User talk:Sitush/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Upgrading Kalwar

The article Kalwar was just getting silly, up to and including computer 3D renderings of Solomon's Temple or some such thing. Absolutely baffling, so I dug up some very, very basic references and have a short article covering the traditional liquor-distilling caste of Northern India (not to be confused with the Tamil Kallar (caste)).

I've only done some brief digging, but prepare for a shocker: a rough glance at some 1980-2010 current literature by Indian academics appears to indicate that the Kalwar were a distilling caste who made some money, got into banking and other more prestigious trades, dropped their old habits like a rock, and set up orgs like the Kalwar Kshatriya Mashaba. It's almost as though there is some sort of pattern going on in the region... Historical revisionism is a grave, grave sin. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been on my watchlist for a while but I've never really done much with it, apart from fix egregious stuff. I, too, could not understand the images but had enough on my plate at the time when I noticed them. To be honest, I see a lot of stuff that I would like to sort out but there are not enough hours in the day, so I sometimes have a quick blast, watchlist the thing and return to do a bit more as and when it pings back on the watchlist. Right now, I am still reading up on Sainis and on a botanist whose article I would really like to develop from its present stub status. I'll continue to watch & fiddle with Kalwar, however. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ayanosh

Thanks for correction.[[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)ayanosh

Wrongful editing

Please do not DE-categorise living people according to what you believe their religious beliefs to be - as you have done at Arnab Ray - unless you can verify that they have never self-identified as adherents to the faith.

• http://greatbong.net/2011/07/24/the-question-of-suffering/#more-27117 ;first line of 5th para.
• https://www.facebook.com/arnabray/info ; Religious Views.

Thanks[[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)ayanosh

Categories should reflect the article content. You cannot expect people to wander through every source to check a category; far better to say in the text of the article that X is an agnostic, cite that using the source and then you add the category. Read WP:BLPCAT. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

SalariaRajput

As you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SalariaRajput, this guy is going around adding references to Sainis in dozens of places, essentially spamming those articles while providing no value at all. Even if Sainis were Rajputs, his edits would still make no sense at all. I understand you are not an admin, but you seem to be good at controlling such behavior. Is there something you can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you check the history for those articles then you will see that I have already done such as I can. Basically, reverted almost all of those edits. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cabal emblem? Implied threat?

In this classic photo of many well-known wikipedia editors, I understand[1] you're the tolerant-looking man leaning against the piano, who's about to sit down at it and play "As Time Goes By". May I ask why you're holding a human finger? I've inquired privately of RexxS (the demented motivational speaker trying to push Malleus Fatuorum off his chair), who first drew my attention to the pic, but he didn't seem to know. darwinbish ^BITE 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Fingers are not the only part of the human anatomy that look like that ;) Then again, I might be afflicted with polydactyly, with one digit being of ET proportions. I'll phone home and check. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless work in Wikipedia. Cheers! Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Sitush (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

PROD Dhakar

Article Dhakar is PRODed. I have no clue about the subject. But PROD reason of "Unreferenced, unable to establish notability" is possibly the reason to delete many articles of this group. Plus i have never seen that editor before on any of Indian articles. Maybe you have something to add to it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, at least for now. That was an utterly ridiculous PROD by WWGB - the proposal system does at least require a little bit of care and a simple GSearch would have shown numerous results. Alas, WWGB's response was "whateva", so I guess that despite 59k contributions they are still not quite getting it. Thanks for letting me know, and I'll try to develop the thing over the next few days. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Same editor did the same at Malav - I've removed that PROD too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! I also did not care to check on Google. Thought of pushing it towards you instead. :) I guess, if its not being deleted there isn't much rush to improve it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, there is no problem with pushing such things in my direction and PRODs can serve a useful purpose in bringing attention to a bad situation. My gripe is that the PROD should not happen in the first instance without at least a little bit of elementary checking. Fortunately, admins will usually do that before deleting a PRODed article, but that just loads more work onto the admins and, of course, they are human and will occasionally make mistakes. Probably not as many mistakes as I make, but there are bound to be some!

Boing!, thanks for that. I'll try to add a source or two at Malav also. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorlink

Thanks - I was being lazy. That is the right way to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Offline source

Sure! :) Just send me a test mail using "Email this user" option and I'll attach the file in my reply. Well, the influence of Velamas on the Justice Party was quite strong for sometime but not always. I personally feel that the party was more strongly dominated by the Kapus of the Telugu country and the Vellalars and Chettys from the Tamil country along with a significant proportion of Nairs from Malabar.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your sympathy. :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to hijack the discussion at ANI

But are topic bans logged anywhere? The block log seems to be no more and no less than its name. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should be at Wikipedia:Topic_bans#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. I have no idea how error prone that log may be, and from time to time expired bans are probably removed from it. TT2011's is still shown at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. That is a very interesting page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bunt community

please try to view edits from a bunts perspective.its commonsense to have images of popular celebrities on page rather than some unseen scholar or billionaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.146 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are going to be blocked per WP:3RR but, in any event, there are discussions at Talk:Bunt (community) and your argument above is actually favouring my opinion there, ie: the images are undue weight. So why have any images of this type, whether your variety or those that already exist? - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely copyvio

Hello my friend. I could use a hand tracking down the copyvio source for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty#Ikshvaku_dynasty_in_chronological_order_up_to_present

Chunks are finding their way into other articles via copy paste. It stinks of copyvio and I can't use waybackmachine, and I keep getting blocked from the verbatim google matches I see. Thanks for any help you can give. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha. I see you've found it before. Well, enwp has chunks all over the place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC

I am fighting some hopping IPs over various articles. Just revert on sight because the sourcing etc is all wrong and the content keeps being reinstated, complete with the original cite requests etc from ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will add articles to my watchlist that I see at your contribs. I will revert on sight. Many thanks for the vigilance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you - more eyes are very welcome. I have the feeling that this is too big a range to block, so it may be two or three people working in concert and in brief but co-ordinated spurts. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If I bump into anyone on IRC who is so inclined, I will ask them to watch the pages. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WRT the ip's, the 117.199.195.xxx is probably blockable, but the 117.227.xxx.xxx probably isn't (too large). Semiprotection may be the best option, as you can make the case that these users are editing across a range of articles. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that I will be around during the next 48 hours. Semi-p is worth doing if it kicks off again in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pervez Dewan as a reliable source

As discussed earlier, Pervez Dewan's book "Jammu Kashmir Ladakh" ISBN 81-7049-179-7 was used to sight the population census of India. However, you have reverted the same stating that Dewan is not a reliable source. Would like to understand why do you think so. Have explained earlier that he was the 'Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir' while writing this book - which in India means he 'signed off' on all population census figures. So in a manner speaking, he was an authority on the official records in the state. I see no reason to doubt that he would provide wrong population figures in his book about Kashmir. Can you explain your concern. 'Ambar (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction - Divisional Comissioner is a central Govt (Govt of India) position & not a state govt position. I have shared the Govt of India (IAS) website with you earlier.'Ambar (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained at Talk:Kashmiri Pandit, and did so at the time of my revert. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you review the latest Kaul article in my sandbox (view history) & let me know if any further modifications may be necessary. ^Ambar (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Sitush, sorry to bother you, but if I followed my guts, I'd send this article straight to AFD... Would you be willing to please take a look at it when you have a moment, to see if it can be salvaged or if my approach is the best one? Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much to salvage there - it is just a massive series of unsourced names + BLP violations (ie: sourced, but they have not self-identified). Parkavakulam is also next to useless without sourcing, as is Parkavakulam Nathaman Udayar. I might be able to do something with the last two but the list should probably be stripped and merged/redirected to Parkavakulam if there is any substantive content left. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Brahma_Kamal. Thanks.[[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh

I tend to keep away from images: I am a complete philistine in that area, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Restoring "diet" data on Nair?

You mentioned in your ES that the Diet section with mentions of pork and buffalo "seems okay" but didn't restore it. Was that a mistake, or are we re-examining those cites? I'd be less concerned were it not for the fact that pork/buffalo removal would fall into the "remove absolutely anything that could be seen as negative" editing tactic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part, sorry. I thought that I was reinstating the buffalo/pork etc stuff but clearly screwed up. I have self-reverted. Can you fix? I am off to bed now & I literally just popped my (prescribed) opiate stuff, so my brain will be even more fuzzy in a few minutes. Sorry about this. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

'Kurmi' ur last edit.

I feel ur last edit not in accordance WP:NPOV. Plz do not be unilaterally judgmental. Warning: Plz do not delete well ref content. Use proper tagging and talk pages to resolve. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaychandra (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing Rewari

I wonder why you do not want the page on Rewari improved. The entire page is in shambles and I find several deletions from you, never any improvements. You are doubting my latest reference on Hemu on Rewari page calling it dubious. Please send to me your e-mail Id and I'll send to you the photo copy of the reference I have cited. Also please do not delete this edit till the issue is sorted out, whether, the citation is true or dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.121.163 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The mere existence of a source does not make it reliable. Your source was "Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya by Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya Dhusar (Bhargava) Memorial Charitable Trust (Regd.)Rekmo Press New Delhi", which appears to be something published by an advocacy group rather than, say, an academic press. In any event, the more problematic issue is that the content simply overeggs the pudding. We have the Hemu article and the Rewari article is not about Hemu, so let's keep things in proportion. If you wish to continue this discussion then I suggest that you do so at Talk:Rewari, where there is a greater likelihood of input from others with an interest in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush Ji,You have raised three objections on a minor point. Now it is for sure that Hemu was born somewhere, otherwise there was no need to talk about him. As per his community and decendents whose Trust is mentioned above, which you have called 'an advocacy group', Hemu, was born at Machheri village in Rajasthan. There are other citations also on this by various writers. What bewilders me, why any one would 'advocate' for a simple immaterial fact. However, if there is any other claim that Hemu was born in a particular city, I would like to be enlightened on this. I had put the fact of his birth at Maccheri on the page to remove an absurd comment which said (although he was born elsewhere). When I deleted the words written in brackets as they diluted the contents, my comments were removed by you; when I added his birth place Maccheri, you do not accept this also. Second issue is of proportion. Hemu, his Haveli in Rewari are important for Rewari page as Hemu was the only Hindu ruler, who won 22 battles across North India and who could rule from Delhi briefly out of the long span of 1192-1947. So this makes important for Rewari page to carry a few (3-4) sentences on Hemu. Third issue you have raised is of overegging the pudding? No way.Simple facts with no adjectives look impressive about him. There is no pampering. Also, you visit the page frequently. Do you find it in good shape ? Please suggest how to improve it. sk

I did say Talk:Rewari, not here. Please. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Indian railways worked on by the KGK

Could you take a look at this article if you get the chance? I deleted an entire unreferenced section but the whole thing looks like cruft to me. I'm hopeless on caste issues! --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it before. I thought it to be a pointless article then and I still do think that to be the case. Talk about a niche subject! AfD? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My tired dyslexic brain read "KGB." Any potential for that list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha. I'm sure that the KGB worked on a few railways in their time. The KGK list appears to have been deleted before. And a note for both of you: I may venture out to sup a pint of beer tonight. If I smoked big, fat cigars then I would probably have indulged in that way also. You know why. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is referenced to a couple of obscure books and it would appear that every single inch of track laid in India had a KGB or KGK hand putting it in place! BTW, f&f, I landed at the list because I was looking for a list of Indian railway companies (not there). What say we move this article to List of Indian Railway companies and be done with it! --regentspark (comment) 16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a move would make sense, although I am surprised that no such list of railway companies already exists. If the KGK are widely known to be occupationally (is that a word?) railway builders then a couple of sourced sentences in the main article for that community would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Railway companies .... I remember reading about the early ones (1851-56), but don't have my books with me, though some might be mentioned in Company rule in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

PS Here's the relevant section; it mentions a few early companies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it. But it needs a ton of work.--regentspark (comment) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I will get round to it if no-one gets there first. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the content from Patna College

I think your recent deletion of the content from Patna College is almost like vandalism. What you call as trivial without any justification is not proper at all. This also smacks of bias against this and similar other articles. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Listing in detail umpteen anniversary events is indeed trivia. My own college is somewhat older than Patna College. In 1984, during my time of study there, there were many events to mark its 700th anniversary. Now, go to the article at Peterhouse, Cambridge and try to find a mention of those events. I cannot recall ever editing it, by the way, as I would have a conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the anniversary events are umpteen, they are only a few. The details may be edited and can be made more to the point and impressive. But to delete them completely without giving any chance to justify and by using words such as 'trivial' is highly improper. We should better not compare Peterhouse, Cambridge with Patna College. If we look at history we may find that there were no Peterhouse, Cambridge or University of Oxford some thousand years back. The excellent universities in the world did exist but they were in different parts of the world. At the same time when Patna College or other good colleges got started they tried to follow the examples of Peterhouse, Cambridge or University of Oxford because they had become excellent by that time. No one knows where will the excellence emerge in the coming few years.

By the way you are a great wikipedian, I understand. But You are not fair in this context at all. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have picked another university/college, not necessarily Peterhouse. A single sentence would usually suffice: "X marked its 150th anniversary in YYYY with various events, including an This, That and The Other.^[cite]" In this particular instance, a second sentence for the Bihar Assembly seems reasonable, but it is unusual. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that those details about the events are not necessary, then you may be right. However according to your own arguments they may be included in brief. So the issue is only about the way they should be presented. They should not be deleted, especially when everything has been supported with reliable references.

You are, thus, requested to revert them with due editing. This will improve the article further. I have no other intention in persisting with my point of view. If this improves the article, nothing like that. Let us not be personal about this. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sitush. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done but, alas, with a big thumbs-down for DRN as it relates to India stuff. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Any chance that Bob1781 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet (of YK perhaps)? Could someone, maybe Qwyrxian, do an RFCU? I'm flat out of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The odd bolding had me suspicious but with just one edit I doubt very much that anything can be done unless someone has a direct line to a checkuser who is prepared to ignore the usual WP:SPI process. I think that SPI itself is unlikely to accept a report based on so little. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. Good advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) are at least  Likely, though I'd go as far as calling them a  Confirmed match. In this case, in my opinion, an SPI would probably have been accepted; it was rather evident that this account was a sock. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Sitush and I will be requesting life memberships at Bletchley Park. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any sleepers? I mean, he went out of his way to point out that he always uses his own name ... and then didn't. Mind you, he will be easy to spot if he turns up on any articles. I note that the wording by FutureP is going to severely limit his input even to Dickens etc. Wow. Is it time-limited? Saravask was originally suggesting 6 months, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see here that it is an indefinite topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

YK was bolding like that higher up in the ANI thread but, as I said at the outset, one contribution doesn't mean much at all for stylistic checks. I sometimes bold in mid-sentence, for example. Oh, er ... I'll get my coat. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be Sarvajna. Might be worth checking, if you're able to. True it is one edit, but an edit to unfairly influence a vote, which is a no-no. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this sockpuppet investigation and discussion done at the right place? Is it to be done on user pages of someone who has voted for a ban usually?

