User talk:Sitush/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

And

those working group reports are published.

As expected, there's a recommendation to modify the TOU to address systematic bias. I come across Wikimedia projects have  an environment in which the majority of editors who flock to a page, (not necessarily the majority of editors) control policy definition and implementation, even if that implementation is detrimental to minority groups and broader inclusion of knowledge. which seems straight out of that famed WhoseKnowledge booklet.

A CoC is proposed which strives for zero tolerance to any unacceptable behavior. (Yet to find the parameters of acceptability.) I come across Those who do not wish to comply could leave the platform. Other stuff around similar locus includes creation of new power structures, re-distribution of power and secret ballots.

Our user-pages will soon become some kind of FB-about-section because that will lead to greater socializing, which is obviously a prime objective.

There would be gender and socio-economic quotas for admins, crats, ArbCom and all higher-ups. Was Essjay a male and how much did he earn?

Some of the stuff is quite good but with quite high chances of getting botched or flocked by the usual grifters.

All in all, there's about 50 reports to read (and I am yet to finish) but my times at this site seem to be limited. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S:- A challenge for you; parse this report for me. Also, many of the stuff, described above, have been noted to be urgently required. ∯WBG^converse 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The main concern would be that Wikipedia is not a social network. That's astounding, Holmes! Ffs... ——SerialNumber54129 18:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh some of this is absolutely a nonstarter. The ToU should be agreed on each time an editor acts anonymously as an IP. Rather than simply a checkbox, the policy should open, so that (in theory) the policy is read before the box is checked. (For those with registered User name, as long as they remain signed in they would not get a pop-up after sign-on. This would correlate to other public access facilities and serve to reinforce “safe space policies” and expected on-line behavior norms. Come the hell on. That's not only not legally necessary, but it throws a roadblock in the way of anonymous contributors that will definitely have a disproportionate impact on them. In fact, I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that, out of 100 anonymous edits, there would be more made by women or minority editors, than by registered users. After all, the problem of building a persona on-wiki rather than just making the occasional edit anonymously is well-known.
  On a governance level, another statement that should be clarified in the ToU is that of the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. This is completely not the purpose of a ToU. You don't just dump irrelevant and extraneous information into a contract. It just creates opportunities for a clever litigant to extend his day in court.
  This, though, is by far my favorite line in the whole thing: Q: Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? A: All change has negative connotations to some members of the community. This reminds me of the story of an old friend who, in an actual job interview, was asked what his greatest weakness was, and responded that it was having no weaknesses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Agree about the favorite line. But, if you go through the ~40 documents, there's ample gems like that ∯WBG^converse 18:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the headsup, Blades. We were already way beyond AGF into road to Hell territory, and I already have more than a foot out the door, but I must admit to skepticism that they could actually identify our demographic factors. Of course, then I remember that they have admitted they count all users without a stated gender preference as male. (That's me, folks! a male daughter! Illiterate fuckwits.) If I actually leave, or get indeffed, please, please get word to me after the fork is set up. Almost anything would be better than the WMF. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  I, too, am on the way out. This stuff is the product of the same small unrepresentative group of kumbayah singers and grifters as have been involve with projects such as Whose Knowledge. They seem to be making a living producing incessant utopian twaddle that pushes this project further away from its core goal, and there are some unsettling aspects regarding how they meet up, attract funding etc. I don't want to be socially engineered and I'm buggered if I will be dictated to by a bunch of happy-clappy, seemingly socially paranoid nepotists who couldn't write a decent article if they spent a year doing nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Rationale Knowledge equity can only be achieved if our movement imposes equity in decision making within our communities. Current bureaucratic structures and decision making processes do not counteract established inequality in informal community power relations (eg. veteran editors vs newbies, dominant groups vs marginalised groups, Foundation vs affiliate).

Do they know what they are saying here? The WMF is asserting that its bureaucratic structure and decision making fail to address the inequality in power relations between it, the dominant Foundation and the marginal affiliate that is Engwiki. The e.g. examples all classify as structurally unequal/discriminated against, (a) newbies,(b) marginalized groups and (c) affiliates, which is what Engwiki is. What is their answer to this confession that it, ther WMF, has a preponderance of power over its affiliates? To launch a proposal that would augment its ascendency! I mean, Jeezus, you need people with a genius for unawareness, apart from the by now infamous illiteracy of that clique's public statements, to write crap of this order. On a linked site I also note.

As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. There is zero instancing of what knowledge has been putatively suppressed, and what communities have been discriminated agsinst by structures of power and privilege, the last phrase being even more lame-brained because the T&S fortress is, precisely, a 'structure of power and privilege': its members are highly paid, exercise censorial power, can ostracize by private chamber proceedings the artisans who, unpaid, actually constructed the very foundations and empire on which their income depends.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's even worse. In Foundation-speak, Affiliates refers not to projects but to organized groups that get to vote for Affiliate seats on the Board, like these. We're a project; they don't give a rat's ass about us, only about those editors on the project who are members of some kiss-up or influence-grabbing group. We don't even rate a mention under "inequality in power relations". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• WMF and its toadies are a cult. They will make noise and institute sanctimonious feel-good utopian policies, which will all be duly ignored in daily practice. Build encyclopedic content (the project is important, the parasites are not), stop doing site maintenance tasks so that they have to take them on themselves — that's my prescription. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Carrite, I don't think that these will be duly ignored in practice. WMF has been slowly incorporating their pet goals upon us in a systematic manner - Strategy2030, FRAMBAN, Working group recommendations all fall in place, when lensed from an outsider perspective. And, I have already come across two instances of Those who do not wish to comply could leave the platform. in their reports which says volumes. ∯WBG^converse 06:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Separate the rhetoric from the reality. They've got no mechanism to enforce compliance with anything the community as a whole doesn't wish to comply with. They can't even eliminate sockpuppetry — how can they ban someone? Carrite (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

