the Late R. V. deserved at the very least a stub from me: R. V. Russell.


 * On a sidenote, and by all means do not feel obligated to get involved since I've dragged you into enough fights already, I anticipate some fur flying at Kallar (caste). I've only begun to trim and poke, and boy howdy does the article bear little to no resemblance to any description of them in other sources. I'm going to have to tread quite lightly and take British sources with much salt, but from the very beginning the article clais Kallar means "brave people" whilst the Brits say it means "right pack of thieves." This one is going to get colourful; there's been some past nasty fighting on Talk, and the IP "contributions" to the article go on and on for pages. I'm like the caste version of Mythbusters here... MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any notion of whom we could bug to get an old photo/portrait of R.V.? Is there some historical society for the Foreign Office, or some Brit agency in charge of maintaining Raj memorabilia? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not dragged me into anything. I go where I go of my own free will, but I do tend to spend a bit of time in one place while things get fixed up. I have poked my head over the parapet at articles such as Shivaji & Kayastha and monitor those without really getting involved, simply because I have not yet read around the subjects in sufficient detail. I can add Kallar to that list.
 * Regarding Russell, well, I guess there will be some early photos of him somewhere but I would not know where to start because my knowledge of him is not great. In fact, if it was not for your cites of him then his name might have more or less slipped under my radar. Prominent ethnologists etc often got their fizzogs featured in obituaries published by this or that Royal society, or similar publications, + the frontispieces of their own books. But they take some searching for if done online mainly because the best source is archive.org and the search facility/index arrangement there is poor. I will keep an eye out but do not hold your breath. In the UK, it is places such as the National Portrait Gallery that would provide the most obvious source, but their images could have copyright issues and I do not think that they are all catalogued online. An email to the Royal Asiatic Society or something similar might produce a useful result.
 * The Indian Civil Service was small - about 1,000 people at any one time - but one sometimes gets the impression that every one of them dabbled in authorship and got something published, somewhere. It was really quite a remarkable feat: 1,000 people "governing" what must have been a few hundred million even then. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

declined prod on Cultural Profile of South Kosal
Turned it into redirect to author's page under WP:ATD (ie book not hoax). However I noticed the article on the author himself is of very poor quality, and as unsourced BLP could be deleted. I have no knowledge on the topic, but you do so i pass that ball to you ;)--Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think that the author may in fact meet WP:Academic but I'll take another look at it. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah! It's all over. I wish that Kim D-B would say his piece to etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shamcey Supsup article: "Pageants" section
Paragraph 6 of the source very clearly stated that she was ranked first by fans during the pageant. (This was SEPARATE from the online voting prior to the pageant night.) I tried to add a video source, too (since the rankings were broadcast and shown on the screen throughout the pageant), but the published article was easier to locate.AldrinHu (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ... and the article says that she topped the online poll but was placed third by the judges. We do not need to record every single poll that took place, and the source you refer to does not mention anything about it being online. Add the citation back if you must, but don't extend the sentence as the current wording covers it just fine. Maybe make poll plural if it is singular, although the sources are in fact ambiguous & therefore without a better source this is really original research. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am a little concerned that you may also be editing as User:Arch23 and possibly under another username also. There are certain stylistic similarities. If you are then please can you stop doing this as, except in very particular circumstances, it is likely to be classed as sockpuppeting and can get you blocked from editing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) I DO know Arch23 - he's my brother. He edits as he wishes, but we are both English teachers, so we are annoyed by the same mistakes. (2) I DID NOT write the original sentence that Shamecey Supsup topped the pre-pageant "online" poll, as that was already there when I first read the article; I merely ADDED the sentence that she topped the fan votes DURING the competition (as I have already mentioned above, the fan votes were SEPARATE). I DID NOT mention anything about it being "online." (3) PLEASE READ THE SOURCE.  As I already mentioned above, paragraph 6 of the article (sentence 10 of the entire article, if you can't find paragraph 6) CLEARLY states "who ranked first among the fans in the vote for the top 5 candidates." (4) I added that sentence to complete the paragraph thought because the first sentence talked about her fan ranking BEFORE the pageant, so it only made sense to state where she actually ranked DURING the pageant.  (5) When Arch23 removed the (as I totally agree) REDUNDANT last sentence, the remaining first sentence, being alone and incomplete, DID NOT cohere with the rest of the sentences in the article, as any English teacher will tell you.  (6) If it pleases you, I will add more sources, but at the very least, that REDUNDANT last sentence should be deleted.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AldrinHu (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please make sure you are reading the ARTICLE SOURCED BY ME. The title is "Angola’s Leila Lopes crowned Miss Universe 2011; Philippines’ Supsup is 3rd runner-up" written by Danica Hermogenes of the Associated Press.  Here's the link: http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/13765/angola%E2%80%99s-leila-lopes-crowned-miss-universe-2011-philippines%E2%80%99-supsup-is-3rd-runner-up.  Please note that the article is NOT the same source that currently refers to the redundant sentence that was placed back.AldrinHu (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, The Interior either DID NOT READ the article I sourced (as s/he was WRONG in stating that the sentence I added was not supported by the source added by me) or was confused. To lessen the confusion, let me clarify.  Fans had TWO opportunities to vote: (1) before the pageant, and (2) during the pageant.  What was stated in the Samcey Supsup article the first time I read it was the result of the votes BEFORE the pageant night.  The sentence that I added was the result of the votes DURING the pageant night.  It was more appropriate to include that sentence because it talked about the SAME SUBJECT: fan votes.  And contrary to what you stated, the sentence as it currently reads is NOT fine as it is since mentioning the third runer-up thing over and over and over again does NOT complete the thought of the first sentence and is completely unworthy of another mention.AldrinHu (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your claim that my source was "ambiguous" does NOT make sense. It was a PUBLISHED article from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - it can't get any more credible than that! Plus anyone who has seen the pageant knows whether the sentence was factual or not because the result of the voting DURING the pageant consumed a third of the broadcast screen beamed live all over the world throughout the event.AldrinHu (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * SHOUTING will get you nowhere, sorry. Nor will making incorrect accusations that someone accused you (or your brother) of vandalism, as was done in the edit summary. I also suggest that you read about lead sections for reasons why your point about redundancy may not apply. If you wish to re-add the citation then feel free, but there is no need for the extra verbiage: just pluralise the word "poll". As an English teacher you should hopefully appreciate that there is a certain ambiguity between the two sources and we are not permitted to infer as that would be original research. The point about the polls is interesting but need not detain the reader for long; what really mattered was the official result. If it were otherwise then the result would have been determined by the polls, would it not?