After the ban is already enforced, what is the point in checking it with other users? It is user:Sarvajna now, someone else later one. It server no purpose, I think this is done in very unusual disorderly manner in case I am unaware of usual way. Even this discussion is forked between here and user:YK's page.

Is user:Sarvajna informed of this? In case investigation were done methodically, I would have suggested bunching up of of editors ids to do this at once. I am not sure if anyone was informed at all, not even user:Bob1781. Now this is going nowhere other that post-ban talk between users who voted for permanent ban.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It started as a perfectly acceptable query and would have stopped there, around my second reply, had it not been for Salvio spotting it. Salvio is a checkuser as well as an admin, although I must admit to not realising that he was a CU until this thread. Now, CUs are particularly trusted people and while they do make mistakes they also do from time to time use their additional tools outside the formal SPI system. You see this happening at ANI and even in response to direct approaches on their talk pages (Tnxman, IIRC, sometimes does this). In this regard, nothing is unusual but let's get something straight here: Salvio was not involved in the ANI discussion and he was not approached to check this situation out. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My question is if this is the way SPI is done without referring to concerned party, here user:Bob1781? Usually there exists a page for sockpuppet investigations.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was started without me, that is fair enough. But it is not fair to drag me into the discussion without informing me, without giving me a chance to represent my side of the arguments. Fowler I would be very happy if checkuser can check if Bob was me or not, I was already actively involved in the discussion so I don't think I would require another account just to influence one vote when I know that the margin was huge, I am surprised to see Qwyrxian and Fowler accusing me of something without even letting me know about the discussion also is this the official discussion of the sockpuppeting?--sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I let my imagination run wild I would accuse Qwyrxian of creating the SPA and trying to malign anyone who opposed YK's ban(honestly how many of you all noticed the bold pattern or what ever it is). Well I would like to see what the checkuser has to say about who was this Bob is/was, also if there were doubts that Bob was not YK then the block is not justified. Thanks

P.S: I am not really accusing Qwyrxian it was just an example on how false theories can be built without knowing the truth --sarvajna (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer Thisthat2011's question, yes, there is a page for formally requesting sockpuppet investigations here. However, informing the concerned parties is NOT required, as noted at item #4 here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of my fictional reading includes detective novels. So, and seeing how desperate you all were to block YK and seeing how the discussion was not ending at all even after so many days and seeing how few Dickens' editors gave neutral comments, it wouldnt be completely shock if that sock was of someone of the supporters. And purposefully bolding and then using it as a doubt is possible. In fact that was a nice touch. One might use small fonts to frame me in future. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open an SPI, naming all and sundry. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Given the nature of the edit, an SPI case will likely be accepted. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Though, after reading this, it seems fairly clear who bob1781 is. Unless you're implying that there is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of YK and that Salvio is a part of that conspiracy. --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. My point in raising an alternative was to extend good faith to YK. I looked at the edit, and looked at previous edits in the thread, and thought that maybe YK had been falsely accused. I'm sticking my metaphorical neck out for someone who doesn't really deserve it, out of a sense in due process and fairness. If YK had not sockpuppeted, I do not think he should be blocked, because I think the topic ban solves the problem. I didn't want to start an SPI because I am not a checkuser and don't know how likely the results Salvio saw are, and it's not like a second CU would turn up any new technical data. Thank goodness I don't have time for WP for the next 3 days because it irritates the hell out of me to be accused of being conniving when I was being far nicer than I at all needed to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" Assuming here that there is already a sock master, and therefore assuming it as another user - it is hardly of any consequence for it is upto the admin. As also AFG is great as usual. For other information, check discussion on YK's page.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian you suggestion "does YK use that bolding style? Looking just at the ANI Bob1781 looks more like User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who signs as "sarvajna", is the one with that style of writing. Did we catch the wrong sockmaster?" does not sounds like extending good faith. Also Qwyrxian and Fowler&fowler would like to know this [[2]] --sarvajna (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Makes me want to propose a new policy: WP:TOLDYOUSO. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing Jadeja

Greetings Sitush! I have seen that you have edited the Notable Jadeja section of the page, erasing names of notable Jadejas on account of poor references cited. Could you please provide guidelines for sources that are permissible as the ones I have used were seen to me as being sufficient? I am unsure as to what is permissible when proving 'ethnicity'? Thank you in advance. Tamasic (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The most universal rule is our reliable sources policy, which applies always when trying to meet our requirement that things are verifiable. Things get more complicated if the person is still living, for which we have the policy concerning biographies of living people. There is an extension to that, called WP:BLPCAT. Now, the gist of BLP in terms of matters such as religious beliefs and ethnicity is that the person concerned should be shown to have self-identified as a believer of this or that religion, or as a person of X ethnicity.

As far as those policies apply to caste-type assertions, there are a lot of experienced contributors to Wikipedia who consider caste claims to be just another form of ethnicity, and therefore self-identification is required if living, and really good sources even if they are dead. Merely bearing a name that is commonly used by a caste group is insufficient to meet the test because, well, there are always exceptions to the rule, often even in India itself. Also, I could quite easily and at a low cost (currently £37 UK) legally chance my last name to "Jadeja", for example, and so any statements that we make here based on last names are ultimately original research. Is this enough information for you to understand what is going on? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your kind time. Information noted. I understand that it is possible for one to change their name, therefore an assumption of notability based on surname alone is not reliable. So now, with context to the names of deceased Jadejas that I had included, what references would be permissible? K.S. Ranjitsinhji, K.S. Digvijaysinhji and Kumar Shree Duleepsinhji are most certainly not individuals that changed their name by deed poll. They were the Jam Sahebs of Nawangar and have been widely documented as being so. To not include K.S. Ranjitsinhji, an international cricketing luminary who's own Wiki page meets all requirements, would do disservice to the 'Notable Jadeja' section. Remedy- would it be possible to cite a reference that explicitly states that the title of Jam Saheb is only bestowed upon the Jadeja rulers? Thereafter to follow up citing a source where the individual in question is referred to by their title? I look forward to your kind feedback. Thank you. Tamasic 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a reference about an alleged uniqueness of the title would suffice. As an example of how titles are not always what they seem, although most people would think that the title "Doctor" indicates a person who has undertook a high level of education, it is in fact also the traditional name given to the seventh son of a seventh son in Irish families. Another example would be "Prince", which is not always a royal title, etc. If the people whom you name are as well-documented as you say, and their ethnicity is relevant to their lives, then someone must surely have recorded the connection. An additional point to bear in bear is our attitude to synthesis of information from sources.

This talk page is watched by quite a few people and perhaps someone else will jump in with a different opinion. I do not always get things right ;) - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"I do not always get things right" Now this is an understatement if there ever was one, I am absolutely seething with anger and extremely frustrated at complete ignorance shown by you regarding the article "Jadeja", may I please ask what right or what knowledge you have regarding the history and origins of jadeja ? I am sure zilch or zero. I had painstakingly gathered all the information related to the clan, myself being one, have done any research at all ? the refrences that were given by me were from the English representative that were stationed at bhuj during the time of Maharao Deshulji, and these books could be found in the gazzette of bombay and english presidency during the time British rule in india, I cannot belive that absolutely all the information has been deleted..

Khengar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.222.90 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel angry and frustrated. I will try to revisit the article within the next 24 hours in order to re-examine what I did. Please do drop me another note if that does not happen. I'll put my response here when I have checked things out. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this series of cite removals by me. Do you not understand the info in the relevant edit summaries? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with this removal. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my earlier removals, see Talk:Jadeja#Sourcing of rulers etc and please take the discussion to that thread, if they are the ones to which you refer above. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Epic India

Another mystery. Looks like someone has written a research paper on wikipedia (or is this a real term?) --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I know right, the "Epic India" that is being referred to was called as Bharata Khanda. I'm not that great with early Indian history, so there is all the likelihood of an equivalent English language term existing. "Epic India" doesn't seem to be the one though. Lynch7 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So it is a book? --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something here :) ; are you asking whether the article itself is like a research paper? Lynch7 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Is Bharata Khanda a book of some sort? Or is it just a term used to describe early India? Or is it something that is used in ancient texts? (I suspect the last one.)--regentspark (comment) 21:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, its a term to describe the "continent of Bharat". I find it in the Rigveda, and the Rigveda even gives a description of the length and breadth of the continent. Of course, its in Sanskrit, so I'll find the verse tomorrow morning and put up a quick translation. Lynch7 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Based on a cursory google and jstor search, it may not be a bad idea to move the article to Bharata Khanda. Epic India is used in a more general way. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Khanda literally means section, here continent. आशिया खंड (Aashiya Khanda) would mean Asia continent. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So what should we do with the article. Bharata Khanda is, as you say, a description of Bharata in vedic times. Should we retitle the article Geography of India as described in Vedic texts? A descriptive title would better here.--regentspark (comment) 11:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bharata Khanda would be better --sarvajna (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But then, this particular article speaks about India during the time of the Ramayan and Mahabharat (hence leading to the name "Epic"?), but Bharata Khanda was during the vedic times. So there may be a mismatch. Lynch7 12:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What I understand is that even during the times of Mahabharata, India was called as Bharata Khanda (Correct me if I am wrong) --sarvajna (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the Mahabharata. My only qualm with Bharata Khanda is that it is not in English. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Bharata Khanda could qualify as a notable term on its own; unless of course, scholarly sources have a better English term. Lynch7 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lynch if you consider modern India or Republic of India, it is the English equivalent of "Bharatiya Ganarajya" so I don't think there is any English equivalent of Bharata Khanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so; "Epic India" consisted of much of British India and parts of Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar. Some sources say it consisted of a large portion of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. So, "Indian subcontinent" would probably be a rough equivalent in today's world rather than the Indian Republic. Lynch7 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

done. Needs some cleanup to confine it to its mythological definition. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This image found on the article is based on the Mahabharat, as is noted on the file page, and "India" at the time of the Mahabharat didn't encompass the whole of Bharata Khanda. In any case, I'd really like to see a good journal paper on this topic. Lynch7 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked on jstor and there is nothing except for indirect references to the term. Google produced this and this (which seems to associate Magadha with Bharata Khanda). This isn't going to be easy!--regentspark (comment) 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and find some books related to this. But I'm very uncomfortable having "Epic India" renamed as "Bharata Khanda" in the article's present form. Could we generalize the time period to the "Vedic period", instead of saying "During the Mahabharata time", which is definitely not completely true. Lynch7 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead (but I have no idea what I am doing,). --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This must be the longest thread on my talk page in which I have had no involvement! My apologies to all who are involved - I have spent the last few days 90 feet (27 m) up two trees, cutting them down. Well, they are now a little bit shorter, but there is still some way to go.

I am pretty thick when it comes to the ancient Indian texts etc. I know of the major ones - the Puranas etc - and know when they are definitely not suitable as sources per Wikipedia standards, but most of this goes over my head, sorry. Nonetheless, feel free to continue the discussion here and, yes, I am learning something from it.

An aside: thanks to MikeL and Boing for doing the necessary clean ups elsewhere on this page, in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Pandit

Hi Sitush, you have reverted the definition of 'Pandit' from the Kashmiri Pandit Page. I put it there to explain the meaning of the word and its derivative / relavance in Indian society. However, you have also called it a CopyVio? --Ambar (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not double-checked (it is late, and I am off to bed) but my edit summary says that there was a copyright violation of the source. That source was the Merriam-Webster dictionary, per the citation. It takes ages to load pages from that thing here but, even if it is reliable as a source (& many online dictionaries are not), I guess that I spotted you had copy/pasted the definition from that dictionary. You should instead have said something like, "According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term Kashmiri Pandit means people who blah blah blah". I'll try to take another look tomorrow but I am not going to wait several minutes for the M-W page to load, which is definitely my common experience with that website. I did it once in order to check out your addition, and I know that M-W pages often take a long time to sort themselves out. That in itself is not a great sign. What does the Oxford English Dictionary say, I wonder? I'll try to dig around. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit article - in my sandbox

I have further added to the Kashmiri Pandit article and made some formatting improvements. Kindly take a look at it in my sansbox and leave your comments. --Ambar (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do! I notice that you got yourself a mentor, although I've not kept an eye on what has been going on. That is a really good step on your part - well done and I hope that it works out well for both you and your mentor. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste System in Kerala

Dear Sitush, Thank you for your invitation. I have commented on the issue Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. --AshLey ^Msg 11:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Now you are moving in a negative way. Entire Syrian Christian issue is not in discussion. Discussion was related to Syrian Christian -Nair relative status. Please avoid edit warring while I'm quoting reliable sources. Else we could go for mediation.--AshLey ^Msg 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing Syrian Christian issues in a manner that is undue weight for an article concerning the general Keralite caste system. I rather think that it may be something that you are particularly interested or even involved with, which is not necessarily a bad thing but we have a lot of POV pushers in the caste area and such articles are subject to general sanctions. I'll add the appropriate template to the talk page, which is where this discussion should be taking place. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have marked a different point in the document for POV-push:Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala. Now, you please try to understand who is trying it to push. My points are from academic sources and if you still consider it as POV-push, let's go for mediation. Please don't promote edit-war. --AshLey ^Msg 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE TALK PAGE. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my Talk Page

Not sure what you mean by me deleting messages. My page was getting large and cumbersum so I deleted some of the earlier messages, which have been all been responded too. For the record, I have also responded to your messages, but rarely has to been extended to my messages.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ezhava: My edits

You reverted my edits to Ezhava with an edit summary of "Sorry, but I am not convinced that most of these edits agree with the sources (or the lack thereof)." Well yeah, they might not agree with all the sources, but I swear all that I added, all that I added, came from those sources in stone. I know my description was awkward, which I plan to fix, and go ahead...revert me! SanctusofRajput (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise you not to rush in. Most of your changes related to Nossiter, whom I have read. Of your other changes, the sources have been variously tagged for quite some time. If you can change the statement then you can also fulfil the requests made in those tags. Articles such as Ezhava are subject to general sanctions and it is not a bad idea, especially if you are new to Wikipedia, to consider carefully the potential impact of your actions and discuss them if someone has raised a doubt. I raised a doubt, and the correct place for discussion is not here but rather at Talk:Ezhava. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

my Distance Learning edit

You reverted my good faith edits claiming that spam comes from my sources? I don't understand. Pcm130 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to determine why Distance education and Virtual education are suddenly receiving a lot of edits by what amount to single purpose accounts, but the contributors do not hang around long enough for me to make any progress. My suspicion is that there is some sort of class project going on and, if so, it would be helpful to know which and to have some contact details in order that any problems that arise can be ironed out. There are people here on Wikipedia who act as ambassadors for such projects, for example, and can really assist in their smooth operation. Some of the contributions from the SPAs have been very poor indeed, although others seem ok to me.

Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School has a chequered history here on Wikipedia because there has in the past been the appearance of spamming and non-neutral editing. Since your edit mentioned PCCS in a somewhat peculiar context given the general nature of the article, I thought it best to remove it until someone decides to respond with the necessary information. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. We're all M.S. in Ed online students and our task this week is to edit a wiki. While I see that the other students edits are not meeting the standards of wikipedia, mine had sourced material that was reporting criticism. I'm new to this and won't get back to you soon. I wish you had read my edit before deleting it, because it is not spam and was an attempt to add further information.Pcm130 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For which school? Who is your course leader? How can we contact them? I did read your contribution, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dr. Clint Born. What was the problem with my contribution then, if I may ask? Pcm130 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way that Dr Born could email me or Salvio giuliano in order to set up some kind of liaison? We both have "Email me" links on the left-hand side of our user pages.

Regarding your edit, well, it certainly was sourced etc but the PCCS issue gave rise to doubts. I could reinstate it but right now I think it is more important to get some liaison going. Here at Wikipedia, people are expected to collaborate and if Dr Born is going to mark you or others down because you have been unable to edit then (a) we always rate highly the willingness of contributors who are prepared to discuss & you should let Dr Born know this (perhaps direct him here?) and (b) once some liaison is sorted out then perhaps we can lift the semi-protection and allow edits to resume.

I am very grateful, honestly, for your co-operation. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've found his contact details. I'll try to find someone here who has experience in academic liaison. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is PCCS, PA-cyber? I will email Dr. Born to let him know. I can't guarantee he will contact you. Thanks. Pcm130 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PA-cyber is probably how those in the US refer to it. I'm in the UK! If Dr Born does not make contact with someone here then the likelihood is that the class project will be over because I rather think that course leaders are supposed to do so even before a project commences. This is starting to get slightly out of my range of experience, but I am fairly sure that I am correct. OTOH, if he does make contact then probably things can be smoothed out and then everyone will be happy. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why you revert the sourced addition. It will be treated as vandalism if you continue like this as the source is from reliable. The actor told he did not join this alliance behalf of communityl; He did not tell he was not behalf of from this community. --Jenith (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn about our policies regarding WP:BLP etc. I have explained in the correct place, ie; on the article talk page. Now stop this warring, please. "He did not tell he was not behalf of from this community" does not mean that he is from the community - that is a nonsense. If in doubt, then ask before inserting. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit of article "Harvey Karp"

The article contains - as a main part - a chapter named "Karp's technique". Than follows "Criticism" - dealing with the problematic aspects of this techniques, not so much with the problematic person of Karp. So I think my contribution on just this technique is a useful aspect of the whole page. Otherwise this problematic "calming reflex" can be mentioned, while a rational critique cannot. Mr. bobby (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections have to be very carefully deployed, especially in articles that are biographies of living people. Furthermore, the article is indeed a biography and not an article about the calming reflex technique, so there are issues of weight also. I do not for one moment intend to imply that the article is ok as it stands but your addition appeared to be unhelpful. Perhaps one day I will get round to sorting the thing out but right now all I can do is contain the situation as and when appropriate. I hope that this makes some sort of sense. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

West India

Hey Sitush, can you have a look at the recent edits? My knowledge of geography isn't that great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rajasthan is NW India, so there may be some semantical issue here. I am not aware of a formal definition for West India, but perhaps that is the most basic requirement for an article such as this? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen snooker being played? After all the red balls are potted, the other coloured balls are potted in a sequence that goes yellow-green-brown-blue-pink-black. Years ago, when snooker was televised over here and colour TV was still a luxury, one commentator famously said "For those of you watching black-and-white televisions, the green ball is the one next to the brown". Apropos that, I am on that little island to your right, as you look towards New York. Neither of the places will actually be visible to you, of course, so it may not be terribly useful as an attempt to improve your geographical knowledge ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, don't insult me: I'll have you know that the Whirlwind from London Town is one of my childhood heroes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was back in the days when you liked flashy waistcoats and admired an early example of the heroin chic physique. Nowadays, you can only dream of a perm such as he had ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I couldn't stand Davis and Henry and all those clean-cut guys. "Jimmy" is such a cool name too. Besides Hendrix, there's Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, for instance. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Logo of Patna University

You have removed the logo of Patna University by using some rule which must be convincing. But at the same time we must find the rule to include that logo in the article. Though I do not know who that that editor is I think he has made a good attempt and he should be guided to put the logo at the right place in a right manner. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in a bit of a rush at the time, sorry. The guideline is WP:LOGO. I am no expert regarding images but Magog the Ogre might be able to assist. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have deleted this in a rush and as you admit you are not an expert of images, then you are requested to help include the logo for the article. Someone had done that out of a sheer desire to improve the article. The spirit should be encouraged by all of us. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. Everything is relative here in terms of expertise. Some people are really good at sorting out copyright issues, others at resolving problems with images, and yet others are good at - for example - resolving disputes. As with the real, face-to-face world, we are none of us perfect and all of us know people who know more than us about A or B or C. My comment regarding "rush" related to the lack of explanation: I do usually try to give more detail in situations such as this. As per my earlier reply, the detail is in WP:LOGO. The necessity of a quick revert is justified by Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright. Basically, it is "better to be safe than sorry" - we can always revisit the issue, as indeed we are doing. However, I do feel that input from someone like Magog would be helpful as, honestly, it is an area in which they are more experienced than either myself or, probably, you.

I'll drop a note on their talk page, asking whether they would be prepared to review. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion; it is a legitimate exercise of fair use, unless I'm missing something (which is certainly possible). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. Do we have to use a degraded version or can we use a copy/save from the source website if degrading it would turn the thing into mush? - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The version from the website is itself already in degraded form. No, you don't have to degrade something if it will turn it into mush. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is much appreciated. Thanks for stepping in. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, both Sitush and Magog the Ogre for the contribution to the article. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Parayar Edits

Hi Sitush,

I tried adding Poikayil Appachan to the list of social reformers and activists. I found it removed by you, reason being "Cannot see any sourced verification of Paraiyar status in the linked article". In the wiki page for [Poikayil Appachan], I've mentioned the references: J. W. Gladstone (1984). Protestant Christianity and people's movements in Kerala: a study of Christian mass movements in relation to neo-Hindu socio-religious movements in Kerala, 1850-1936. Seminary Publications. Retrieved 14 April 2012. (Page 264). I couldnt understand how else I could do the same. Please clarify, I will try providing the same.

On the same note, many other leaders on the Paraiyar wiki is left with no reference. Am I allowed to remove them on good faith note ? ~Regards.

Almithra, don't forget to sign every time you post on a Talk page

Sitush, Almithra is correct, the article Poikayil Appachan explicitly states his Paraiyar origin, with cite. Restoring to Paraiyar, and including the cite regarding his birth community. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably the article has been updated but possibly I just cocked it up. Sorry about that, Almithra. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Vikrant Chaturvedi

Please see the edit warring being indulged in by User:BlueMario1016 regarding Devanagri scripts on the page above, even after I've explained the consensus reached on India notice board to him at my talk page here. I'd appreciate your intervention. Regards, Lovy Singhal (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Khattar

Dear User:Sitush, hi, and thanks, reg the reversion of my earlier edits on the above article! However, just for the record and to help me understand properly please (Im afraid Im still not v good enough with all the technical aspects) could you kindly elaborate the problems with these two articles, that were removed? I didn really understand from the Edit summary. Would be grateful, regs, Khani100 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

No problem. There is a de facto consensus among experienced editors that caste is similar to ethnicity and religion. A consequence of this is that in the case of biographies of living people it is necessary that we provide a reliable source which verifies that the person concerned self-identifies as a member of a particular community. In the case of people who are now dead, verifiability still applies. These points can be seen in action across scores of articles relating to "List of members of caste X". The issue has also been discussed at WT:INB, where a fair few of the participants are from India or of Indian origin.

Your contribution added three names, one of whom is a living person. There were no citations to verify their ethnicity, nor were there any in the linked articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India?

Wrote a few "articles about books" recently about some of the old Raj publications; historiography is an interest of mine, and the debate about which old sources work when and don't on caste has been interesting. So I wrote a few short articles (and it was a tail-pain trying to find proper sources by slogging through dozens of gBooks hit where they cite the book but don't describe it). It vaguely seems they should have a cat, so I slapped together Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India.

Do you have any suggestions about tweaking, filling, etc. this cat, other top-priority Manuals/Gazetteers I should put up stubs for, or better ways to integrate this and them into the cat tree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not great on category stuff, but the naming in this case might be a bit on the narrow side. Remember that most of the Raj manuals etc had their origins in the work of Risley, Gait, Ibbetson, Russell, Thurston etc, who published full-blown books on their subjects & whose work was officially a part of the Raj documentary system. Hunter did a massive Statistical Survey in the 1880s, and the Ethnographic Survey produced the post-1901 books. It might pay you to take a glance at H. H. Risley because there are quite a few pointers in that. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Herbert Hope Risley

Hi,

I've completed the review at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley/GA1 and just waiting for your response before passing. Please check my edits for accuracy.[3] It's very interesting and I hope your write more about all this. It's a whole angle on India not really covered in the encyclopedia, as far as I know. In this way, wikipedia excels. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you for this article. Years ago I edited articles on India but became uncomfortable with what seemed to me POV and the hostility when I questioned something, so I stopped, feeling caught in the middle of arguments I didn't understand. But I knew nothing about the issues your article explains. I'm so glad that a new era has dawned on wikipedia. I remain so very curious about India. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ps I hope I put Risley in the correct section under "Good articles". MathewTownsend (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that nothing much has changed since your own experience of "what seemed to me POV and hostility when I questioned something". At least, some degree of that still exists and it can be draining at times. You've listed it under "History" - I really would not have a clue but am quite content with that. It is one of those subject areas that crosses a few categorisations. Again, thanks for the review, the comments and in particular for your interest in the subject matter. That the article has assisted in enlightening even one person makes me a happy chap.- Sitush (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience was quite a few years ago. I copy edited a bunch of his articles (rewrote them actually) to FA before I began to question some things. He was a Brahmin and a Hindu and a very bright guy. He was a chip designer living in New York City. We emailed over 700 emails regarding his articles. Then I said I couldn't continue copy editing his articles as I questioned their POV. After many more emails, (he was angry at first) we agreed that this was the case. Since then he got one FA more which was demoted and then stopped editing at all on wikipedia. Really a loss, as the material was wonderful. For some reason, even though it was my decision, I still feel emotional about the experience, as I learned so much about India, even though I was clueless. Since then, I've noticed several Indian editors have left for various reasons. I feel emotional about India, even though I can't explain why. Your articles have been most helpful, as they are the only insight into the "other side". So, thanks again. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Achita Pramote

Hey, I was somewhat able to add categories and stubs towards Achita Pramote, so someone would be able to correct some of the errors on the page, as well as adding more info.

BlueMario1016 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the category additions etc. My real concern, aside from those that I have already fixed, is that you used some websites as sources that within 24 hours became deadlinks. I am not suggesting that you have made anything up etc, but our notability guidelines probably expect a little more in this type of situation. It is pretty unusual for 66% of the sources to be deadlinks within that timespan, and since WP:N pretty much demands that there are multiple independent sources I was rather hoping that you know enough about this person to provide either alternate sources for those statements or some additional relevant content.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak or read any language other than English, or at least not with any degree of confidence (a bit of French and Spanish etc, but nothing great). If you cannot resolve the potential issues regarding notability then it could well be that someone nominates the article for deletion. That person will not be me because TV subjects are something else where I have not a lot of experience. I would imagine that there is a Thai Wikiproject and perhaps even a Thai Film Wikiproject - if you get stuck then an appeal for additional information on the talk page of such a project might be worthwhile. But, please, do not panic: my main reason for leaving you a message was to draw your attention to some of the basics, such as WP:MOSFLAG. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Muzhukkadhan

Sitush: Kindly give some more time to add reliable resources to Muzhukkadhan article. Just now I found few people who are in great position in this kootam. If it is not possible means we can merge the article with List of Kongu-Vellalar kootams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.186.146 (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I will copy this to Talk:Muzhukkadhan and respond there. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoothukudi

Yes the NLC plant is in Harbor estate which comes under corporation limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Source? - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoothukudi South Ward no. 60, Harbor http://thoothukudicorp.tn.gov.in/features_streetdetails.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandiaeee (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been doing other stuff. Yes, it looks ok to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ravichandar84's talk page.
Message added 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Arjun (Actor)

Sitush, you really should get to work! Drmies (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done what I can - not very good at sourcing movie stuff & his adopted name makes it still harder. The article creator is causing quite a few (well-intentioned) problems, including creating a duplicate. I don't like the title & have done half a job of fixing it by turning Arjun (actor) into a disambig. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I love you Sitush. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar

Hello, I've got no expertise in Keralan history, but Thiyyar appears to be an article fork of controversial additions that you've reverted from Ezhava. Would you mind taking a look, and either correcting errors or tagging for improvement as needed? Please also note that there are several other new redirects to this new article. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've PRODed the thing and fixed the redirects. It is a clear POV fork. Thanks very much for spotting this. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy help. Scopecreep (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand that the community is not created for creating controversy there is real historical difference, those who have visited northern Malabar will know it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulkris999 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal experience. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Then when reliable sources are shown especially the case of work by Thurston why first impulse is towards discrediting the source?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop posting here regarding this matter. It is the wrong venue and you are effectively repeating your comments at Talk:Thiyyar, which is the correct venue. I guess that the AfD page, as noted at Thiyyar might also be ok but I wouldn't bank on it because right now you are just committing a form a suicide: every argument you put up is another reason to delete the article. Perhaps spend a bit of time reading about our Five Pillars? - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Rahulkris999's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AndieM (Am I behaving?) 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Balan

Could you explain why you removed the source from the Hindu in Vidya Balan's article? Has there been any consensus or rule to say that a person has to "self-identify her ethnicity"? Secret of success 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT. You will see this happening at countless "List of members of X caste" articles and the issue has not long since been discussed at WT:INB. Caste, religion, ethnicity etc are all deemed to be personally defining statements that require self-identification if the person if alive. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Something feels wrong, while deeming reliable newspapers as "not reliable enough" for any matter. But still, policy is policy, I guess. Thanks. Secret of success 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold it, you only removed the source, not any content. Secret of success 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a little bit inconsistent regarding whether I remove source and content. I tend to play that one by ear & so occasionally leave the content in there but, strictly speaking, it should be removed also. As an example of where problems can emerge, there have been situations where a person has been named in more than one list (ie: as being a member of > 1 caste) and the issues regarding Amitabh Bachchan's disavowal of his caste are a clear proof that we cannot just take what a newspaper says and ignore what the person says. BLPs are soooo tricky, sometimes! - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Then, if we get a formal confirmation from the newspapers that it was told by her, is it good enough? Two more sources, from sify and NDTV also confirm it. Secret of success 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, because (a) newspapers feed off each other; (b) the policy is pretty explicit; and (c) the WT:INB discussion was also. I'll try to find the relevant link for that last one. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion that I recall is here, although I have a vague memory that there have been previous discussions which had the same outcome. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the Janjua Jat Page

I have found some reliable sources where you can find this content clearly mentioned :"A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery " , Source : Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, 1911, Vol II, H. A. Rose, read Page number 356

I think now you should redirect the Janjua Jat page to it's original place. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.230.0 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not going to happen, per WP:COMMONNAME. I hesitate when considering the reliability of Horace Arthur Rose as a source in any event, but even in that quote he does not call them "Janjua Jat", does he? - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am confused when many people are using with no reference they have no issue, and most of the tribes used H.A Rose as a source even Janjua Rajput itself.