 * Quite why these beauty pageant articles create so much heat, especially of the nationalist type (although I know not whether you fall into that particular category), is beyond me. Their subjects seem to me to be models of sexism and vacuity, if you will excuse the pun. All I know for sure is that there are two brothers apparently debating one "side" and two independent contributors who have never crossed paths before apparently preferring the opposite and citing various policies. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An afterthought: can you find a source that refers to both of these polls? It would be preferable as it would clearly remove ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Although I was peeved, I was not shouting; I was making clarifications. Please cite evidence that I was shouting.  (2) I did NOT ever state that anyone had accused me or my brother of being a vandal.  Please cite evidence backing your claim that I had made such an accusation.  (3) I added only ONE sentence with ONE source – the one in the original edit I had done, the same one I listed above.  Please cite evidence backing your claim that there were TWO sources (“a certain ambiguity between the two sources”).  (4) As an English teacher, my editing concern focuses on sentence & paragraph structure.  I had already made it very clear that my intention was simply to complete the thought of the first sentence, which talked about the first poll.  I am not Filipino and while I have an interest in the Philippines, I do not really care who won, and NOTHING in the one-sentence edit I had done indicates otherwise.  Please cite evidence from my one-sentence edit backing your insinuation that I could even remotely have any nationalistic, sexist, or vacuous interest in these events.  (5)  Please clarify your statement regarding how my one-sentence edit that merely completes the first sentence would “detain” the reader any worse than the existing redundant sentence that repeats the third runner-up information, which is totally unnecessary.  The current statement, contrary to what you have said, is not fine as it is. (6) We are all just trying to make the article better.  I think that making accusations, either implicitly or explicitly, and arbitrarily deleting changes (without even actually reading the source) is very discouraging, and does NOT do Wikipedia any good.  Thank you for your thoughts and while I question the way my simple edit has been handled, I will keep an open mind about your suggestions.AldrinHu (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am waiting for evidence re the accusations and statements above made against me and my postings. But thank you for making the minor amend in consideration of this discussion.AldrinHu (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For an explanation of shouting, please see WP:SHOUT - it is a common convention that has existed for pretty much all of the 30+ years that I have been using internet/intranet systems, from mailing lists and bulletin boards through to the modern web interface. Regarding the rest of your comment, that which is relevant to the article should really be discussed on the article talk page so that everyone with an interest can see it; of the remainder, I really do not see the point in continuing the discussion because it is clear to me that although you may teach English you are not correctly reading what I write, eg: I said it is my opinion that the pageants are models of sexism and vacuity, not you. It is not a big deal: I make mistakes also, but let's do both of us a favour and just drop it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Rochdale CC
No problem: I remember the suggestion that CLL shouldn't be included, but given that it still is, I felt the PROD should be removed. An AfD would be an interesting test case though, and I certainly wouldn't object to such a move.  Harrias  talk 22:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, taking a CLL club to AfD could be acrimonious. Is the league covered in any depth in, for example, Wisden? The local newspapers carry some match reports/results & occasional trivia for Rochdale CC (I live not too far away, although Unsworth & others are nearer to me) but they are probably insufficient for WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas, Kumar Cheda Singh Varma (1904)
After more than a century of British rule and Western culture in India it is much to be regretted that so much importance still attaches, among the people of the country, to the question of caste; nay, it is even found that modern education and enlightenment are made, by certain sections of the community, to serve the purpose of advancing their respective claims. In these circumstances, no apology need be made for throwing some light on the origin and social position of some of these caste divisions of the Indian people.

About three years ago the Census Commissioner in India (The Hon. Mr. H H. Risley, C.S, C.S.I.) directed that, for the Census of India, 1901, a scheme should be drawn up classifying the various Hindu castes under the four groups of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras ; and assigning to each caste in these groups its proper position according to the order of social precedence The members of certain castes which have, hitherto, in an undefined sort of way, been striving to rise in the social scale eagerly seized the opportunity thus afforded them of having their pretensions to a higher status placed on record and, if possible, stamped with the hall-mark of official recognition.

I'd forgotten about this book, but given our recent work I'm about to kick back and read this critter in its entirety. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hot off the presses: Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The toe
How's the toe? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The wound has split open again and is discharging some 'orrible smelly stuff. But thanks for asking, and thanks to Ponyo for the balloons above! I am not contributing as much because I am on some pretty strong painkillers & doubt that they do much for my judgement (which at least one person would argue is dreadful at the best of times). - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ - the painkillers will come in handy given the topic area you have been editing recently! --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in some ways the Tramadol-induced numbness has its uses. At present, c. 90% of the issues in that topic area relate to the semantics-based arguments of one person. Various admins etc pop in briefly and have a word they are ignored and it just goes on and on, often in a circular fashion. I have probably wasted hundreds of hours on this. I guess that I could always just down the whole bottle of pills and have done with it (nb: I do not intend to - not a suicide threat). But, seriously, I am genuinely concerned that they may be affecting my concentration, so small chunks of work only seems advisable. Either that or go edit something that cannot possibly attract dispute. Does such a thing exist? Would it stay that way, given my stalkers? - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just go to, and look at random links for vandalism, and revert them. It's fairly mindless, although how "satisfying" it is depends on your tastes.  Or, if you really feel up to it, install WP:Huggle and whack  the heck out of vandals.  Or go to some random maintenance category (I like Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing) and clean-up some random article on anime, or food, or a tv show from the 1950s.  Or, you know, close your eyes and sleep!  If Wikipedia helps you convalesce, I say, have at it, but sometimes, surprisingly, walking away is even more restful.  Please get better!  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on Ubuntu, so Huggle is out (except maybe via VirtualBox, which I have set up). Right now I am trying to get MythTV sorted out: it works brilliantly on the backend ("server") but I am having problems connecting to a remote, streamed frontend. Again, concentration is the problem. But it makes a change. I can remember when I started programming as a kid that I used a BASIC prog. lang. interpreter that came on an audio cassette & had much joy when I was able to hack it so that the standard "SYNTAX ERROR" message became "STUPID ERROR". I am a geek, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:MangoWong
Further to your request on AN/I, I've left a talk page message for the user here. Let's see what transpires. --Tristessa (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Some others have commented directly on the article talk page. MangoWong is not an ill-intentioned editor but I felt that some further input might be of use. Things have actually developed since I raise the point at ANI and there is now at least some "drilling down" from the vague to more addressable points of contention. It could be me who is wrong regarding the interpretations of policy/guidelines etc that MW was providing earlier, although the weight those who are "uninvolved" and who have contributed to past discussions of a similar nature tends against that.


 * As far as the various sources in this particular instance go, well, I am open minded. My gut feeling is that the WP:RS basis for any statement regarding varna status (shudra/kshatriya, etc) is at best tenuous, but that the academic dispute regarding the claim to be Rajputs is somewhat more clearly defined in the mainstream. I have contributed little of note to the article other than some toning down of phrasing & reinstatement of items that were removed without apparent good cause per the removal edit summaries - a lot of edits, perhaps, but not much that developed anything in particular. I regard myself as reasonably ok at judging the reliability of a source but in this instance have acknowledged not having read up on the issues in any depth and, of course, am as fallible as the next person. I will read up more when circumstances improve. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

New article E. A. H. Blunt, and whole book with pics of Indian Civil Service cats
Just a small start, but I'll cut-paste the photo in a few days. Any suggestion on specifically which copyright tag would apply to British books from 1907? Or do I have to use Fair Use for some silly Albionic reason? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I went digging through FAQ/Copyright; that eventually brought me to Copyright situations by country, which says that UK copyright is Life+70, meaning it expires 70 years after the author of the book died. Do you know when the author of the book (or the photographer, depending on if this is text or images) died?  1907 is right in a borderline area where we can't be sure just by default.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't there also something about "or 70 years from publication if death date of author unknown"? The other angle, which I just ran across today: apparently the "pre-1923" thing works even if published outside the US, even if it doesn't necessarily correspond to the published country's laws. There's a specific tag I saw on some photo today where instead of "published in the United States prior to 1923" it said "published outside the United States prior to 1923", so I need to dig into that too. If that book ends up being kosher, there have to be a couple dozen articles I can add a photo too.


 * This is why I liked doing US topic for WP:MILHIST: any photo taken by a US federal employee in the line of duty is public domain, so I've illustrated, for example, Military history of Sikh Americans with photos from last year, since they were military public affairs shots. Boy, do I wish Crown Copyright worked like that... MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the person I always turn to with tricky copyright questions is User:Moonriddengirl (the alter ego of current community liason User:Mdennis (WMF)). Try hitting up her (non-WMF) talk page; she (or sometimes her talk page stalkers) has always been helpful in the past for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. I did just cover another figure of India's historiography, Frans-Balthasar Solvyns. Just a stub from the Dutch lede, but the guy has some really interesting artwork that's well out of copyright, so that'll be easy to illustrate. I'm still unclear as to why multiple SPAs put up such a ruckus on Kayastha over the Solvyns painting I added there. I think it's a great pic, and shows traditional dress and occupation, so really unclear as to what the hubub was. Maybe just because the previous pic was the god Chitragupta, and they'd rather showcase their origin legend vice the actual subject of the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Khatri page
Hi Sitush,

I see you made some changes on the Khatri page. You removed data from the following sections:

- images of Kareena, I.K. Gujral, and Rithik Roshan - data in the Military tradition section - infomration in Prominent Historical Khatris section.

I see you removing info that has citied resource texts and references.