More he has used : Janjuha, A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery, and the same is used for Janjua a Rajput clan so what is the issue in it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.153.232 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a minute ... You are saying that there are two groups: the Janjua (Rajput) and the Janjua (Jat). The problem is, there were next to no sources for the Jats and those that did exist were not reliable. Since Rose is also not particularly reliable, do you have anything else? Please bear in mind that we require more than a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I mean to say, Janjua has two major groups (Rajput) & (Jat), like many other tribes, Dhamial, Ghumman, Sial, Bhatti etc see an example here: Dhamial has two groups Rajput and Jats, and they simply have two separate pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhamial_Jats without having not much references.

My second point is, if you consider that there should be one page then the Title should be Janjua only not the Janjua Rajputs.

Because both the group are related to each other but they have few differences like don't marry in each other and stuff like this. I think this should be given extensive attention to resolve the matter. And if you do that would be your role in making things clear to the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.153.232 (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. It seems that we are in agreement, then. The Jat article was hopelessly sourced and if you look at the bottom of Talk:Janjua Rajputs then you will see that I had started a "Requested Move" discussion before you contacted me here. I cannot think of an example off the top of my head but we do have this problem elsewhere with at least another two Indian/Pakistani communities and they are dealt with in one article. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate act of autocratic conduct

Lets say i' am putting forward a link that says that Mr X is the current President of US; while we know who the current incumbent is;will you simply blindly accept the fact because the 'source' says soo?.Certainly NEVER.That would amount to a massive blunder and an act of knowingly causing denigration of the standard of wikepedia articles.Your recent edits on an article speaks volume of the misleading edits you are making while trying to revert actual facts that his contemporaries;biographers,the governments of his home state and country have time and again well documented in archives(Being Obvious Important part of his life). Let say; you made an edit "a Giant great ship sank in 1912 which left for NY from Southampton"(you know the name) and i am putting some sources that say "no such ship sank in 1912". And then, keep on reverting and re-reverting just because if this insane ignorance of facts. Your ability cannot be questioned but you need to keep up the facts presented to you, not mere 'good faith edits' but edits that invoke faith in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.80.102 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the first line of your post above, removing the bolding so that it creates a separate section, which I think is what you intended. If not then I apologise, but it does make for easier reading to do this.

I had absolutely no idea what you were referring to until I checked your edit history, from which it seems likely that your complaint relates to Jayaprakash Narayan. I also note that after posting here you made some edits to that article and those edits have been reverted. I think that if I am correct in my assumption and if you want to pursue the matter then it would probably be best for you to take it to Talk:Jayaprakash Narayan, where you may get a wider audience than here. However, I stand by my actions and will do so should you venture a similar argument on that talk page. - Sitush (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste System: Keep calm and carry on

Your arguments are not up to mark and won't help anymore to assume good faith. Deemed-Universities are not Universities; llly, deemed to be outside doesn't mean outside. Hope you got the point. I have proposed some correction here: Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#New_Christians_untouchable_to_Syrians.3F --AshLey ^Msg 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a bold reply. OK, now I could add similar tags to all the sources cited to push Nambuthiris and Nairs. Let's join hands to clean-up the article. --AshLey ^Msg 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I still do not have a clue what you are talking about. Can you possibly be a little less cryptic. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For example, what does "Your arguments are not up to mark and won't help anymore to assume good faith. Deemed-Universities are not Universities; llly, deemed to be outside doesn't mean outside. Hope you got the point." mean? And "Not a bold reply."? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On my contribution "Though non-Hindus are deemed to be out side caste system....", you commented as: "you really do seem to be on a mission to mention Syrian Christians in as many tangential articles as possible. Are you confident that you do not have a conflict of interest? Your latest edit, at Caste system in India, specifically says that they were not in the system ... so why are you mentioning them at all? It seems daft to me. Peru is not in Europe but we don't say that in the Europe article."

• 1st of all, I tried to clean-up the portion related to Syrian Christians in just three articles on Caste System- 1. Caste System in Kerala, 2. Caste System in India, 3. Caste System among Christians. All the articles already had some portions related to Syrian Christians, and I just tried to clean-up using information from reliable sources.What is you base to accuse me of tweaking Syrian Christian case in as many tangential articles as possible. Is it an action of good faith? Also, you tried to object each and every reputed source citing one or another lame reasons. At the same time long controversial passages are residing in these articles unchallenged, even without sufficient or verifiable citation. While you immediately removed my contributions, you seem to be compromised with even POV-pushes like "Nairs have become most influential due to their numerical superiority". You have already said that the entire paragraph should go, but I wonder why the portions on Syrian Christians(with citation) are immediately removed while the controversial portions on Nairs and Nambuthiris are allowed to reside there. How I could assume good faith on you?
• Did I mention that Syrian Christians are specifically out side the caste system? My point is: "Though non-Hindus are deemed to be out side caste system". That's why, I advised you to be calm and carry on. "Deemed-University" stuff was an example, like your "Peru" stuff. "Non Hindus are deemed to be outside caste system" is a general case and doesn't necessitates that Syrian Christians are outside it. I didn't think, you need so much explanation, if you are welcoming to different Points of View. That explains "not a bold reply" --AshLey ^Msg 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will have a think. This is exactly the sort of problem that arises when you do not keep a user talk page thread in one place: you appear to be replying here to something that I said on your talk page. Similar problems are being encouraged by you at the article talk page, where threads are spinning off out of control and without any reason. It is a form of behaviour that makes it very difficult for other people to process: we are mostly not mind readers. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm taking your criticism positively; will try to post user replies correspondingly. But you have again accused me of an issue which I'm not involved: I haven't tried to spin-off threads in any of the article talk pages as you accuse. Please cite the exact case --AshLey ^Msg 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have not accused you of spinning off a thread. I said that the problems were being "encouraged by you" - I had seemingly managed to xonvince Inarzan, who is a fairly new contributor, that they were posting multiple new threads that were actually already under discussion in a single earlier thread. Subsequently, you responded to what had become effectively a dead thread due to Inarzan's realisation. It is the one to which you link above, and it is in order not to reignite the situation that I ignored your re-opening of it.

Look, I need to read through some of your sources - especially those that appear possibly to be written/published by Christian-oriented people because of potential bias etc - and this sideshow is a distraction. I've got one on order but hope that I can find the rest online somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Prof. Raj Reddy' photo

Hi Sitush,

I have been trying to upload the photo of Prof. Raj Reddy on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Reddy. The photo has been taken by a Chinese Professor when Prof. Reddy visited China. He has given us permissions to use his photo on the Wiki page. Whenever I try uploading the image and I mention that I have the rights to publish the photo, the photo gets removed. What am I doing wrong? Please advise how I can upload the photo in a manner that is acceptable.

Please let me know of a quick fix to this problem.

-Vishnu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnugsr (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded the file both here and at Commons. You used different licenses, claiming here that it was your own work and on Commons that it was the work of the professor whom you now mention above. Clearly, one or the other is wrong and in any case you really should not create duplicates in this manner. Commons is the better repository for things that might be of use for other projects, so I'll tag the English Wikipedia version for deletion.

As far as the Commons one is concerned, you need to see the thread here, where it is clear that you have not in fact complied with policy. You added a notice saying that the Professor was emailing permission for us to use the file (the "OTRS" procedure) but nothing has been received over a period of several months and as such it is at present a violation of the Prof's copyright. I suggest that you comment in that thread, but you perhaps also should be aware that similar images are to be found on various websites and I am not 100% certain that the photo is in fact even the Prof's copyright: why would a photo taken by a Prof in China become the official photo used on the website of an Indian university, for example? It seems to me to be fairly unusual. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

The photo of Prof. Reddy was taken by one of his friends who is a Professor in China. Prof. Reddy likes this photo of all of the photos of him. I had put up some other photos of Prof. Reddy on the wiki page but they were not of good quality. I had mentioned that I have permisson of the Chinese Prof to put up this photo. But how do I submit the email? I remember forwarding that email to permissions-en <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> as was prescribed on Wiki when I was uploading the photo. I thought that was enough. What else needs to be done? Please advise.

Vishnugsr (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vishnu

I am afraid that I know nothing of the OTRS submission process, having never been involved in it. The thread at Commons to which I have linked above may well be the best place to get an answer to your query. If your memory is correct then the probability is that your email did not satisfy the OTRS requirements and so the image was not tagged with the unique ID that the OTRS system generates and which would have caused this entire issue to go away. Please do not take this as a certainty, but I am reasonably confident that you cannot send the email or give permission - that will have to come from the person who took the photograph because they are the copyright holder, not you. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you do not understand something does not mean that you can ignore a discussion and reinstate an image that you have been told explicitly is at present a copyright violation. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies! From your first few replies I presumed it was okay to use the Commons photo instead of the wiki one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnugsr (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

kurmi varna status

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kurmi". Thank you. --Jaychandra (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed BLP prod on Vice Admiral Iyer

I have removed the BLP prod tag you placed on Vice Admiral Iyer, which I have since moved to Nilakanta Krishnan, because nominating an article for BLP prod requires that there be no sources on the article at the time of nomination, regardless of whether or not they are reliable. You removed a source from the article 5 minutes before adding the BLP prod tag. While I agree that that source was unreliable, it did back claims made in the article, making the article ineligible for a BLP prod nomination.

Additionally, the subject is deceased, so BLP prod may likely have been moot anyways. When I place BLP prod tags, I err on the side of caution and assume the person is living if born within the last 115 years unless the article states that the person is deceased, regardless of what reliable or unreliable sources might say, so I can't expect you to have known that given the information provided in the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the problem. I tried to find the guy using GSearch and also searching on the articles for the ship etc here but without a first name it is difficult. Also, the article didn't say that he was dead & so we have to presume that he is living. One of the points about PRODs of any description is that the acronym often matches the response to it, ie: it prods someone with a bit more knowledge (or time) to sort out the problem. No worries. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done some editing on Nilakanta Krishnan. Would request help from the Military history task forces. Any idea how to go about this? Anant (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I reverted that edit of yours. Some of it was not in the cited source, another aspect was poorly source (see WP:Citing sources), some was undue weight, etc. I'll try to dig around myself for more information, although I think that I exhausted my capabilities with those sources that I have already provided for you. You can ask for help at the India Project talk page, where I suspect you may get more interest than the military history project because it looks likely that any other sources will be offline in Indian books etc. Nonetheless, there is no harm is asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history also. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You had posted the following note, in my talk page. Since I am a novice, in matters concerning editing wiki entries, can I kindly have some clarification?

Making comments such as you have done in opening the thread here] is a very quick way to upset people. Please do not twist words to suit your own purpose. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1) What is the technical problem? Is it that opening this thread (I am learning this word for the first time), will create different discussions in different forums? 2) If that is the reason for you to get upset, I can empathise with you! Sorry. But I dont think I have twisted any words to suit any purpose of mine?

And talking of "purpose". At the end of the day, can we remind ourselves that we are talking of an Indian war hero? Dead and not much known to the present generation? Does his memory deserve to be remembered in wikipedia? And how to go about this in the most effective manner? I had inserted a paragraph from the Australian Navy papers,(which references were provided I think by you) on why he was awarded the Distinguished service cross. And you have removed that? If it is a problem of writing style, well that can be remedied? But do have any problem with the content? I think it is an official publication of the Australian Navy? Anant (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You completely misrepresented what I have said to you, and you seem still to be denying that. If you cannot see that you have misrepresented me then it may be due to a less than optimal ability to comprehend the English language.

I don't care whether the article is about an alleged war hero or a cartoon character, the stuff about his DSC was undue weight and it is not even the thing for which, according to your own edits, he is best known. If someone wants to read the medal citation or a detailed account of the events leading up to the award etc then those are freely available to them in the cited source: we do not usually quote huge chunks in the manner that you did. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbritrary heading

Would you have any problem if N.M.Iyer, ICS, CIE is allowed to remain in the list of Iyers? I do not think the reason to remove this entry also, was a sound one? Anant (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is verifiable that he was of Iyer ethnicity and he is notable then there is no problem. However, his ethnicity is not verifiable, so he should not be listed. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he used Iyer as his surname? He was selected for the Indian Civil Services, and seems to have done well enough to earn a CIE? So the chances of frauding on his Iyer ethnicity is low? And there is information that his father was also Iyer? What are the usual ways to prove this, especially for people no longer alive?

I also kindly presume that we agree that being selected for the ICS and then getting a CIE is enough to be deemed "notable"?

Anant (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why being a member of the ICS and receiving the CIE make someone notable, but that is not the most significant point right now. Just having the Iyer name does not confirm his ethnicity. As I have told you elsewhere, there is a consensus regarding this: last names are not verification. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Another IP going crazy on Thiyyar edits

Sitush, not sure if you were already tracking on this guy, but he's going to dozens of pages a day to add links to Thiyyar and remove any Ezhava mention, including rendering at least one page uncat by taking off the Category:Ezhava: Special:Contributions/14.139.160.4

Didn't want to mess with it myself in case you have a larger plan, but can we put this guy in for a mass rollback since he's offered zero explanation for any of this, and the very article in question in PROD'ed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You will have to comment at the AfD. The situation is ridiculous but there is not much I can do about it outside of the AfD process. It is clearly a co-ordinated off-wiki thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Saini article reference

Hi, Sitush, how are you? Don't you think we need to add some details (link possibly) in The cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and... which is the main ref of the article Saini? In Wikipedia we don't seem to have an article on the book, I have searched in Google, and search results informs the book is available in may sites, I feel we can link anyone to make it clear! --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've done a fair amount of work on the various Raj administrators etc but I've not yet got round to delving into the Balfour article. That particular book, however, is poor source but for now it could be linked to the Edward Balfour article. In my opinion, the thing should not be used at all, based on my recurrent visits to it due to the numerous cites.. The Saini article is a complete disaster, mostly due to pov pushing etc. I am in quite a severe state of despair regarding the thing, but I am blowed if I am going to give way to pov pushers in an area of Wikipedia where there are far too many of them and far too few disinterested contributors. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not read the book, downloading PDF, but 145 MB is too much, it'll take some time to download and read.. someone wrote/published an encyclopedia on India in 1857, is not it interesting?
BTW, I am also confused with the name too, here it is said:

The Encyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial, Industrial, and Scientific, first published in 1857 with subsequent editions titled as the Cyclopaedia of India.

, But, in the article you have mentioned about 1885 edition and book title of 1857. little bit confusing, I feel! --Tito Dutta ^Message 01:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never used Balfour's book as a source and I have never contributed to the article concerning him. As I say above, I do not think that it is a suitable source for a modern encyclopedia such as ours. Certainly, both Balfour and his writings may be interesting and valid subjects for articles about themselves, but not as a source in other articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Hi I see that you have recently deleted several updates I have made. I will try to provide you with possible references, but there are some references to books that are available only in private collections in libvraries or even in snippets of google books for the lay surfer. I have updated most information only about these dignitaries who had already been created on wikipedia because I felt that the existing information was rather sketchy and incomplete. SInce I have personal information about Sir T Sadasiva iyer, R.V Srinivasa Aiyar and Sister Subbalakshmi , i have attempted to make the available information more thorough.Although mine was a work still in progress, I will attempt to provide authentic references. Some information is from Family chronicles as these dignitaries were all my ancestors Smuthusami (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Being dealt with at User talk:Smuthusami#Issues with your contributions. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Retract

I will retract. We all want a scholarly discussion. But please everyone, no one personal comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There were none of relevance to you, and that which was perhaps personalised was correct per block logs etc. Anyway, let's keep it things at the AfD rather than sprawling around. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkar's attitude on Hinduism

Hi Sitush. Kindly respond to my question on Talk:B._R._Ambedkar. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)  Done - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil

May I know where in WP:BLP is it mentioned that only court proven allegations can be included? In that case the title of the section will be convictions not controversies. There are not fill-in breaking news items, the controversy you removed is being extensively covered by national media. You must be knowing that. Keeping her article clean of "controversies" is not going to help to clean off her scandalous presidential stint.--Anoopkn (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your phrasing - "scandalous presidential stint" - says a lot regarding where it is you are coming from. As for what WP:BLP says about it, well, that has already been explained to you on your talk page during the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know your idea on where I am coming from. No, really. I'm amazed how people jumps into conclusions. Are you totally unaware of the unprecedented negative media coverage that Mrs. Patil got during her stint?--Anoopkn (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, "unprecedented" is as good a start as "scandalous presidential stint". Prove it, and do so without recourse to the machinations, generic corruption etc that are a particular feature of Indian politics. Even if the allegations were true, what makes her so different from the (roughly) 65% of national-level Indian politicians who are currently facing various legal charges or have already been convicted thereof. This instance has not even developed into a legal case, at least as far as I am aware.

I have no connection with India but neutrality is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You cannot go around using adjectives etc such as these without extremely good support. That is WP:BLP for you, and it is a policy that has been determined by an extremely wide consensus. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anoopkn, could we please keep this on the article's talk page? I happen to follow Sitush's talk page, but I'm sure other editors don't. In any event, I've given you an extensive explanation of how WP:BLP applies in this case, and what we would need to include that info at that location. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saini article edits

Not sure if you noticed, but FYI, SalariaRajput took out the part from the main summary where it said the Saini claims were disputed. It took a long time to get it there, but now it's gone again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice. I've now reinstated it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your help. Looking forward to your support in future. Sam.ldite (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

now

now is it ok ? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC) list of iyers

It is not great for me but perhaps others can understand what you are saying better than I can. Thanks for trying. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Iyan/Iyar, Ezhava/Ezhavar, etc: the Tamil honorific /r/

I'd seen this alluded to in some articles, and though this bit isn't cited it does seem credible and clear things up: Tamil_honorifics#-n.2C_-l.2C_-r

I'll try and find a cite for it at some point, but googling phonetics is always a pain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I always thought that it was just a transliteration issue, whereas it now appears to be another bit of long-term caste puffery! - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Vishvakarma

Please respond [4] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see

[5]--Shrike (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Reference for Dharmendra as a Jat

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to List of Jats. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The name I added to jat links in cinema is Dharmendra, and the article I used to reference it had a quote from his son Sunny Deol saying Dharmendra is "the best looking jat he knows." Those are words coming directly out of his son's mouth at a press interview where both father and son were present. If such a reference is not valid, then the reference of listing Dara Singh on the site as a jat is also not valid because the article that referenced for Dara Singh didn't have anyone saying he is a jat, it was just stated by the writer that he is a jat. Also for Dharmendra's claim, the article that is used to reference Malika Sherawat has her saying "we both jats" referring to her and Dharmendra in his presence. Also there are many other jat's listed on the list in other sections like sports like Virendra Sehwag and a many others that have no reference attached, yet you have them on the list, and yet eventhough I'm providing reference for Dharmendra you are refusing. Please check the reference I have given for Dharemendra, read the article and you will see what his son says, and his son's statment making Dharmendra a Jat then also makes Sunny Deol a Jat. Teamaps (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)--Teamaps (talk) 17:13, 27

Please see the following article that his his son Sunny Deol saying Dharmendra is "the best looking jat" he knows from the The Hindustan Times http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/I-was-missing-the-camera-Dharmendra/Article1-635872.aspx

It is not valid: the man has to self-identify. It is theoretically possible that, as with Amitabh Bachchan, he rejects the entire idea of caste even though his parents may not have done. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on this issue: As per the definition of caste, one takes birth in one caste and would die in the same. Your comments may be true for religion --AshLey ^Msg 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how WP:BLP works and there is a consensus at WT:INB that specifically disallows your reasoning. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the WT:INB discussions is here. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Ashley thomas80's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent edit

Why did you remove all of edits done in U._G._Krishnamurti#Philosophy? The sources cited are available on the internet to verify and there is little interpretation involved.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I undo the edits on U.G. page then? We also have to talk about my edits on Narayana page.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We are dealing with the Krishnamurti issue at that article's talk page, as is appropriate. It is my opinion that you should continue to discuss and/or await other input rather than reinstating your contribution. If you do reinstate then that would be your third insertion of the disputed material and could put you on a knife-edge with regard to WP:3RR.

Regarding Narayan, if you want to challenge then you know where to do it. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget the Narayana page, I don't disagree with your edits much there. Lets discuss edits on Varna page, which is why you seem so obstinate in the first place.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. I have to take my dog out for a walk shortly, so you may not get a response for a while. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We can take this to varna page. My contention is translations are secondary sources. And you also removed the reference for dating of Purusha sukta, which was a secondary source. How long will you be out?CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends how many blades of grass he wants to sniff round. A couple of hours, possibly. There is no rush about these things: Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow, next month, next year. On the other hand, that article really does need sorting out properly. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't specialize in caste, but I thought a chronological arrangement of thought regarding Varna in Indian texts will help people understand the evolution of the idea. Anyway we can discuss Varna later, just please sort U.G. issue out now. I am thinking of writing an article on Philosophy of mind in India and his quotes will contribute an important part to it.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Damara

Left on the Talkpage. Please respond. On Kashmir issues, which are always controversial require that any article to be well balanced.

I have deleted this sentence as it is not referenced. The conversion to Islam by the Kashmiris was the result of a number of unique historically and sociological reasons, not as a result of simply corruption by the Dammara feudal class or their Lohara overlords.

It was as a consequence of their many disputes with the kings of the Lohara dynasty, during a prolonged period of corruption, internecine fighting and misrule, that the region eventually passed into control by Muslim rulers.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was unsourced. It is not now. The bigger problem was that you completely misread what the statement said. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please retract

I suspect you are POV pedlar with an underlined ideology, which has no place in what should be a neutral encyclopedia. But refrain from character assassinations.

Once again Sitush has begun his character assassination. "creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort". Please retract.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No I will not retract, and I am not a "POV pedlar". I have no idea what an "underlined ideology" may be.

You prove that it is "once again" and I will prove that it is not a character assassination. You have created loads of low-quality stubs, despite your considerable experience here, and I recently had to spend quite a bit of time sorting some of them out. Your real issue here is, I think, that I have nominated some of your articles for deletion & one has already been deleted. Get over it, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent undo on Varna(Hinduism)

How can we discuss anything if you keep deleting my edits without even verifying the sources? If you had a problem with either of the sources, the first one is a translation by Swami Madhavananda and the second one is an interpretation by Swami Krishnananda, you could have placed a 'failed verification' tag there. Both according to me are secondary sources and even if you feel that a translation is debatable as a secondary source, you should not have removed the content associated with second reference. I have given the links, page numbers, chapter numbers there. Please verify the links and then tell me why you find the content objectionable.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge topics related to religions on Wikipedia do not have to enforce most stringent standards. I will see if I can improve the article when I get time.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a separate policy or guideline that covers such articles? - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

criticism in religious topics can help.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A little, but not much. It is not even a guideline yet and may never be one. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"The proposal is definitely still in development and under discussion" so it just might be.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a meaningless announcement, really. I have been trawling for some sort of all-in-one specialised guideline and so far have had no luck. That has surprised me but if one cannot be found then our basic policies and guidelines apply; and if one is found then it is pretty unusual for such a guideline to supplant the basic stuff.

I know that some essays etc - eg: WP:BRD - have gained an almost pseudo-policy status but the draft proposal that you link to has not and the message that you note is an indication that its wording is far from settled. FWIW, it actually does not say much of relevance that I have not already pointed out to Correct Knowledge. I think that the problem here is the CK is an intelligent, knowledgeable, new-ish contributor who can't quite get to grips with the limitations that Wikipedia imposes. Well, it is either that or I have made a really, truly bad call with regard to WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR etc. I guess that sooner or later I am bound to make a really bad call, but I always comment etc in good faith. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Kshatriya vandalism

Hi, If it is so, it is not vandalism but my mistake; you can revert my edit if you wish...However, Suryavamsa comes historically first.Rajkris (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now there is an interesting issue - whether we order chronologically or by alphabet. I have no particular opinion in this instance, and since it has been the same for a long time then, well, I guess that we should stick with it. Thanks for explaining. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Indian_Sociology.
Message added 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malabar Nasranis

Dear Sitush, thanks for your edits on Saint Thomas Christians. Edit warring on the page Saint Thomas Christians started when an editor began massive edit warring on the page in september 2011 when the page was called Syrian Malabar Nasrani. His edits shows a casteist agenda, promoting the brahmin myth of the syrian christians. He systematically removed all references to Jewish tradition of the Nasrani people and has been adding over hundred years old citations to support his casteist agenda. I am afraid I should say he got away with a lot of pov edit because he worked in tandem with another editor. You are right there is no standard term used for the said community on the page. The original term for the so called 'syrian christians' is Nasrani Mappila. Other appellation include Mar Thoma Nasrani and Malabar Nasrani. The article was renamed to the portuguese term 'Christians de sant Thome' (Saint Thomas Christians) in december 2011. Obviously that creates a problem. The term for the community is Nasrani Mappila or Malabar Nasranis. By using the term Saint Thomas Christians one makes it mandatory that all the individuals hailing from the community is a religious christian. It need not be so. There are several atheist in the community who are definitely Nasrani Mappila but not Saint Thomas Christian. Robin klein (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place - take it to the article talk page, please, since there is at present a discussion there about naming. I am not getting involved in accusations regarding past editors etc - all of these religion-based articles are notorious for pov pushing etc from one "side" or another, and the Indian Christian communities are right at the forefront of such stuff in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for your reply, but I think there is no need to single out any particular community as being at the fore front of agenda edits. It only weakens ones neutral position. Cheers!! Robin klein (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You cast aspersions and comment in the wrong place, then have the temerity to tell me that if I do something similar then it somehow affects my neutrality? Pot and kettle, I think. I was merely pointing out that it goes on. I am far more neutral than you will likely understand, and certainly more so than most. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Yes you are right I should have restrained myself from accusing people. I did not intend to be offensive to you or anyone. I apologize. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to bring to your attention that it was not you who removed the statement which we are discussing. It was Cuchullain who removed the statement in the midst of the massive cleaning that you were doing and so it went unnoticed. [as of 19:04, 26 April 2012 edit by User:Cuchullain|Cuchullain] The statement was put up by me after a long discussion and so called consensus. But then it was removed in the midst of the heavy cleaning and that too without any discussion. It took me a while to even identify who actually removed the statement. Interestingly the statement was removed without removing the source, stating that it is not stated in the source. That is POV. It seems the rules of discussion and consensus applies only to me. This is unfair. I feel I should not have done the self revert. People are not showing trust in the quotes that I have given or the sources I have stated. The editors profess to be neutral but seem to be directed by an agenda. Now please dont scare me by saying that I am writing in the wrong place or that I am accusing others. I am stating thus because after the self revert there is no solution yet as stated when the problem began due to the deliberate POV deletion of a statement that had been put up after supposed consensus. Why would an editor remove a statement after arriving at consensus. Why would an editor wait for months to remove the statement. Why would the statement be removed in the midst of massive cleaning to be unnoticed. This is POV deletion or vandalism. This is not fair. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that it was not me when you accused me, but thanks for acknowledging that now. I am not a mind reader and I think that since you are concerned then you need to ask the removing user for a more detailed explanation of their actions. Since that user is active on the article talk page it would be best to ask there because you are referring to some consensus that presumably was originally discussed there. I have no idea of what the past consensus may have been but I can assure you that your good faith is recognised and if there is some sort of agenda then I am not a part of it. The problem is merely one of interpretation, and we are sorting that out on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the response on the discussion page. I had left a message for you at the article talk page. Since you may have missed it I am posting the same message here on your talk page. For the time being a rewording seems a better option. What do you suggest? Could you please suggest a rewording that could be valid and consistent with the given sources and quote that suggest that the Nasrani claim to Jewish descent is probable. Please do state it at the article talk page of Saint Thomas Christians. thanks Robin klein (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it but was about to take my dog out for a walk. (My dog appears to be getting a lot of mentions on this page at the moment!) I will be going to bed fairly soon but will respond tomorrow. The gist will be that I do not have access to the sources that you were quoting and therefore cannot put them in context. As you know, I have asked for one at WP:RX & of course I can ask for the other. In between times, I suspect that others will weigh in.