Please explain why you are doing this, or at least revert back so the proper citations (that you think are missing) can be addressed.

Thanks, KhatriNYC3 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll revisit the edits in full later. With regard to the images, the edit summary says "remove: the linked articles have no verification of Khatri status". That is surely clear enough? We need some sort of verifiability that those people are/were members of the Khatri community and according to the summary it is not apparent. As an aside, it might be worth you being aware that there appears to be a growing viewpoint that these sort of images should not be in the infoboxes anyway: it is an issue that has been raised several times recently, in discussions at various articles, templates and (if I recall correctly) WT:IN. I would be surprised if consensus to bin them does not emerge sometime in the next few months, although obviously that has no impact on how things appear now.
 * The Khatri article is a bit of a mess even after my clean up, isn't it? Disorganised, numerous verification problems, puffed up, poorly written etc. It needs a lot of work and it is my intention to try some polishing when I have read up on the subject. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now checked the content which I removed from the Military tradition section. It consisted of three unsourced names, all generals and all allegedly Khatris. The edit summary siad "remove: unsourced & the linked articles do not mention Khatri status". This is correct. Furthermore, even if it were shown that these three people were Khatri then it still would not likely support a generalisation about the entire community: three individuals are not representative of a community and you will see that there have been similar issues in other caste articles. Generals etc are drawn from many communities, and it does not make the community "special" in any way. The correct place for these names would be in the separate List of Khatris. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with your points. let me know if I can be of any help. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource request
Hi Sitush. Your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request has been fulfilled. and I managed to piece together the passage about the The Lancashire Steel Company. Goodvac (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

PRODed some more
I've PRODed about 30 or so cricket club articles which I don't think meet notability. Feel free to review them! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed! I did look at a few around the time that you were doing the PRODs and could see no reason to contest them. Perhaps it will encourage someone to find sources that I, for example, have not been able to find and which provide some means of satisfying WP:GNG even if not WP:CRIN. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep most of them went! Including one which claimed their captain was from slightly colder climes! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned
Sitush

You have been vanadalising the Page on Nairs. Your tactic seems to be simple - that you first remove the item from the list under some pretext and then add that thing or person under Ezhava. Gold plating Ezhava community... And you also have a Mathew vanita to support !!!

latest is listing of Madhu and Gopi - who are two great actors - they happened to be Nairs. If not name - then what else you need, certificate from someone. Some of your other edits are demeaning and very low class.

Please resist from doing it any further - Keep Calm and keep your fingers OFFF...

Quite surprised that wiki has no administrator control on these matters..

What are u doing with Lodhi now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnithan1956 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2011


 * I cannot recall adding anyone to a list of Ezhavas. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

You seem to be on a mission to discredit all Kshatriya lineage communities and goldplate caste groups in which you may have some interest!I hope this very much against the spirit of Wikipedia and you assume a Super EDITOR status here.Shocked Totally!ThenPandyan (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

its a honour!!
am honored, all of a sudden you showing interest in a particular article i have edited 3 or 4 times. two comments i made some where regarding you had this much impact !!!!!! =)) werint i saying there you are easily influenced by sm ips comments... i think i got that wrong. IP444.334.23.43 kidding ;) Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.16.179 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your view
Hi Sitush, I've AfDed the short lived Kenyan franchise teams that played domestic cricket there in 2008, only played nine matches each before going the same way as the rest of Kenyan cricket. What's your view on them? AfD here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya
Kshatriyas are divided in four groups: Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi, Agnivanshi and Naagvanshi. Why he didn't adding Khatri & Arora caste in rest khastriya groups?

Khatri article didn't have any ref. of being a descendants of Chandravanshi Kshatriyas. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. Are you saying that Khatri are not Kshatriya or that they are not Chandravanshi? If they are not Chandravanshi, do you have any idea what branch they do come under? Are there any sources to support this? - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not Chandravanshi Kshatriya [According to Khatri article]. According to Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas - Kumar Cheda Singh Varma [1904] pg - 41 they are not Kshatriya. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy, Sitush - is just playing around and damaging a lot of work done by others in contrbuting to wikipedia.

Sitush

You are not an expert on all matters of communities and people. Please add and contribute positively rather than deleting by unfair maens of asking for citations and raising questions which are irrelevant or answers are ovious...

You are damaging Wikipedia ..

Please stop deleting from pages - Nairs / List of Nairs...

Anyone who goes thru his edits and deletions can make out that he is just gold plating some other group...

You may succeed temporarily - as wikipedia - citations and edits are controlled by very weak processes.

There are more citations and reference on Nair pages now as the contents have been removed without reference to them and mere opinions and 'wishes' have been added... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnithan1956 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

menon talk page
please come & discus matters in the talk page before editing as you please. Menon article do have a talk page & I have posted about tamil origin & other things. please follow the procedure :) Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My edits were not controversial and therefore required no discussion. If you think otherwise then feel free to open a thread yourself but it might be as well to familiarise yourself with WP:OVERLINK, with WP:RSN (search it for Gyan Books, or search talk page space for "Tyagi martial"). - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Sitush,

I've got the thesis you requested at the resource exchange in August. Please see that page for the link. I hope its still useful. GabrielF (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide
Please note that I have done a procedural close to Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing references
Hi Sitush. I have seen that you are removing References of Jat Historians on one or the other pretext from historical articles. This shows your bias. How can you decide about a source. Simply you discuss it some where yourself and then decide to delete. It is not fair. burdak (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you are referring to removal of citations of Ram Swarup Joon and Bhim Singh Dahiya. In the case of the former, it was determined recently at Wikipedia_talk:Indian_wikipedians'_notice_board that he is pretty much unreliable as a source. In the case of the latter, it was noted at Articles_for_deletion/Bhim_Singh_Dahiya that the author is not reliable, not recognised and quite probably a fringe theorist. I noted both of these reasons in my various edit summaries. To be honest, both of them seem pretty loopy to me but I have gone with the consensus rather than just striking out on my own. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have any list of reliable sources. Reliability is a very subjective matter. If we have to rely only on google search then what is the need of Wikipedia. We have to rely on printed matter also. It should be verifiable. This type of biased approach towards relying on history published by Britishers only be stopped. Britishers had wasted interest and wrote history accordingly. We do not rely on their history. Let us have a neutral and unbiased approach. I have put a note on Ram Swarup Joon's discussion also.burdak (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vaikuntha_Kamalaja
Message for you. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbi DRN
This is to notify you that a dispute resolution request has been filed at WP:DRN concerning an issue in which you may be involved. M W ℳ 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Khatri
Will you clean-up Khatri article? --¢ℓαяк (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the plan. I inserted a lot of cite requests and am trying to do some background reading. The requests need to be left in place for a while in order to give people time to assist. We are talking at least a couple of months. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush - I provided citations for some of the information on the Khatri page and yet you deleted it. Citations that have accurate recources (H.A. Rose book), yet you deleted it. I find that a bit rude and selfish on your part. you are trying to paint a picture of the Khatris as you seem fit, and not the accurate portrayal of them. Why are you not discussing WHY you are removing the information on the discuss board before actually removing the information??? You go against everything you do... KhatriNYC3 (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not delete it. deleted the stuff, and rightly so because the information was not on the page numbers cited. Utcursch left notes on the article talk page; I had left various procedural notes on your own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So then UTcursch is at fault here as well. Why is he not being penalized for wrongdoing? Oh I get it, both you and him have the same agenda on the Khatris that's why!....makes sense now.. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khatris origin is mystery from a long time and by saying Khatris are Chandravanshi you need more reliable resources.

1. Origin 1. 2. Origin 2

--¢ℓαяк (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you jobless???
This is regarding your editing on the Ezhava article. I had brought forward certain recent and critical developments that in the theories of origin section and  while other contributors found it worthwhile, you had to show your high handedness and remove it. Even more hilarious was the reason suggested: "Theories of origin: remove: uncited for too long & looks a bit fringe-y; request full citation". The genetic studies have been cited perfectly. The only part where citation was not available was the part referring to the new theory being put forward.