I am grateful for your understanding regarding the issue: I think that there may be scope for some sort of compromise but I really need to see those sources in full. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I have left more note and a quote from a paper from the scientific journal molecular biology reports (2012) feb 5th. I am stating it here just in case you missed it. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just got your message on my talk page. It appears that someone else has already blocked Jogytmathew for 24 hours. Perhaps that admin will be of help to you if the problem persists after the block expires? Let me know if you need further help. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the waste of your time. - Sitush

Nah, don't worry about it. This biodiesel company comes to my house every night and collects all my wasted time to make fuel for the green community. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You said earlier that a compromise rewording could accomodate even the Northist claim. Why dont you please suggest a rewording that would be consistent with the sources and quote. Since it is not that there is no suggestion of jewish connection. Just a line would be fair for all the groups involved. Please I think, a single line of rewording would be fair. There are other people who are reverting. I understand that you may think it is me and may feel like taking your anger on me. Please dont doubt me. I sincerely was waiting for you to suggest a fair rewording than an abrupt one sided end. You asked me to make a self revert and I did. I requested you for a fair rewording. I sincerely believe you have the skill to do so. Please reconsider a fair rewording. thanks Robin klein (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who it is that is presently disrupting the article. As far as rewording goes, I have had a think and explained my reasoning on the article talk page. It really is trivial stuff - perhaps not to you, but to the vast majority of our readership. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

copyvio book

Freedom Fighters of India by Lion MG Agrawal is one. I remember you were compiling a list, so add this one if you will. Perhaps it's time to start documenting a list at a subpage of WT:INB. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I never did start that list but, yes, I think that we need to do so I will try to have a trawl through my past. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For being diligent and fair while reviewing new content in Indian articles and for being prompt in your replies to warring editors. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that you will stick around because it is obvious to me that you have much to offer once you get to grips with the Wikipedia way of doing things. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Your edits to R. S. Subbalakshmi

Dear Sitush,

I am totally new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to insert citations... I'm trying to learn on the go, so please forgive my mistake in not inserting proper citations.

All my material is very verifiable! Most of the information is from Monica Felton's biography of R.S.Subbalakshmi's life, titled, "A Child Widow's Story", and also from Malathi Ramanathan's PhD thesis titled, Sister R.S.Subbalakshmi, Social Reformer and Educationist.

Sister R.S.Subbalakshmi is my great grand aunt and we, the family, are on a drive to bring her and all her work back into the public eye. I have some pictures that we have agreed can be shown and used through open source. I have yet to figure out how to insert them. Please help me here. How do I re-instate all that you have removed, and also add the citations, and pictures?

KaveriBharath (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it. You are the second person to claim a family connection, with the other being the creator of the article. I am a little concerned about this and you should read our information regarding conflicts of interest. I am also concerned about Felton, whose book has been reprinted but about whom I need to do some digging. I'll reply on your talk page later - got to go out in a few minutes. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that the creator is also a family member. I was planning on starting this page on her life, when he told me that he had already started one on her, and I should feel free to edit and add to it. Sunil Muthusami is the great great grandson of Sister Subbalakshmi's uncle, and I am the great grand daughter of Sister Subbalakshmi's sister. It is a very large, very close knit family, and you shouldn't be concerned if more than one person is related to her. There is no conflict of interest.

Monica Felton wrote two books. One on Rajaji, and the other on Sister Subbalakshmi. It is a far more reliable source than Madras Musings, where Mr.Muthaiah takes information that anyone sends him. My aunt Nithya and I have sent several clippings and pictures about Queen Mary's College, Sister Subbalakshmi, and the Ice House, (Vivekanadar Illam)to him, which he has published without any credit to the sources. My father and grandfather were present many times during Monica Felton's interviews of Sister Subbalakshmi, as they all lived in a joint family cluster of houses back then. Monica Felton's books are available on flipkart, if you want. Monica Felton herself died by 1970.

Malathi Ramanathan who wrote the other book which is derived from her thesis on Sister Subbalaksmi's life, lives in Bangalore. The other sources that Sunil has cited are the Sister Subbalakshmi Centenary Souvenir which the family and members of the Sarada Ladies Union published in 1986. That souvenir, if you will send me your email, I can scan page by page and send you if you want.

As far as copyright is concerned, all the photographs belonged to Sister Subbalakshmi's nephew, V.S.Shankar. Before he passed away, he handed them all over to my aunt, Nithya. She, (Nithya) and I have been putting together all of Sister Subbalakshmi's life history and publications and photographs and are presenting it over this entire year at various venues in Chennai, especially at the institutions that she headed / started / managed. We felt it would be good to have the information on the wikipedia too, as she was a very humble person who didn't push her name out to the forefront, and with the 50s and 60s anti-brahmin agitations, her name has slowly been pushed out of prominence.

I have no idea why you are so apprehensive about our sources and so suspicious about this article.

KaveriBharath (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am apprehensive for numerous reasons. These include:

• Both of you do have a conflict of interest - see WP:COI
• Felton was published 60 years ago and I have yet to determine her academic credentials or, indeed, the status of her publisher - see WP:RS & WP:V
• You say that your family & the article subject herself were intimately involved with Felton's study - see WP:SPS
• As you note, Muthaiah seems not to be reliable and therefore should not be used at all - WP:RS
• Your family were intimately involved with the Sarada Ladies Union publication, and the SLU itself is effectively a compromised body in terms of independence - see WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V
• While someone who was awarded the Padma Shri is certainly likely to be de facto notable, you need to come up with much better sources etc than you have done and, really, you should probably not be editing the article at all. The latter is even more significant given that you and your family are clearly engaged in a project to promote your late relative, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. If she is notable then someone else will create the article eventually.

Please do read those blue links that I have provided. I hope that this makes some sense. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have the photos etc that you refer to ever been published before? Who took the photographs? - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I now understand what you mean by a conflict of interest by being family members. Although my edits are based on actual recorded and documented facts. And Sunil Muthusami and I don't know each other, except through the fact that we have both been researching Sister Subbalakshmi's life.

• My family members were not involved in the interviews conducted by Felton. The interviews had to be conducted at home, as Sister Subbalakshmi was very old then. It was only natural that my family members would have been around when Felton came and went. Also a biographer interviewing her subject is pretty normal, so to say that you can't rely on Felton as she involved her subject while writing her biography sounds a bit skewed..... Felton was not a family member. She was a biographer who was in Madras to write Rajaji's biography and also wrote Sister Subbalakshmi's biography based both on interviews as well as facts gathered at the various institutions and around Madras at that time. Most things published about a person who was a major public force a hundred years ago, are likely to be at least 60 years old, or based on publications and verifiable facts that date back at least 60 years. So how can you not take into account a publication because it was originally published 60 years ago?
• The family has nothing to do with the Sarada Ladies Union! Prominent Leaders like Rukmini Arundale and Kokila Kalahasthi and Dr.Muthulakshmi Reddy have links to the Ladies Union, which was started by Sister Subbalakshmi. The centenary Publication was sponsored by the family, in tribute to Sister Subbalakshmi. That is all.

*It is not only the Padma Shree, but also records of the Women's India Association, the first All India Women's Conference, and Ramakrishna Mission's records of the Sarada Sangha that must have records of her achievements.

I understand why you say that I shouldn't be editing the article. And I won't. But usually people to whom the topic is close to their hearts are more likely to take the trouble to gather facts and put it up. FYI, the Padma Shree was the least of her achievements.

Aren't the wiki pages on universities and other institutions written by people who are part of that institution? Who else will have such intimate knowledge or the authority to write about them? Or are those also

• Malathi Ramanathan is not related to her, and has written a published thesis on her, for a deemed University. All of the facts gathered from Monica Felton's books and Muthaiah's columns and the Centenary Souvenir have been verified against her thesis. She cites Government Archives as her reference materials for the Legislative Assembly Speeches that R.S.Subbalakshmi delivered. But those speeches' recordings and other Government archive materials aren't accessible to us, unless we are PhD scholars or Government archivists! How would you verify her sources? At some point the recording of a fact must be taken on good faith of the person who recorded it then, no?

Fine, please leave the article as it is. I will only remove Muthaiah as a reference and insert Malathi Ramanathan's publication as a reference. Hopefully someone somewhere will take it up, and write about her works that have not been mentioned here.

Our spreading of awareness is not a propaganda to promote a family member. It is to ensure that someone who had dedicated her whole life to the right to education for all is not forgotten by the very systems and institutions that she started just because she didn't seek out publicity in her lifetime.

• The photos that you asked about are of Sister Subbalakshmi and people whom she worked with. Some have been published before and some have not.

KaveriBharath (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Off-topic note since I saw this brought up above, Muthaiah is a reliable source, in his capacity as the historian of Madras/Chennai and topics related to the history of the city -- not necessarily its personalities; however, Madras Musings is not what we could use as a reliable source when the author is not considered reliable there, there's a lot of user submitted content there, some of it from experts, some of it from hobbyists etc. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Since SubQuad apparently missed the enormous notice that you have to notify editors who you bring to ANI, I'll handle it for you; I don't have time to move it from the top to the bottom just now, but I figured you should know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the notice because it was embedded in one of several consecutive contributions by SubQuad that both refactored existing threads here & added various new comments. Bit of a mess, really. I'm not sure how you spotted it (ANI watching?) but thanks for doing so. I've just notified Fowler, who seems not to have received anything. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Serendipity; I was looking at SubQuad's contributions to see if he'd made a mess of any other pages and happened across that. Glad to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I think that this is may well end badly, and for another account also, due to an email sent to me by someone who is good at spotting behavioural stuff. I am presently trying to compare etc but the case list is voluminous. Hopefully, they are wrong but in my experience that is pretty rare. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Ma'an

I used that source, it was Joseph Massad. Just added the book to the bibliography, must have missed it before. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

At Ma'an? Great. Thanks for fixing it. You've done some good work on that article. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu help

I saw your wild and crazy ramblings on Drmies' page. There is a an editor (User:Titodutta) who uses Ubuntu, but can't get WINE to to recognize an .exe. He is attempting to run AWB. I'm a fedora/redhat user and I'm running an older version, so I'm not much help. Any chance you could help him out? Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I've had some recent dealings with Titodutta (further up this page). I am signed up for AWB & have WINE installed, so I'll try it out some time today & let them know the outcome. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Titodutta, what version of Ubuntu are you using? - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Ubuntu 11.10. Here is the question in AWB Wikipedia Help, and the same question in Ubuntu Forum --Tito Dutta ^Message 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you are using the latest release, whereas I am on 10.04 LTS for stability reasons. I'll set up a 11.10 virtual machine and see what happens, but it may not be until tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you Tito Dutta, the latest Fedora and Virtualbox don't want to play with each other. When building the kernel module for the guest additions, it craps out. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS just came out, but would probably have the same problem building the guest additions as fedora... both using recent kernels. Bgwhite (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the same may apply to Ubuntu 11.10 but I noticed that TD was previously using 11.04 when these issues appeared. Maybe I'll set up 2 VMs. Since other .exes are apparently working ok for TD, this one is likely to be a bit of a pig to track down. We can but try. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, tell me what exactly needs to be done to install AWB? Download AWB file, right click on exe file, open with Wine? Is it okay? I have tried Play On Linux too!--Tito Dutta ^Message 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

TD, I've been playing on and off with AWB and versions of Ubuntu from 10.04 LTS onwards (non-server versions). It does definitely work with 10.04 LTS, although I have the feeling the some functions may be disabled. I just downloaded AWB, extracted to a folder, right-clicked on the .exe and selected "open with Wine". I am going to have another go with 11.04 and 11.10 tomorrow, just in case I screwed up the virtual machines. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not working! Also 12.04 is released now! --Tito Dutta ^Message 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are two releases each year, in April and in October. Hence, the first part of the version number is the year (12) and the second part is the month (April, 4). I've not had chance to do what I promised, but will. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ormar/Piracha and H A Rose

G-d this is hard to navigate. To Sitush: what have you done my son?? You've pretty much zeroed in on the Baraki/Burki and removed their history etc etc all in the name of "puffery"!! Let's not even go there...that is indeed ironic given your research interests. Guess it is time to tell the truth and place it under a new title "The Burki tribe." As to making them "Punjabi" and also the Kaniguram ones "not Pushtun" I suggest you actually contact some and ask them about their marital habits of this xenophobic tribe. V/R BB Shalom/Salaam/Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baraki Barak (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to get hold of this book Die Ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistans : Fallstudien zu Gruppenidentität und Intergruppenbeziehungen which has some execellent work on both the Urmar and related Paracha people of Logar and the region south west of Kabul. Dupree also refers to both groups, who speak a related languages. The current Paracha article needs some substantial reediting as well. I am disapointed to note you take a very jaundiced view on Rose, as latter works such Saghir Ahmad's ( a self-confessed Marxist) have used him as a source. We all accept that there was biase, but that still remains the case with every writer on Indian anthropology. The subalterns were biased as well. Stokes who I have used as a source on both the Pachhadas and Ranghar has been criticised, so has Bailey and Richard Fox, who wrote Clan Kin and Rajah on the Awadh Rajputs. In my view Horace Arthur Rose with Pundit Harkishan Kaul are perhaps still the two best sources of Punjab ethnography, with the caveat that they were men of their time. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your point is here. What are you expecting me to say or comment on? - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I want you justify your statements in the damara article.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What statements? And what has Rose and the Paracha article got to do with it? I don't think I have even edited the Paracha article, but I may be wrong. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that I am right. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the nearest I can find to the "Ormar" that you mention in the section heading above is Ormur, where I made two edits in February. How those could need an explanation is beyond me. I am finding this a very bizarre situation: you seem to be trying to hunt down stuff and are not making a great deal of sense. Did you perhaps post your original message on the wrong talk page? Was it intended for someone else? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you mean Damara (feudal landlord) when you say "damara" above. But I can see nothing relating to Rose either in the text or the history, nor anything relating to Ormur or Paracha. I think that I will just ignore this - too much like hunting a needle in a haystack. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir

I had to delete some text from the etymology section as it was previously removed for copyvio reasons (and then reinserted). I think you may have added to the section (I saw Stein included now), but as I can't be sure what's new vs what's from the original and derivative, could you add back what you added? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How dare you delete my contributions! I shall report you to the owner, Mr Wales, and because I donated $2 million in December he will have to do what I say. You are a vandal and probably a Britisher POV pusher who understands nothing about India and dreams of empire. <g> No probs, I'll take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that who ever did add a few bits about Stein, it was not me. I've used him, eg: Lohara dynasty and Kalhana, but I have no knowledge of this etymological stuff. I'd say that he is a reliable (if old) authority & I'll try to find some time to read around it. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the encyclopaedia, both immediately, and by helping improve editors. I do greatly value the work you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That feeling is reciprocated. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I come bearing gifts

Kshatrajagatguru Benadikar Patil, V. K. Choudhry. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Your gifts were rubbish ;) - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like Kripalu Maharaj better. —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rose and Wikely / Article on Caste among Muslims

Although I don’t entirely accept your point on Wikely, I am willing to provide Rose as an alternative source to Wikely. This will take sometime, and I am in fact taking a three month sabbatical from editing Wikepdia, hoping to restart sometime in mid August, when I intend to start with looking at each of the Punjabi Muslim tribal articles. I would rather work with other South Asia editors then against them, and this includes you.

I was also going to expand the article on Jot (ethnic group) of Afghanistan using the following sources:

• Olesen, A. (1987). "Peddling in East Afghanistan: Adaptive Strategies of the Peripatetic Sheikh Mohammadi." In The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Aparna Rao. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.
• Rao, Aparna (1986). "Peripatetic Minorities in Afghanistan—Image and Identity." In Die ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistan, edited by E. Orywal. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

• Customary strangers : new perspectives on peripatetic peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 2004.

• Afghan craftsmen : cultures of three itinerant communities / Asta Olesen, edited by Ida Nicolaisen New York : Thames and Hudson ; Copenhagen : Rhodos International Science and Art Publishers, 1994.

Have you any comments on these sources.

Finally, there is a truly dreadful article Caste system among South Asian Muslims, which although referenced seems entirely POV. I have left it as is because it seems to be a hornet nests, have a look at the talkpage. Your views on this would be appreciated, as you have done some research on Risely. Especially I am concerned with ajlal arzal categories which are mentioned by Risely, and no one else. Ibbetson and Crook don’t mention them in there studies of North Indian and Punjab Muslims. My views on Risely difer from yours, but it is curious that there no more up to date information on these categories. When I get a chance, I will look at this document Dalits in the Muslim and Christian Communities (www.ncm.nic.in/pdf/report%20dalit%20%20reservation.pdf) which is authored by Satish Deshpande, who I understand has done some good work on the sociology of communalism, and see if there is anyy reference to arzal. The religious sanction bit also sounds dubious, and it relies on a single source Sikand. I am not dismissing Sikand, but Barani was a court historian and not an Islamic jurist. He might have expressed his views on caste, but this in no way means there was religious sanction. In my opinion this article should probably be renamed Social Stratification among South Asian Muslims, with the word caste replaced with caste-like, as caste as an institution is absent among Muslims and is universally condemened by Islamic stricpture. Your views would be appreciated.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't much trust Rose and you know that is my opinion of him. Regarding the other sources, it would depend on the context and & the status of both the authors and the publishers etc. I know nothing about that wrt the ones that you list. I would point out WP:NOENG, just in case the Germanic names - Die ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistan, etc - are an indication that the content is not in English. My gut feeling, without actually having seen them? They are probably ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is actually in English and not German. On Rose, we will agree to disagree. And on my final point, Caste among Muslims, have you got any comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I haven't looked at it and don't have the time right now. Perhaps next week, but you'll not be around then. And by the time you come back it could all have changed anyway. Have a good break. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope so. No issue with the subject matter, stratification among South Asian Muslims is a fact, but just find the tone unnaccetable. Pure POV. On Punjab tribes, I have discovered that the British library has the Pakistan District Census reports 1998, which I will also quote. They all have some passing references to the tribal makeup and some tribal info. Hopefully I have also cleared some misunderstandings. Cheers.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all sure about the "misunderstandings" bit but, hey, that is what WP:RSN etc are for. I would be wary of using the census reports, btw, but it does rather depend what you intend to use them for. That is an issue for another day. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

An Urgent Appeal to Save individualistic vandalism

Your immediate attention to the following-

File:Madhurendra Kumar Singh with supporters.jpg

The above file that has been excessively used,links forcefully added and provided at the different wikipedia pages & articles for deliberate promotion of a living person who lacks both notability and importance to be listed on Wikipedia from his home state in India.

The user with muliple IP addresses,either absolutely ignorant or either stubborn;in both the cases cannot be allowed to dictate terms .Sir, An article,specifically, it is about a person or group of people,whom have held constitutional offices of importance at state and national level are acceptable.It doesnot imply ever that their sons- daughters and kiths and kins would be accorded similar importance!(Unless they themselves are holding official positions of high order to be marked as important).The person being referred here has never been a MP(Member of Parliament) nor being a MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) ever and never won an election at all in his life! Infact, time and again he has been rejected by the people of his own constituency where his supporters claim his 'hold of leadership'. This has been reported time and again and warned,Yet being consistently promoted which is extremely objectionable and a cowardly act.

ANOTHER LATEST IMAGE OF THE SAME PERSON(WHICH IS ILLOGICALLY PLACED ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUS IMAGE,TWO IMAGES OF A SAME PERSON OF TOTAL NON-IMPORTANCE AT AN IRRELEVANT PLACE THEY ARE NOT WORTHY OFF)

File:Madhurendra Kr Singh In Madhuban.JPG

WHAT KIND OF LOGIC IMPLIES THAT THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

Sheohar, Sitamarhi district, Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency), Sitamarhi Sitamarhi district

SHOULD CARRY THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO IMAGE FILES(EVEN BOTH AT THE TIME AT MOST PLACES) JUST BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS A KITH AND KIN OF A FORMER OFFICE BEARER(AND WORST)THE ANOTHER CURRENT IMAGE OF THE SAID PERSON IS UPLOADED HERE JUST TO PRESS FOR HIS OVER EXALTMENT TO IMPORTANCE AND ESTABLISH UNJUSTIFIED EMINENCE).

I HAVE REQUESTED FOR ITS SPEEDY DELETION BUT LACK OF PROPER DELETION NOMINATION HAS ENSURED THAT THE ADMINSTRATORS HAVE REVERTED THE PROPOSAL IN GOOD FAITH(AT FIRST PLACE THE FILE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE).SOME OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OBVIOUSLY REQUESTED TO DELETE IT TOO BUT IT HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN THUS FACILITATING THE PROMOTION OF THE LESSER KNOWN INDIVIDUAL THROUGH HOAX AND FALSE FACTS AND CLAIMS.

SIR,AS EVIDENT FROM PAST RECORDS AND ONLINE RESPURCES(THAT INCLUDES PAST ELECTION RECORDS AND ARTICLES CARRYING INFO. ABOUT SAID INDIVIDUAL MENTIONED ON WIKIPEDIA PAGES).FOR INSTANCE, THE PERSON MADHURENDRA KUMAR SINGH MENTIONED HERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MP FROM SHEOHAR PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY YET WHILE THE IMAGES OF FORMER MPS, CURRENT MP from Sheohar IS NOT PROVIDED THERE;THE PICTURE OF A SELF PROCLAIMED LEADER HAS BEEN PUT UP HERE JUST TO FORCEFULLY CONVEY THAT HE IS VERY IMPORTANT .

THOUGH JUST HAVING FOUGHT ELECTIONS DOESNOT MEAN TO ACQUIRE THE IMPORTANCE TO BE INCLUDED AMONG PAGES THAT SHOULD IDEALLY CONTAIN DETAILS ABOUT CURRENT OR MAY BE FORMER OFFICE HOLDERS AND NOT ONE WHO 'ASPIRES' TO HOLD THE OFFICE!THE SAME IMAGE HAS ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED AT MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN PLACES;GENERALLY RELATED TO THE NATIVE PLACE OF THE PERSON WHERE HE IS TRYING TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.SOME REVERTED STILL, THEY WERE AGAIN PUSHED IN!! Being autocratic dosenot help Wikipedia. People's importance and notability lies open with their legislative experience and which is all but nothing here!! Their personal relation does not indicate how they are important or significant for state or country, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN HOAX IMAGE TAKEN IN PRIVATE CAPACITY MEANT TO UNNESSARILY PROMOTE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESNOT FITS TO BE MENTIONED AT SUCH IR-RELEVANT PLACES.ELSE,HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF SUCH 'SELF PROCLAIMED' LOCAL PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE IMPORTANT WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO HOST THEIR IMAGES ANYWHERE AND AT THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTEREST . KINDLY CHECK THE FACTS AND DO THE NEEDFUL.

KINDLY FIX THE ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.15.133 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, geez, my eyes are bleeding. I'll try to take a look at the article links that you mention but, sorry, I really cannot handle all of the SHOUTING points that you raise. I'll make my own mind up, and just trust that will be ok with you. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have almost literally ripped apart all of the articles that you linked to in your message. Forget the political linkspam/bigging up etc, they were all dreadful and not at all befitting an encyclopedia. Actually, they are still not at all befitting an encyclopedia, but it is late here & nearly time for bed. I've added them to my watchlist and I would encourage you to at least try to find citations etc for the many, many points that I have perhaps stupidly allowed to remain. I will be away this weekend but if you should need any help with citing reliable sources to verify the statements made in those articles then please do leave a note here. I'll get round to it next week but there is a reasonable chance that one of my talk page stalkers might be able to assist you in my absence. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Certainly, the entire promotional content was a hoax and blatant misuse of the voluntary contribution prerogative in Wikipedia to misguide and provide incorrect information and stimulate false exaltation of something without worthy importance or relevance at all.It would be difficult to find verifiable authentic citations for the hypothetical Overexaggeration!! They are non-existent contents meant for stupid political aggrandizement.I recently observed some edits by an IP address on the page Gopalganj district, India and could not stop admiring the sheer nonsense notion presented to get the dreadful edit look meaningful.I am afraid, that is just the beginning of opening up of the full can of worms as such contents would be now arbitralily linked and added at numerous locations by multiple addresses and IDS.Such queer notions would be difficult to locate and analyze and sort out. I am well aware that it would be heartening that if the contents are strictly in accordance with the guidelines(Which is extremely unlikely!).There is a reasonable chance that,there would be massive follow up to cover the things or an endeavour to escape through the skin of the teeth.However, I would request the concerned administrators to kindly take cognizance of the important issue.Secondly, in a country like India, most of the archival sources,articles,biographical sketchs of persons of eminence and historical importance and documents are still in vernacular form and could be accessed through concerned websites and even Google Books Archives.I Would provide the links as much as possible for the actual content that is both realistic and verifiable, however everyone is quite helpless against total sheer fictional contents and hypothetical interpetation and excessive aggrandizement provided time to time.This is something to be both widely discussed at relevant forums and minutely looked after by concerned people.I would furthur request you to kindly take a vigil of the contents, that are all abominable.Because, there is a practical certainity that most of the things you have recognised as unworthy and not at all befitting an encyclopedia would be put back in some way or the other and such awful edits and many such non-sense additions may continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.109.171 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• My, I need a dictionary to decode all of this. The points are valid, though. Lynch7 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan

Thanks a lot, Sitush. I'm gonna have RSI before this is over. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Observed Blatant Revertion

Sir, I have observed the valid points being suitably discussed above.While going through it,There has been deliberate vandalism and entirely biased promotional content of insignificant relevance added at the page Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.221.23 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

MAY 8, 2012 - Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Let.27s_break_things_down_a_little.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saint Thomas Christians

Now you have reintroduced those brackets. Shall you pls share some more info on the purpose of it? --AshLey ^Msg 15:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is part of our Manual of Style See WP:MOSQUOTE and, from WP:QUOTATIONS, the statement that

If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details), and emphasis noted after the quotation as "[emphasis added]" or "[emphasis in the original]".

- Sitush (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lot of thanks for sharing valuable info on MOS. But brackets look a little "misfit" there! --AshLey ^Msg 07:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not as much of a misfit as misquoting someone would be. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Catching up

Catching up with all the things people have asked me on my Talk page and I haven't had the time for...

• User talk:Sitush#Your edits to R. S. Subbalakshmi - Looks reasonable enough to me, and the points about COI seem to be getting across.
• User talk:Redaloes - I agree with what you're saying, and I guess action might be needed if the same problem keeps happening.

Almost got down to May comments now :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the same feeling. My "to do" list has been growing of late. Thanks for addressing the queries. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

dhillon

Hello, I noticed you have edited several Indian last names (caste) pages. Can you please take a look at Dhillon as well? It appears to be in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I have issued edit warring warnings to both parties and will try to keep them discussing on the article talk page in the next hour or so. If the warring continues then they will certainly be blocked for a period of time and it is possible that I may consider requesting that the article is fully protected until the dispute is resolved. Let's give them one more opportunity to sort this out properly rather than mostly playing ping-pong on the article itself: blocks and full protection are more drastic solutions than continued discussion and consensus. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Requires Attention

Hello Sir, the page Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency) requires your immediate attention as substancial amount of unsourced content appearing to be entirely bonafide case of presenting heavily biased content is being done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.213.202 (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

tv

Mr. ass Tush, I saw on Drmies talk page you were thankful for the Wire and Homeland. I just wanted to say thank you for your British TV. Season 2 of Sherlock just started. Love Dr. Who and Coupling... All three by Steven Moffat and he is a genius. IT Crowd has to be the funniest show ever. Downton Abbey, Torchwood, 1900 House series, Being Human, Mr. Bean, Wallace and Gromit and Brittas Empire. However, you have given us the abomination of Big Brother, Skins and anything Simon Cowell has touched. If you haven't seen, Mad Men, Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones, I'd suggest them. Bgwhite (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A game of connections for you.

• Big Brother consists of crap
• The origins of Big Brother lie with Endemol, a company based in a country close to the heart of Drmies.
• Peter Bazalgette is very closely connected with the operations of Endemol
• Bazalgette is the great-great-grandson of Joseph Bazalgette, whose efforts were very significant in the resolution of The Big Stink
• The Big Stink consisted of crap

In fact, it could be said that Joseph Bazalgette took the crap out of London in the 19th century ... and his descendant brought it all back ca. 150 years later. Although aficionados would doubtless think that I am talking through my tush ass. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a very interesting read. I did not know about the London sewers and their origin. Thank you for that. I knew Big Brother was originally from the Netherlands. However, U.S. TV executives barely understand the foreign language called, British English, so stealing having an idea from a "foreign" land is next to impossible. Bgwhite (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I see that The Great Stink is very poorly sourced. There have been monographs and even books written just about that event, its causes and consequences. Perhaps it is one to add to my burgeoning "to do" list. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Banyan merchants

Please put further criticism of the article at Talk:Banyan_merchants. Ask editors you know to be knowledgeable of Indian Ocean trade to pitch in. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Something that connects them banyans directly to Vaishya

Wiktionary definition of banyan. It is a Portuguese mispronunciation of Vaishya. It strikes me that you are deleting stuff just because you don't like the looks of it, without bothering to read it. Suggest you take time to read Wiktionary definition of prejudice. Meanwhile, the banyan merchants of East Africa and Arabia are all yours. It is entirely up to you whether or not to inform readers of Vaishya that the English, due to the Portuguese having got there first, similarly mispronounced it during East India Company rule. I suppose it is too much to ask to point out that banyan merchants of India is a simple mispronunciation, and that they should not be confused with the similarly mispronounced banyan merchants from Gujarati, trading in their own peculiar way on the Arabian peninsula and in East Africa. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not even convinced that we should be using dictionaries but since when has an open wiki been a reliable source? - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I humbly apologize for labeling pronunciations as mispronunciations. Pronunciations are what they are, and usually represent speakers best efforts to reproduced what they have heard, or thought they heard, and then try to record with their various orthographies. Banyan and Vaishya are the same word, as are Ceylon<>Sri Lanka, Mombai<>Bombsy, Burma<>Myanmar, etc., etc. As for you and me, we do not share a conman language. You repeatedly exhibit an inability to read this one, most recently when you failed to read the sources for the open wiki definitions of banyan. Furthermore, it seems to me that you have no respect at all for either wiki or sources. I won't let it worry me as I take comfort in this blockquote:

Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent. -- Porkypine, by Walt Kelly

--Pawyilee (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

for deleting Mannadiyar tag under "See also section" in Nair

Hi Sitush,

I have not added just a community in Kerala under Nair subsection and I know that doing the same will make the page more cumbursome. This particular caste if a section of Nair Community and is restricted to Palakkad district only. I found the details in http://www.nairs.in/classifications.htm about the same and then thought of adding it in the page.