This seems highly unusual since most of the other theories and assumptions are shoddy/very old/of no importance or hilariously still points that needed citations/clarifications. As it is clear from your discussion page, you have a knack of messing around and butting into stuff providing your highly useless input. Please refrain from doing so again.

And yes.. I would take this very seriously.. Kind Regards, Manu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mperumk1988 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you point is regarding taking "this very seriously". It reads a little like a threat but I will assume good faith. I take everything that I do in Wikipedia's mainspace seriously. I am not always correct, but I am well-intentioned.


 * It seems to me that you may have got your edit summaries mixed up. Ezhava is one of those articles that has attracted a lot of pretty poor contributions and I periodically dive in there to fix a few of them, so perhaps the confusion arises because of my latest batch of edits. There may be discussion at Talk:Ezhava, and a read of the Five Pillars may also be beneficial if you are a new-ish contributor. In any event, I am confused by your message. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha.. Not at all.. how can a threat be issued over a wikipedia article?? I was referring to the seriousness of the entry related to genetic studies.. even in the Ezhava discussion forums you have clearly stated that you do not know much about genetics.. Then please refrain from editing them out!!!!!!!


 * Genetic studies are the only reliable sources on origins and lineages as compared to other historical accounts and theories based on linguistics. We all know history is written by victors. You are of course free to edit any theories based on historical accounts, folk songs etc.. (and other stuff on which you may be experienced and well versed). Also these are recent findings that need to be brought to light.. I hope I have made myself clear now.. I shall re-edit the content more properly and save it.. I also hope that you will be more sensible this time..


 * Oh.. and another point.. Please explain what you are referring to when you talk about "mixing up of summaries". I would like to clarify the issue first for re-editing it.. Mperumk1988 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit_summary - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganpal
Dear Sitush, simply rejecting something is not a bravery, please come up with logics. why you say "Gyan, who are a known unreliable source and should not be used"? what is authenticity of your objection?--Godissupreme (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At last! Thank you for responding. We have a policy here that covers the issue of reliable sources. We cannot just use any source as verification for a statement because, as I am sure you are aware, there is a lot of dodgy information out there. In the case of Gyan Publishing, who also use the names of ISHA Books and Kalpaz, it was determined some time ago by the Wikipedia community that they are not a reliable publisher. Therefore, as a general rule we should not use any of their publications as citations.


 * Discussions regarding Gyan have occurred at various places, perhaps the most notable of which is the reliable sources noticeboard - a venue for general discussion of sources regarding which someone has a doubt. It was determined that they use material from Wikipedia and other places without attribution and that they engage in both plagiarism and copyright violation. The first of these points alone is enough to discount them as a reliable source because it means that they are a mirror of our own work here. If we used them to support a statement here then we would potentially be creating a circular reference whereby we quote them and they quote us. As an example, let's say that someone writes an unsourced statement that an apple is an orange. Later, someone turns up and asks for a source to prove this clearly odd statement. A source is found to support it, which was published by Gyan. But Gyan had copied it from our original unsourced statement - so we now have proof but it is really just us saying that we are right. Apples, in fact, are never oranges but we have "invented" a verification that they are.


 * The RSN threads are here, here, and here. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just found another example of Gyan's cavalier approach. Compare this by them to the original from an academic publisher two years earlier. If nothing else then "This is probably why MSA Rao considers that the 'term Yadava refers to both an ethnic category and an ideology'. Indeed, the Yadav leaders succeeded in their fusion project since they persuaded their caste fellows to downplay the ..."
 * in the Gyan book, compared to "This is probably why MSA Rao considers that the 'term Yadava refers to both an ethnic category and an ideology'. Yadav leaders succeeded in their social fusion project since they persuaded their fellow caste members to downplay the ..."
 * in the original. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganpal
Sitush, thanks indeed for lenghty but ellaborate response about Giyan. however,may i have you suggestion in one sentence, WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH THE ARTICLE WHICH IS TRUE ENOUGH BUT I DONT HAVE THOSE VERIFICATIONS SOURCES WHICH YOU HAVE IMPOSED FOR NORMAL EDITOR ? in last fifteen days i searched and pasted lot of sources from internet media etc but you dont rely any of them. Where should i go afterall ? thanks--Godissupreme (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if there is no way to verify the content then I am afraid that it will be deleted at some point. Is there really nothing out there? - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have spent a little time studying the polymathic Mr/Mrs/Ms Google, searching for "Ganpal" and "Gunpal". I omitted law reports because there appears to be a reasonably well reported case involving one person with the Ganpal name, and I omitted Ireland (as a country, not a last name etc) because that kept popping up but is clearly irrelevant to the article. I also tried the searches with a space between "Gan"/"Gun" and "pal", which gained a lot of irrelevant hits for "gun pal" in relation to military comrades etc but nothing else of use.
 * I am afraid that my conclusion tends to be the same as yours: there are no reliable sources at Google Books or indeed Google generally. Now, it is certainly possible that information is out there but not covered by Google, and perhaps not even in the English language. However, as things stand, it does not look good. Given that most Indian communities do at least manage a passing mention somewhere or another, I do have to question whether this particular community "exists" and, if it does, whether it is notable. (In theory, all communities of this alleged type are notable, but there has to be at least something to verify that they exist.
 * There are, of course, a lot of subdivisions of major caste groups, and a lot of those no longer exist. Some of them may never really have existed but nonetheless appear in reports such as Raj censuses due to various administrative errors & issues involving sankritisation. But the lack of sources is going to be a major problem, I honestly cannot see your article surviving the scrutiny of Wikipedia's policies even though I do not doubt that you believe the community to exist. WE have to adopt some sort of rules here, otherwise it would be anarchy. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR requests - Social Scientist, 1985.
There is a link to your requested information at WP:RX.JanetteDoe (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Khatri : Kshatriya or Kshatri
You have read the references in haste. LM Khanna clearly mentions the words "All Punjab Khatris". Here the reference is again given below in case you read that in haste and missed the explicit reference:

Incredible story of social justice in India, p 47, L. M. Khanna, Aravali Books International, 2002/ quote: "The only problem was in marrying a woman from a higher caste, but still such marriages were not that uncommon. For example, all Punjab Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male" --Sun Quake (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the relevant part of the source at all and this is for the reasons stated on the article talk page. Your reference refers to the Punjab rather than the community as a whole. Please let's do this on the article talk page where others can comment if they so wish. I am not saying that you are wrong, merely querying the situation. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

29th Feb
Now that you pointed, in fact 29th Feb Category can stay. That would be unique & worthy to have. :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just making sure ...
... you understand that my edit summaries at Kunbi were not directed at you. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understood that, thanks. I was overwhelmed with other stuff, notably the DRN discussion, and the massive influx of contributions was more than I could handle with my patchy access to those sources. I am quite concerned with regard to the revisionist behaviour but what's one more headache of an article when there are so many. I'll contribute as and when I find something worthwhile. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?
Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kachwaha article
Your lack of historical knowledge shines through in your edit of the kachwaha article. Many of your so called 'unsourced' materials comes from the books that are put in the References, and if you do not have the copy of the books yourself, you should have been sure to do some research before cutting out whole important sections on the assumption that they are 'unsourced' as you have done. Particularly, alarming is your removal of the whole section on the Kachwahas and the Mughals, which is not only a turning point in medieval Indian history, but an extremely important elucidation on the reason, that the emperor Akbar was able to absorb the rajput military machine into an integral part of his empire. The role of Raja Man Singh I in the conquest and administration of many parts of India, and Afghanistan has been totally removed. The injunction and the creation of the Shekhawats had been totally removed. The capture of Shiva ji, by Mirza Raja Jai Singh I has been totally removed. The founding of Jaipur has been totally removed. These are just a small parts of information related to this clan that is lost due to your edit. Another example is where you removed the reference to James Tod, you failed to notice that the original article infact did not agree with James Tod's view, but nonetheless gave his opinion, while putting in alternative opinions from other historians (whom can be named, with slight research, interest and effort).