Still if you are not convinced, let it be like the way it is.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snlkumark (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As it says at the top of Mannadiyar, we also have an article for Mannadiar, which is claimed to be a Nair subcaste. The situation is very confusing and I may have done the wrong thing. However, it looks to me as if both of those articles need some work and they may even need to be merged. Once the articles are sorted out, we can determine what, if anything, should be shown in the "See also" of Nair. Given the sheer number of Nair subcastes, there is probably a case to be made for having a List of Nair subcastes and/or Category:Nair subcastes. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the proof I can show for this is already casted in Manndiyar under etymology, page 455 of the caste and tribes of Souther India by Edgar Thurston. I have gven the inline citation there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.246.122 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you delete the one written as Mannadiar. Because both Mannadiar and Mannadiyar are same. In Mannadiar only few dialouges from a certain malayalam film is written which I thk=ink cannot be accepted according to wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snlkumark (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to delete Mannadiar

Can you delete the one written as Mannadiar. Because both Mannadiar and Mannadiyar are same. In Mannadiar only few dialouges from a certain malayalam film is written which I think cannot be accepted according to wiki standard

I am compiling information from various books and are collecting information on the same. The process is in pipeline and will incorporate all the details with references under title 'Mannadiyar'. I dont think wiki should promote such articles which back supported by a regional language movie. The caste has rich culture and hereditery, whcich I think should be highly respected.

Will updated all the details and information in Mannadiyar soon with references. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.246.122 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is a bit more complicated. For a start, there are only exceptional cases where deletion is appropriate without providing a period of at least a week for discussion by the community. One of those situations is when a new article duplicates the content of an existing article, but in this case both articles have existed for a while.

What we would usually do is make a proposal that the content of the two articles are merged, and we would merge in the direction of the article that has the more commonly used name (see WP:COMMONNAME). The merge proposal would itself need discussion and, to be honest, it is often a but of a pain to set up the correct notices etc. Can you give me a few days to look into the entire situation regarding spellings etc? I am away this weekend but after that I will either propose a merge, propose a deletion or explain to you why there is no chance of this happening (in my opinion!) Obviuously, you can keep on doing whatever it is that you are doing at Mannadiyar and you can also propose a deletion or merge yourself. Make yourself a large pot of tea and read WP:PROD, WP:AFD and WP:MERGE if you want to make a proposal. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External link spamming

Hi Sitush, User:Profvk recently added a link here that looked suspiciously like link spam. Looking at his contributions, it is clear that this user has been systematically spamming other articles of wikipedia as well, with links to his work. Can you do something about it? Thanks. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note but you need to bear in mind that the inappropriate links were added in a short burst of editing on 13 May, when the contributor made a total of 6 edits across 5 articles. Prior to that, they had not contributed since last August and almost all of their contributions relate to 2007 and earlier. I don't see the recent short burst of edits as being anything to get too worked up about. If they are reinstated then drop me a note and I'll take another look, but the chances are that the contributor was simply ignorant of the linkspam etc policies or has forgotten them in their more or less 5 year absence. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint thomas christians

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Saint Thomas Christians". Thank you. --Robin klein (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Script other than English

There are thousands of Wikipedia pages with scripts other than English. Therefore, I was surprised about removal of the same on the Raniganj Coalfield page citing a recent RfC. Kindly enlighten me about this RfC, since it is not linked to the decision/ guideline. Cheers, - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was about five months ago. See here and here. There have been subsequent discussions at WT:INB which, while not rising to the status of a RfC, demonstrated a consensus that there really should be no scripts at all in India-related articles. They also confirmed that infoboxes = lead sections.

As far as I am aware, no-one is going around just removing all of the extant scripts. Certainly, I just do it as I find them and in the case of the coalfield article that was because I arrived at it via doing some more detailed work at Asansol. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - Chandan Guha (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Shahrukh Khan#The_ageing_controveresy

Hello. A discussion about a controversial piece of material with regard to WP:BLP is taking place here. Please spare a few moments to comment. Thank you. Secret of success (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Report

I can't say that it's 100% sure, but I believe there's 99% possibility that User:BozokluAdam is sockpuppet of Tirgil34. The same country (GER), the same ol' pan-Turkic POV-pushing in all articles related from Europe to India or China. --109.165.190.219 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are 99% sure then you should probably open a case at WP:SPI. It is not a good idea to spray accusations around and yet fail to follow them through. The SPI reporting system is pretty easy to follow. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. Not a sockpuppet. In the meantime, you are involved in an edit war because you performed several reverts on the page Babur within a 24-hour period. While warning others, you should also pay attention to your own manners. I didn't know that rule, but I'll care about it from now on, but the same for you I hope. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Read WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Although I am starting to wonder why I bother to provide these links to policy because you seem clearly not to be reading in full those that have already been given to you. Two reverts in 24 hours, supporting similar reverts made by others & in line with WP:BRD, are in contrast to your own editing history at Babur. To be honest, you are lucky not yet to have been blocked from editing. Do it again and you will be. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a third, neutral, opinion for this dispute. You claim my resources not being reliable whereas I claim they are of reliable sources from reliable academic books published by university presses etc. Also, you're defaming me with your unfair accusation to be sockpuppet of anyone. Please be kind and be calm while discussing a matter. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you demonstrate that you are not reading what is in front of you. Nowhere have I said that you may be a sock. Furthernore, I have had to revert your report at WP:3O because this is not a one-on-one dispute: several contributors are arrayed against you at Talk:Babur, and the introduction at WP:3O specifically says that it is an inappropriate venue in such situations. You also clearly still have not taken on board the comments made by others, and you have wilfully ignored a valid WP:3RR warning. I have reported you to WP:3RRNB and you will without doubt now be blocked from contributing for a while - your edits are disruptive and you need some time to calm down. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Periyar River

When you see a fact that you have known from childhood, is mis-represented in wikipedia, i thought, it is right to do the discussion. But a lot of questions are still unanswered.

3 Questions 1. Why are the following references of not available in the topic?

  http://www.nias.res.in/docs/B4-2010-%20Mullaperiyar.pdf (also from IISC)

  http://en.mapatlas.org/India/Mountain/Sivagiri_Malai/7177/road_and_satellite_map 
(No other documents show the origin of the river, the Sivagiri Peak and the boundary)

2. Why is that text used in the topic is copying the words and not the complete stuff?

  Why it is spreading half truth?

3. Discussion of the topic seems to more towards where the Sivagiri peak is situated.

  The point I was raising was the logical reason why this mistake was made. 
  I don't see any reference to the argument that i was putting forward in the entire talk. 

The point that i did not discuss, is about the 114 sq km of catchment area, this area is not near the Sivagiri hills, but the near the Indira Gandhi National Park.

Sorry, it may be seen as rude, but the fact that people who does not know anything about the topic is taking decision based count of references and not the quality. For better judgment of facts in this issue, the following items should be considered 1. Nature of the writing and the author, whether he is an involved party (eg. Politician) 2. Understanding of the terrain, give importance to the references that deals with the origin, people who visited the area/understand the nature of the boundary between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. 3. Analyze the facts

Anilkumar.p.76

You need to raise these issues at Talk:Periyar (river), although you should read the discussion there before doing so because I am fairly sure that most of your queries have already been dealt with. Wikipedia operates on the basis of stating only that which is verifiable using reliable sources, and we show all points of view that are found in such sources. We do not accept original research, such as your suggestion that before people make a decision they should visit the area and understand the nature of the boundary. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you said, it. You are "Fairly sure". It clarifies my doubts that whether you did read the topic or not.
Do you have answers to any of the 3 questions that I asked?
I did not edit the topic, but put my arguments in the Talk, but you removed it. And now you are asking me raise the issue in Talk? What else was that i did earlier ?
I believe the criteria of reliable sources and points of view are not accounted in this topic.

Sitush, you have a blind spot, you think the old stuff is good, the people with whom you have a good rapo is good. Probably you are too old to accept anything new.
Anilkumar.p.76 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained at your talk page my rationale for removing your numerous and repetitive comments on the article talk page. Like I said, removing your comments was not something that would usually be done but I used some initiative and I invited you to reinstate them in the appropriate place. You are still welcome to do that, but expect trouble if you start to attack me as you have done above. There is no need to get personal about this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To me you are totally illogical.
1. You removed my talks and asking me to do that again?
2. You yourself, is admitting that your activity was rude
3. Unless and until i get my answers, how can i be sure that my talk will not be removed again? If you can give me answers for the questions that i raised, only in that case i am to add my comments.
4. Not interested in playing any games.

Thanks,
Anilkumar.p.76 21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sitush

Hi Sitush, thank you for your edits on Paramahansa Yogananda...I learned a lot and will make improvements. Please help me understand how to communicate clearly about the colored picture of Yogananda. I thought I did it correctly. What am I missing.? The picture is copyrighted by his organization Self-Realization Fellowship but I thought it was ok to use because he is the subject of the Wikipedia page. I have not used this image anywhere else. I also gave complete credit to SRF under the picture. HELP? And again thank you...Red Rose 13Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to File:Paramahansa Yogananda Standard Pose.jpg. Our criteria for non-free use is pretty strict. My thought at the time of tagging the file was that since we have images of the subject there is no need to risk using an image that is copyrighted. I could well be wrong here because I notice that one of the other images on the page is a book cover that incorporates the same portrait as you uploaded and, of course, the cover design will likely be copyrighted. I am not great with image stuff but the deletion review will be done by someone who is competent to determine whether or not the thing should stay or go. I'll see if we can get some input from someone here who knows quite a lot about this area - they may be able to guide us. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two copyrights involved here: the copyright of the original photographer, and the copyright for the people who recolored the photograph (it looks like a recoloring to me). The first copyright has expired - see File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg. The second, as far as I can tell, has not expired (you may correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not very familiar with the photograph and only know that apparently the black and white version fell out of copyright). The rub here comes in that Wikipedia, as a policy, does not use copyrighted works where a free version could be used instead (this is partially US law, and partially just our policy). And the black and white one, being free, would be a valid substitute for the above image. So, while Red Rose 13 certainly uploaded the file in good faith, it may have run afoul of the rules we have which s/he wasn't aware of. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. I doubt that I'll ever get the hang of this image palaver but it's good to know that there are people around with oodles more competence than me! And I do learn from it, honest. Red Rose, do you understand Magog's analysis? If not then feel free to query here & I am sure that you'll get some further response. Me? I must admit that often I am winging it when it comes to borderline stuff: I go off a gut feeling but in this instance it happens that I have completely missed the obvious, ie: the apparent existence of a copyright-free black-and-white version. These things are a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush & Magog for your open discussion and understanding. I have only been on Wikipedia for about 5 months and still have a lot to learn. My intention was to update the page with the best quality photograph. It looks as though I am going to need to take the colored picture down and replace it with the not so good resolution black & white is that correct? THank you, Red RoseRed Rose 13 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Is there anyway possible to be able to keep the colored one up?Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• If it's any use, I've found a higher resolution version of the black and white image being used by Amazon - http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WD665EHDL._SS400_.jpg -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Boing - very helpful - that one looks so much better... I will change it before the 5/17 deadline ok?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have another question for you all...I am dealing with a person on a webpage that I edit that lately has continously adding/readding his personal view that is negative. I have had to start to undo his edits saying - "Wikipedia is for facts not opinions" correct right? If he keeps doing it I might need your help... any suggestions?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added Autobiography of a Yogi to my watchlist and will keep an eye on things. I notice that others have been reverting the contributor to whom I think you are probably referring. Just remember the three revert rule for now and don't get sucked into a war. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I am also trying to update the page and add new facts to help the readers and now am cleaning up the revision area - it is still not clearly communicated but I am working on it. I also took the title down to just Revision because it was too long as you said in one of the titles in P Yogananda. Trying my best to keep it factual and not about someone's opinions as I think encyclopedias should be. I rarely use my own words but instead quotes from my sources. Thanks for you help. CathyroseRed Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again Sitush - I uploaded the higher resolution B/w picture of Yogananda that is free but it is not changing when I add the new file of Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg - is it because it is the same file name of the color one? Can you delete the color one from my uploads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Red_Rose_13 - then does the file work at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Red_Rose_13 ? Thanks for your help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a reply to your message at File talk:Paramahansa Yogananda Standard Pose.jpg#Deletion discussion. The deletion process in situations such as this usually takes at least 10 days but since we all seem to be in agreement that the colour image is suspect, I'll ask Magog the Ogre whether they can accelerate the process. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Did you want to keep the talk page for historical reference or are you good? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that I should not really presume to speak for someone else, but I think that we're all good. This was a "newbie" issue and Red Rose appears quite content with things. Actually, it makes a change for me to be dealing with a new contributor who is not arguing (thanks for your understanding, Red Rose!). - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - I am not sure why you just wiped out the page Autobiography of a Yogi and the hundres of hours of work I have put into it to make it credible. Other people had put stuff and since it was still there, I thought it was ok. I would have much preferred if you made suggestions on how to improve it than just wipe it out almost completely!!! Do you realize how devastating that is? When one is trying to do their best??? Please explain!!!! Cathyrose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 22:10,Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are itemised in the edit summaries relating to my removals. I do understand that it may be devastating to you but you really must follow our policies and guidelines. Indeed, there is still some content in there that arguably should not be. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand now - previously a number of others had put in alot of items without proper references and i might have put in a couple - to be honest it actually has a much cleaner feel to it now. I'll carefully study the edit summaries to guide me as I add some items back in but I like this streamlined page. Cathyrose It is just shocking and a bit painful...your one comment of "ridiculous" didn't help but your edits brought in fresh air to the page and I thank you for that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing Paramahansa Yogananda and the editing guidelines, I see what I need to do but it is going to take me a little while to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. How long do I have? I work as well and do editing in my spare time. Regarding Autobiography of a Yogi - I will work on finding reliable citations before adding more in. Using "my new eye" and looking at the other pages I am editing as well, I see the corrections that need to be made please allow me time. I don't feel experienced or comfortable enough to edit the Swami Kriyananda page and there are many references where the link is broken or not within the guidelines. Thank you. Cathyrose Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)