The previous status of the article was admittedly in a poor and confused state, but your removal of information from history books through your assumption that they are 'unsourced' is equally damaging to the authentic history that the article had to offer.

I have been away from wikipedia for a long time but I shall try to become more involved again now. I would appreciate, that if you want to know from where the information is sourced or if you think something is unsourced please remove the particular sentence not the whole section. Additionally, I will be glad to help you to look up the source and authenticity of the information.

Rajpitroyalust (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are entire unreferenced sections and the article has been tagged for various maintenance issues for ages. The sources which are available do not appear to support the statements. You can lecture me as much as you wish regarding your opinion of my "historical knowledge" but reinstating this information as you have done is not acceptable. You may wish to refer to the Five Pillars in order to familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia operates. but if you are already aware of those issues and the problem is really one of understanding the things then feel free to ask for further advice. In the interval, I will be removing the content again, although I will first check the citation which it appears you may have added in respect of one outstanding requests (thanks for that). - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible compromised account.. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of cited content and citations from articles
Sitush please do not delete cited content or proper references from articles without discussion as you are doing ,


 * Khatri,
 * Kshatriya
 * Gakhars (Hindu)
 * Khokhar- In this article you insisted to remove a wikilink inspite of my providing cogent reasons, I did not persist...

Please discuss and reflect on your edits, another editor may have spent valuable time and effort to research , or perhaps the context has missed you.

At other times when you have stared with articles and by the time you have moved on, valuable citations are gone and others have appeared immediately , somewhat unbalanced. I could provide specific instances should you require. Look forward to collaborating with you to improve articles on Wikipedia Cheers Intothefire (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this before and nothing appears to have changed. Indeed, others have come along and gone even further than I did. If you now have some policy-based reasons then feel free to explain. I note that you have posted this soon after some disruptive editing by User:KhatriNYC3 at Khatri. Is there some connection between my reverts of those edits and your current comment here? - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Response 1 from Intothefire:
 * My friend I have provided to you 4 specific instances from four different articles where you have deleted cited content and citations .I could provide more instances.
 * I would imagine that at the time when you are engaged in improving an article, retention of proper citations while you are at work , should be as important if not more , of deletions of cited content and citations which you would choose to delete.
 * Yes I have a policy issue Please discuss before you delete cited content or citations, unless its completely unrelated 
 * When you begin to trim articles, try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater . Articles are richer with seemingly contradictory but well researched content that others may have contributed but me or you were unaware of when we arrived on the scene.
 * I will discuss the specifics of each article on the talk pages.

Intothefire (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC) '''Sitush


 * Hi Sitush please see my message for you here..Cheers Intothefire (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush please my message for you on the Khokhar talk page where you have again removed a valid citaion Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, You have again removed some valid citations in this article as well Please see my message  for you . Intothefire (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

/* Warring */
Please refrain from vandalism on Yadav page. If you have any issue, Pls discuss on talk page before resorting to vandalism else you shall be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's yet another thread about you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Lady  of  Shalott  11:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * , I was typing up a request for your opinion about Red aloe vera and didn't hit the "Show preview" button.  As for the multiple AN/I threads, I think the users adding them may possibly be well advised to read WP:McEnroe --Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. I don;t think that I can be bothered even responding to this latest ANI. I'll see what the recent contributions have done and whether or not they are flying in the face of consensus (since they're saying that no-one should revert w/out discussion but may in fact themselves represent a revert without discussion, if you understand what I mean). I fear this user is heading for trouble, especially since it is only in the last few hours that the 3RRNB process was stayed. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked the "removing citations per talk page discussion", as if his raising the issue on talk meant he could immediately remove any citations he didn't like and then no one else could re-insert them. And seriously--you and Fowler the same person? If you are, you've sure fooled me.  And you should get a better hobby, like acting or international spying, because keeping multiple identities like that, including having arguments with yourself, is top-notch work, my friend. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see that SPI actually. Lady  of  Shalott  05:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Sitush/Archive. Someone described their recent contribution history as being like watching a raunaway train crash. Of course, the lives of quite a few now dead rock stars could be described as such. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just opened an ANI thread at WP:ANI regarding the editor whose attacks against you here were just reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. No idea what it meant as GTrans seemed to think that it was Indonesian and then that it was Swahili. To me, it was Gibberish. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * O wow, I had no idea that an SPI had actually been opened, or that you'd been accused of socking so many times... everyone from C.Fred to MatthewVanitas. Fowler&fowler really takes the cake though. Lady  of  Shalott  15:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. I am apparently a very talented actor. Sometimes it seems that I must be at the hub of a kind of MMORPG. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Level headed
Heya, so this evening I've been avoiding doing the things I really should be doing and reading some of the many and various India related heated-threads that you and others are neck-deep in. I'm not sure why I've been doing this--it's like watching a whole series of reckless drivers crashing and burning. The flaming is like a furnace sometimes. Anyway, I've repeatedly been struck by your generally calm, cool, and level-headed responses to the seemingly endless procession of flamage you receive. So I thought I'd post this comment: I'm impressed. I couldn't handle being in the thick of it like that. I'd snap within days. I don't know how you do it, but however you do, keep it up! Pfly (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It sometimes seems like c. 1 bn people would disagree with your assessment. You use of the word "generally" is also entirely appropriate: the situation does get on top of me from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, yea, I added "generally" after typing the sentence. After all, no one is perfect. Except maybe User:Finetooth. But then he isn't working on the topics you are, where the abuse-levels are appalling. I sure hope the many editors from India I've seen lately are not indicative of Indians in general! Pfly (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am compiling an RFC/U at the moment. It will take some time to complete but as each day passes it actually becomes less important to trawl back through older stuff: I just add the picks of the day ;) . - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear that. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the rules, it will require support from (I think) two contributors within a pretty short space of time, otherwise it does not get discussed. Think of it as someone "seconding" the request. I am unsure how to do that bit without breaching the canvassing issue but there must be a way. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You need two people counting yourself - so you just need to find one other person to co-certify the RFC/U with you. Lady  of  Shalott  15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll deploy one of my sockpuppets, then. I've deliberately kept the User:Jimbo Wales account involved in other areas just for such an eventuality.  - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you Jimbo yourself or I misunderstood your statement above. Ikon  No-Blast  17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez, there's always one who doesn't get the humour. Of course not. Did you not see the "" ? Or bother reading a little bit above? I have never socked, despite several "bad faith" reports against me. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should now explain on WP:ANB. Ikon  No-Blast  18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . Here Ikon  No-Blast  19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I, um, rest my case. Pfly (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so it has been said, "SituVanitas.Fred&fowlerGhost Wales", sarcasm on the internet can be misinterpreted (especially when misinterpreting the sarcasm benefits those with whom you are in a content dispute). Therefore, I hereby shake my finger at you half-heartedly! If any additional action is required here, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I have nine other fingers. - SudoGhost 19:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Your own. comment is just dripping with the sarcastic stuff. ;) I feel like waving two fingers (joke, Ikonoblast). Honest, that report was a silly attempt to get me into trouble, bearing in mind that I had already explained the situation before it was posted at ANI. The last resort of a frustrated contributor, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, please be more careful with your sock identity in the future. If the enemies find out that you and jimbo are one in the same then your whole conspiracy will be unraveled! Make sure to delete this message before anyone else reads it. Our plans for wikipedia domination are almost complete. Mwahahaha N o f o rmation  Talk  19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Jimbo should have been informed of that report. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall where I've saw it, but, I do remember reading somewhere that there only are 8 editors on Wikipedia, and everyone else is just socks. The original was from before my day, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My family in Chandigarh know for sure that there are in fact only five real users. Stop dissing my family's reputation for reliability etc otherwise I'll put a curse on you and call your mother some rude names. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My talk page
Well someone certainly has their knickers in a knot! Thanks for the revert. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
For any visitors to this talk page who are celebrating Diwali, please forgive me for not copy/pasting etc but take a look here. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom the Wild Turkey
Here he is: File:TomTheTurkey.jpg as seen this afternoon. He spent the whole day around the house. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! That is a very nice photo. And I say that as someone who doesn't usually appreciate the visuals. How far away were you for that shot?


 * I have always thought that Fowler&fowler refers to the grammarians etc, but of course there is another definition of "fowler". Don't ask me why but Churchill's "some chicken, some neck" has just come into my head. It isn't even relevant but the brain plays tricks, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * About three or four feet away. He'd probably eat out my hand, but I keep a safe distance away.  As for Churchill, like England's, I don't think his neck can be wrung.  Neither am I thinking about fowling, though I do worry about how he'll fare when the hunting season begins in a month.  If he sticks around here, he'll be safe.  Even the cats, who use to growl when he first started appearing, seem to have accepted him, and now just watch him quietly.  He ate half a donut today, which probably wasn't healthy, or almost half, until a feisty fat squirrel managed to grab it.  Then he dug a little hollow for himself and took his afternoon snooze.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's close: either the bird is either tame or naive, or you are blessed with twinkle toes. And all ten of them, given my recent experience.
 * A hunting season will soon change any naivety, alas. I've never understood those things. I have a dog (he helps me to hear) but one has to be careful not to anthropomorphise (sp?) Of course, I do fall into the trap, although not to the point of feeding him donuts. On the other hand, if the alternative is that he buggers off somewhere else and gets shot then, yes, I'd try to bribe him with something that really isn't on the usual canine diet. He is a "friend", although primarily intended as a working dog.
 * I eat meat but am not particularly a fan of turkey. I have raised, killed and eaten chickens etc but, no, I couldn't kill Tom the Turkey unless he was already fatally injured. Don't give me a link to a sound clip (pointless) but is there any way of describing the call? I guess that it is not a "song"? I am guessing that it is more of a deep squawk, perhaps followed by a burp if a donut has just been eaten. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he clucks and also make a trilling sound that they call a "purr." The cluck is louder and a little more melodic than a hen's. His favorite foods are sunflower seeds, almond slivers, pumpkin seeds, and of course white bread.  Doesn't seem to care for fruit.  The peaches, strawberries, cranberries, we left for him all went waste ... um, ... well, not quite, they were eaten by the rabbits, the squirrels and chipmunks, the raccoon, the opossum, ....   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [TPS] That's a great photo. Do you have any of the other critters that hang about? (Sounds like your yard is clearly the place to be if you are a critter semi-adjusted to being around people.) Lady  of  Shalott  01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We do of the squirrels and chipmunks and of the rabbits (and poor quality ones of the deer). The rabbits, though, have thinned out lately, probably killed by the coyotes and foxes, who themselves will likely be thinned out next month. The night prowlers, raccoon and opossum, we don't really have pictures of. We've tried, but not too successfully. The opossum is funny. He comes right up to the sliders and peers in, but if we try to feed him, he snarls, walks away, and then comes around later to pick up the food. Will look for other pics. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Narayankuri
Thanks for your insights into the early days of coal mining in India. However, I do not agree with your deletion of reference to Narayankuri as the first coal mining pit in India. I have quoted (on the Raniganj Coalfield page) Akkori Chattopadhyay, a regional historian writing in Bengali, that in 1774, John Sumner and Suetonius Grant Heatly found coal near Ethora. The early exploration and mining operations were carried out in a haphazard manner. Regular mining started in 1820. The place you mention as Aytura is possibly Ethora. Possibly, that mine (or may be, it was just an exploration pit) closed down (bad quality of coal?). Hence, it is not generally thought of as the beginning of coal mining in India. It is possible that Sumner and Heatly dug for coal elsewhere also. The mine at Narayankuri, opened in 1777, seems to have been worked continuously for many years. Even now, there are plans for a large open cast mine in the area. Incidentally, the area around Ethora is also a coal-mining area.

I worked (though not in the coal industry) and lived in the area for many years. Generally, administrators and researchers in the area accept Narayankuri as the beginning of continuous coal mining activity in India and The Statesman correspondent merely reflected that opinion. I have read about Narainkuri in several publications but am unable to locate them now. Your sources do not clearly mention Aytura as the beginning of coal mining in India. As long as it is not clearly established otherwise, please allow Narayankuri to remain, along with others.

Eastern Coalfields Limited, the government owned coal company, the dominant mining operator in the area, says [] that in 1774, first mining operation in the country was started in the Raniganj Coalfield by Sumner and Heatly. However, they are silent about the place.

Your mention of Raja of Ramghur in the article on Suetonius Grant Heatly is confusing. Ramgarh Raj was located about a 100km or so upstream on the banks of Damodar River and never had any connection with the area under discussion.

Cheers! - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I get back to you about this? I had already filed a request for a potentially useful source & will hopefully have some more info in a few days - you can see things developing at Suetonius Grant Heatly but I am pretty unhappy with the age of some of those sources. Alas, I can only read English & so Chattopadhyav is a non-starter for me. I do note that there are several references to 1774 being the start date, so unless Chattopadhyav is a "better" source and/or you can find more to support the 1777 date then I suspect that we have to go with the earlier year. The Statesman, by the way, will never trump an academic source, and the cited items from that were very poorly written. But give me a bit of time, just in case. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some links, for future reference:
 * 
 * 
 * - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Statesman says "In 1777 a British company, M/s Summer & Heatly started a coal mine in Narayankuri. Later Prince Dwarakanath Tagore got associated with the company as the first Indian in the coal producing business." The problems are:
 * Sumner & Heatly were not a company, and they were Sumner, Heatly & Redfearne.
 * The prince did not get involved in the "company" - there was no company, and even if there had been then Sumner had left India in 1777, Redfearne cannot be traced and Heatly tried to run it alone for a little while. Heatly died in 1793, long after the workings had shut down, and the Prince was apparently not even born then. Frankly, I am not sure that I would trust The Statesman for wrapping up my fish and chips, given this mangling of history and/or the language.
 * Numerous sources at Suetonius Grant Heatly refer to 1774 as the date of the proposal and that coal had been extracted by 1775. The testing of the coal was not until early 1778, after some pressure was applied in late 1777.
 * I agree that the location of the first workings is uncertain, but so far I can find no mention of Narayankuri before 1830 (WW Hunter, p. 124) other than in The Statesman and (presumably) Akkori Chattopadhyay. On the other hand, the Ethora location is mentioned by a few sources, and Damoully appears also to be a possibility.
 * There is a systemic bias issue in so far as I cannot read Chattopadhyav, but this extends also to him not being mentioned at GScholar at all. Although Hunter etc are old, and Heatly is almost certainly S G Heatly's nephew, the Suetonius Grant Heatly article does include some more recent sources. I await the 1956 source requested at WP:RX & have found another couple of sources that may also throw light on the situation and which are modern.
 * The above three links are all *.nic.in websites and they all refer to 1774 as the first working, not 1777.
 * We may be getting into semantics when it comes to "first" (eg: first commercial, first pit rather than open mine, first working etc) but even on that point there seems to be a preponderance of sources using the 1774 date. It is good that we're trying to sort this out amicably and I really do appreciate your help with the map/placenames etc. Let's see what turns up over the next few days. It is unfortunate that there is not really a centralised article where this discussion could be held, as others may also have info. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now done some specific research about Ethora, while waiting for the RX document. It seems obvious to me that Ethora is predominantly seen as the probably first location ... and I can still find no other mention (via online sources) of Narayankuri than that which appears in The Statesman. Sure, there are modern sources that still refer to the Ethora link being probable, rather than a certainty, but that is easily fixed in any relevant articles. What is not easily fixed is a single-sourced, non-academic garbled comment in a news source & whatever is said by a non-English language & seemingly non-notable regional historian. Sorry, but I have made my mind up about this. There may be room for manouevre in terms of the phrasing but there is next to nothing that substantiates 1777 and even less than substantiates Narayankuri, at least based on the online searches of GBooks etc. Yes, the citations could do with a boost but the alternative - Narayankuri - appears to have a truly minimal basis for inclusion.
 * BTW, Ethora has some tantalising notability in sources that I can only see in snippet view. It is one for my "to do" list. Some sort of big epidemic (probably cholera), numerous references to a school of mining, and several to some sort of incident involving several families in the 1960s (reads like it may be a caste violence issue, but I cannot see enough to be sure of that). It is also apparent that it was in its heyday an important village but is less so now - it could easily be linked to so many other articles. The Ethora article can be improved dramatically. I've created it based on what I can see but it does not meet my usual standards regarding sources (which are pretty strict, I admit, but not usually wikilawyer-ish). I'll try to improve it sharp-ish. Obviously, you and everyone else are welcome to assist. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sod's Law says that I have just found a better (but still snippet) explanation for the 1969 violence. It seems that a headmaster + others were murdered by a pro-CPM group - here. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree: 1. Coal mining started in 1774. Even Eastern Coalfields Limited [] accepts that. 2. Ethora has a better chance of being marked as first, but your sources say that it was one of the six locations, without detailing them. Even Chattopadhyay mentions Ethora but not Narayankuri.


 * My request was for letting Narayankuri remain in some form, not necessarily as first. After all, Wikipedia is not a research document. Different opinions can remain in it.


 * As to your dig about The Statesman, I find mention of the Raja of Ramgarh as being associated with this area, in an "authentic" source, as ridiculous. The domains of the Raja of Ramgarh NEVER extended beyond Chotanagpur Division of British India or earlier. Although geographically, the Asansol region could be classified as being part of the tail end of the Chotanagpur Plateau, politically it has never been so. To say the least, such sources are not always historically accurate.


 * There has been no caste violence in the Asansol-Ethora area. The area is criminal-infested, or rather mafia-infested. With coal very near the surface, there is a lot of illegal mining taking place in the area. Most of the clashes relate to this, sometimes taking on political colour.


 * Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does name a source that specifically says the first mine was at Ethora, and there are at least two other sources that say the same (they are at present in the Ethora article, which you have seen). The article also mentions by name three of the six workings (Ethora, Chinakuri & Damouli), and various writers make clear that the precise location of the other three is unknown. Some say that they were probably to the west of the named three. If Chattopadhyav has identified Narayankuri as one of those then that is fine and good but it is also extremely odd, since Homfray appears to have been personally involved in the first mine at Narayankuri & it did not open until 1830. As things stand, the best mention that Narayankuri ought to get is in a qualified footnote: "Chattopadhyav is of the opinion that the workings at Narayankuri opened in 1777, although other sources state that the mine opened in 1830". I would seriously question Chattopadhyav's reliability in the face of preponderant opinion saying otherwise. Perhaps more light will be thrown on the situation by the source that I have requested from RX, but right now there is just one source for Narayankuri & umpteen sources that contradict it.


 * Regarding the Rajah, I realise that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. However, why should we doubt the word of someone who lived for many years in the area & did so within living memory of the event? Especially when we bear in mind that (a) Heatly was collector for Chotanagpur at the relevant time & was involved in various acts of suppression etc; (b) he appears to have given up the mining venture when he moved further away to Purnia; and (c) the Rajah of Chotanagpur was a vassal of the Rajah of Ramgarh. There is every possibility that Ramgarh knew of the coal to be found in the area of Damodar/Ajay, and we have a source that appears to state so. He even says that at the time the product was known as "Ramgur coal". Nonetheless, it is a pretty minor point and wouldn't be missed from the article.


 * Violence in Ethora. I said that I had discovered that the incident related to murders by pro-CPM supporters. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed: you say that Chattopadhyav mentions Ethora but not Narayankuri. That appears to mean that the only source for Narayankuri is The Statesman. I am not prepared to accept it if that is the case, for the reasons already stated + that it is merely a passing mention. We could always take the issue to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This may interest you. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ramgarh Raj covered an area that is full of coal. It has several coalfields - Ramgarh Coalfield, North Karanpura Coalfield, South Karanpura Coalfield, West Bokaro Coalfield and East Bokaro Coalfield. I do not question his links with coal but his linkage with Raniganj Coalfield, an area well beyond his realm. All this is about discovery of coal in Raniganj Coalfield and not in the Ramgarh area, also on the banks of the Damodar. I am sure that you don't mean to say that coal was found in Ramgarh before it was found in Raniganj... or do you mean that? Cheers - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not mean that. I mean that we have a source saying that the Rajah knew of it in the Raniganj area & the info somehow passed from him to Sumner & Heatly. Furthermore, that Rajag had vassal rajahs - so the fact that his own sole-ruled region is some way away is irrelevant: who are we to question the source, when & where else he may have overlorded etc (eg: we now know that he overlorded Chatanagpur). Honestly, this all comes down to which sources are reliable, not how we interpret them. Now, if you could find a reliable source naming the ruler of the area covered by the six mines then we might have a lead to prove unreliability of the Ramgargh statement, but since we do not even really know where three of those mines were, well, there is no chance of that. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for disturbing you. Good bye and cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hope you're recovering fast. This is to remind you about the discussion on the Kayastha page. I am keen to make some changes for which I am waiting for inputs from the others regarding the points I'm making, so that we may make those changes if there is general consensus.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)) copied from User:Sitush by Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. Sorry, I missed that because it was posted to my user page rather than user talk page. I tend to agree with Qwryxian that you are reading into the judgement things that are not explicit. This is original research, and then it is compounded in your argument by synthesis with sources. I remain somewhat concerned about Sadasivan generally as a source, but not sufficiently so as to warrant removing his book from other articles. Yet! - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN notice for Yadav
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Yadav". Thank you. attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My first cabal accusation!
Occured on the Jat page, and here I thought I was just burrowing away in the stacks. How is this celebrated? Maybe a glass of good bourbon? Oh well, time to go brush my teeth and practice my evil laugh. JanetteDoe (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If these accusations keep spreading to include new names then I may consider designing a special welcome template for members of the alleged cabal. Still, I bet you haven't had a death threat yet :(
 * Just keep doing what you are doing: your work in finding copies of sources etc is proving to be invaluable to me, and I would imagine that others think the same. Don't be put off by the idiots, the ill-informed and the plain angry. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it is nice to be appreciated. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian
I read the article you sent to me and the Kim Kardashian article represent all valid views. I have spent hours writting this article and refuse for it to be removed. Please write that you think the section is not suitable on tbe talk page and appeal to other users to assist you and if the majority view is that it should be removed then fair enough. But im sorry i think the article is fine...

If you must reply please do so on my talk page not underneath this. Kindest Regards --Editor2205 (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean by warring? There is no specific view point. I will attempt to fix the article but i am not removing it. Please Reply on my talk page Editor2205 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of content and images from Jat related article
I have observed that your only objective on Wikipedia seems to delete content and images from Jat related article. This shows that you are highly biased against Jat people. I can understand bias of people like you and Fowler&fowler who are bent upon to to undo efforts and the content created over last many years  on Wikipedia  on some heroes who have really done for the society. Your sarcastic comment about Jat people as Cartoon like images on my talk page proves this. I have also observed what you have contributed to Wikipedia. You feel if you are the owner of Wikipedia and others are fools. Images since last5-6 years had no problem but it is problem with you only. I do not have much time to waste with such biased people like you. You should show here positive attitude in developing neutral content on Wikipedia. Admins should intervene and watch your intentions !!!. burdak (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Tom and the felines
. Mr Tom is now a regular. Turns up at sunrise, at 7 or 730. Feeds. (That is until he is driven away by the bold squirrels and even bolder chipmunks, who come scurrying like speeding bullets right at him.) Snoozes. Scoops out dirt and makes a hollow for himself. Proceeds to sit in the hollow and pick off the little insects in the freshly scooped pile. Walks around the yard. Peers in through the windows and doors. Sticks around until dusk, 5:30 or 6. Fluffs up his feathers and takes off harrier like at near vertical angles.

He stretches just like the cats do, which is just like we do. Standing on one leg, he scratches with the other, just like we do with our hands. Darwin had said that we bear in our bodily frame the indelible stamp of our lowly origin. In high-school when I first read him, I thought he was talking about chimpanzees. Later I was to realize that the lowly origin was shared not just with chimps, but with cats, turkeys, squirrels, chipmunks, and ultimately with creatures of which even Darwin had no clue. The models for our physiology and a lot else are primordial. Given this fact, why humans get so worked about recent events of a hundred, two hundred, five hundred, or thousand years ago, beats me. The Kunbi, Jat, Yadav, and what else have you, need to spend more time with Mr Tom. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I found myself reminiscing about the good old days earlier today. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I returned from Wales, saw your message and thought "I'll sort out the watchlist first" ... & then forgot about you entirely! How anyone could forget a Fowler&fowler message is beyond me, but I am that person.
 * I thought that Tom had been having a go at the chipmunks, with the cats standing agog? Presumably he has learned the error of his ways? This entire business of "bird baths", using a dirt hole, is something that fascinates me for some obscure reason. But in this case it must be one heck of a hole.
 * I am also intrigued regarding the verticality (is that a word?) of take-off. Geez, there is some strength in those wings to lift that sort of weight in that sort of manner. I need to do some reading up. Someone, somewhere must surely have compiled a table comparing weight/wing-span/angle of ascent, and that must surely be more interesting than about 1 million of the articles on en-WP, covering obscure places, minor sports-people, and the self-feeding frenzy that is reality TV & hip-hop music etc.
 * I agree about the similarities of behaviour across species etc, although I must admit to not using a dirt bath myself. The reason why we get so worked up about the scenarios which you describe is because we think that we have a better brain than other species and, dammit, we are determined to use the thing. Of course, of all species, we are probably both the most destructive and most self-destructive ... our "superior" brains just have not entirely latched on to that notion yet.
 * Great photo, again, btw. Are you using some fancy camera kit or are you just blessed with the knack? You appear to have avoided the glare that often happens when photographing through glass. As for the good old days, well, a golden moment is only golden because it is a moment. I am sure that someone said that, sometime, before myself. Probably some witty bod like Wilde or Parker (although it sounds a little twee for them). - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Hope Risley
Somebody has introduced a lot of fluff and frankly gone on tangent with Negroid races etc. I hope you are able to use a firm hand and remove all that nonsense and clean up this article. 213.107.22.93 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks that way to me, but give me a chance to work through the article. You are welcome to assist but I would suggest that we do not delete anything just yet. I have inserted various "request" tags in an attempt to find support for the statements, and I will be looking myself, but my gut feeling is that you are correct. His position regarding varna and anthropometry is a significant aspect of his life and influence. It needs to be recorded but that record must be within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies and, to be honest, the section that you are referring to looks pretty Hope-less at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, my word-play - Hope-less - above is pretty risley-ble, don't you think? I'm a right 'erbert. It's that time of day. - Sitush (talk)

Re: Kayastha
Hi. I previously cited incorrect page numbers, which I've now corrected.

Here is a PDF of the referenced book, "Who Were the Shudras?" by B.R. Ambedkar: http://www.satyaguru.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/WHO_WERE_THE_SUDRAS.331135705.pdf

The pages I cited correspond to Chapter X (The Degradation of the Shudras). Part IV of this chapter, specifically, details multiple court cases during the British Raj that tried to establish the varna status of Kayasthas, many of which made conflicting and contradictory rulings. In any case, it seems to me hardly controversial to state that the varna status of Kayasthas has been "a subject of debate".

Melotown (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I'll add that to my weekend reading list but, as you say & I have been arguing, it is scarcely a contentious point since we have numerous sourced statements immediately following that particular one. Someone was just being incredibly pedantic ... and they achieved nothing, unless their intention was to waste a lot of the time of other people. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ajmer Singh, Ballu, List of Rors
On Ajmer Singh page why have you deleted whole bunch of stuff without asking for citations? For example Ajmer Singh's birthplace, his being from the ror caste etc. Do you know for a fact he is not a ror? If not and if someone has put the information on the page he is a ror and you don't believe him you should have asked for citation. Another example you have put a citation request for "Ajmer scored nearly a third of India's points at the Moscow Olympics.[citation needed]" when the link already shows that Ajmer scored nearly a third of India's points. You can add up the points of al l players and points of Ajmer and if you do the math it comes out.

Similarly on Ballu page you have deleted a whole bunch of data without giving anyone a chance to explain.

In similar vain you first delete Ajmer Singh, Ballu, Dalel Singh etc being rors and then you delete them from the list of rors. These are very disruptive edits. You can't just delete reams and reams of data without following due process. Ask for a citation and if it does'nt come by do by all means delete.

Please roll back your changes on all these pages and then put specific citation requests and I will try and help as much as I can.

Ror Is King (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will check my edits. However, I have the feeling that these are biographies of living people & that is why I deleted the unsourced caste information. It is personal information of a sort that could be very contentious: like it or loathe it, a person's caste appears still to be a pretty sensitive subject in India & therefore we really must be very strict on the sourcing requirements. The same procedure has occurred for people of other castes, usually as a consequence of trying to sort out the often hopelessly muddled "List of [Caste] people]" articles. We have to know for sure that they are of whatever caste is claimed and so your query - "Do you know for a fact he is not a ror?" - is incorrect logic here. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are using inverted logic. Have you read WP:OWN? Do you own Wikipedia or these pages on rors? I ask again did you pose a question on the talk page of these persons and ask if any one had citations for them being ror? Did you do a websearch of your own about these people and not find they are ror? Did you put a citation request to know about their caste? Answer is no. Why such disruptive edits? Ror Is King (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP. My removal of the Ror caste statements was nothing at all to do with article ownership. I have not yet reviewed my other edits but, promise, I will do so before the day is done. - Sitush (talk)
 * OK, I reviewed my edits at Ajmer Singh. I took a lot out because it appeared to be a copyright violation. I also took out the mention of him being the highest scorer of points because that was not evident on the source provided. This does not mean that the statements made were incorrect and - yes - we are allowed to do simple mathematics without contravening the original research policy. However, as things stood, there was no way to do that calculation because the FIBA source was a personal scoring record and didn't obviously state what the overall team record may have been (from which, the simple calc could be done). I may have got this wrong - feel free to point me to the FIBA article that explains this. My issue with Ror stands: you need a reliable source and it is not my responsibility to find one, in particular because this is a WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say that the same applies for Ballu. Contrary to what you suggest in your messages above, I did in fact add a shed-load of cite requests to both articles. I only removed that which was clearly unverifiable, copyright violation and/or POV. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright violation of what ? FIBA article gives the score of the entire team. And you can add the score of ajmer using a calculator and then divide the two and multiply by 100 to get a percentage. You have to do some clicking on the FIBA page. This is getting a bit too childish if you can't even read the references provided. Please revert the pages to their original form and ask for a citation on the contents you have deleted. It is important you don't create busy work for others. Ror Is King (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a copyvio. This conversation stops now. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid it is not a copyvio since the reference is given from where the lines were taken. Anyway this discussion is going no where since you think you WP:OWN the articles so I am going to revert your edits. You can come back and ask for citations. Ror Is King (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it a copyvio when Hindu the newspaper is given in the reference? Is like the FIBA website where you cant see what is written on the website? Ror Is King (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Read up on it - that is why I left you the notice. I am astonished that someone knows the WP:OWN policy but not the WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:BLP or WP:CITE ones. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah read on it. It could have easily been made into a quote but you just don't let anyone edit these pages. It is your way or the highway. Ror Is King (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Information
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ror Is King (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ror Status
I am afraid you are just pushing your POV. You first delete all references of Ror caste from:
 * Dalel Singh
 * Ajmer Singh
 * Ballu

and then you delete them from the list of rors. When I tried putting references on these pages you would not let me edit. Are you the owner of Wikipedia? Or do you care to listen to others?

Ror Is King (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Scribd dot com
Is not a wikipedia reliable source for anything it is a user uploaded site and you should do as I do and remove it on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. That was my wider point. Thanks for the info. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, thank you. Can I quote you on this? - Sitush (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)