They've got a whole lot of us running scared. They've whiplashed us on COI editing, POV, and improvement to GA/FA level (which a few years ago they were heavily promoting). Before my time, Jimbo came down like a ton of bricks on userboxen; now they propose making us all identify so we can be sorted by desirability (if I dared respond over there I would say we are proud of our intersectionality, but they'd probably dox me for knowing the term). They've hammered an admin, apparently for trying to get a woman editor writing on women's and non-able-bodied sports to follow policy on copyvio (wait a minute, haven't they historically cared a lot about copyvio?) and copyedit and check translations better, and Arbcom has now hammered an admin who is active in WiR, with all that that means in terms of WMF-favored friends and women-centered content production, apparently in part for trying to help new editors writing on women not get bitten and chewed up. And so far as I know we have yet to receive any response from Arbcom to whether there was influence from the WMF in what we are now told started off as a discussion of whether to desysop the latter admin, something nominally reserved for serious misconduct—like mine. Admins should be scratching their heads, or worse, particularly since distinguishing maintenance from building is a very murky area on a wiki. (Besides, if I stick around, I don't really want that level of incompetence applied to maintaining articles I've worked on.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It'll happen anyway, but less stressful if you don't see it, I agree. Eric Corbett 13:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but leaving it to WMF people ensures particular ineptitude. ... I see from the unnameable site that you are blocked again and your TP is protected. Damn.

(WTT has now denied WMF influence in the second admin case. At least I finally got an answer to that question, though I wasn't born yesterday.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My block has been delayed until tomorrow apparently. ArbCom are very largely to blame for much of what's wrong with Wikipedia's administration, but the answer clearly isn't to defer to the even more incompetent WMF. Eric Corbett 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Head, spinning. Hope the encyclopedia gets to keep you. I had better not comment further here on Arbcom, arbs, or the WMF. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Hope the encyclopedia gets to keep you": but for how long will it actually be an encyclopaedia? - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, however bad those recommendations are, they're not all WMF employees writing them. There's a list of who participated in each working group on their pages. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but their appointments were overseen by a smaller group driven by the WMF and, well, one does not have to actually be employed by the WMF to be a part of that cult. Many high-ups in the Wikimedia DC chapter, for example, (most of whom seem not to be in the DC area) are or have been beneficiaries of WMF largesse, and the same applies to those heavily involved in other similar groups around the world. As are many of those involved with the Whose Knowledge. I wonder how much money has been spent just producing this tripe, much of which does not even make sense due to linguistic/grammatical issues. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is all WMF initiative. The competence of the workgroups seems to be quite varied, but it does look like there are a lot of people who do not have much clue to scrape together, and they will still have to get this stuff past the board. I have a feeling Jimbo will not stand back and let his claim to fame get trashed by a bunch of wannabe do-gooders with little grip on reality. Not planning to panic just yet myself, but will go down fighting if necessary. I would prefer to be counted among those who tried to fix it. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to discern just how much the WMF have been involved, although obviously they have financed the exercise. Jimbo said on his talk page yesterday that he didn't expect a bunch of stuff to go through. Aside from the things which already have consensus - eg: a recommendation of no advertising - I am not seeing much that is sensible, although I struggle with a lot of the corporate-speak and the poor use of English. There will be nothing to fix if nothing changes, which is most likely how it should be. I just do not understand why this long, convoluted process involving numerous people from special interest groups and some WMF staffers etc has got so far down the line without, for example, the more sensible among them issuing "dissenting reports". People like Rosiestep and The Land have signed up to this and must surely know that it is a waste of time and money; they're the type of person I would have expected to see issuing a dissenting report, not adopting collective responsibility. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I'm glad the conversation has moved on a bit and that lots of this of people are commenting on Meta, but saw this and thought it was worth replying to. Actually I don't think it is a waste of time and money, and at very least I hope to see some significant and positive changes to the 'organised part' of the movement. I believe there are also some opportunities for the strategy process to result in things getting better for the relationship between the 'organised part' of the movement (WMF and its future equivalents) and project communities, and overall for the experience of being a contributor to a Wikimedia project. I don't think that potential is going to be reached if we have a bunch of recommendations that result in WMF imposing things on projects against the wishes of editors, though, for a whole bunch of reasons. The Roles and Responsibilities recommendations I've been part of drafting have a very different focus. Thanks, The Land (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is still no meaningful engagement from the Diversity_WG but one of it's member states:-

  A big part of the problem is that dominant cultures are perceived to have the authoritative voice for many unrepresented and underrepresented groups .... Scholarship from within their community should form the basis of articles about their culture and traditions .... sourcing from within local communities, were dismissed as being either biased or non-independent, and removed in favor of works from people who had no authentic knowledge of a community ....

  Posting here, in case you have missed that:-) ∯WBG^converse 10:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of bareknuckle boxers

Did you know that Giano is deeply interested in these boxers, and has created articles about some of them? If any questions arise, I'm sure he can answer them. Bishonen | talk 03:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

I didn't know about Giano's interest, Bishonen. I know that I created a couple and at least one of them was GA reviewed by Eric Corbett who, for all his faults, is/was indubitably an excellent reviewer. I'm actually a bit surprised to read that the contributor in question has written on the subject professionally because they seem sloppy and poorly phrased to me but perhaps "professionally" means, for example, as a journalist rather than an actual biographer - that would, at least, account for the sometimes florid editorialising etc. I really do not want to get into this too deeply because in the current climate I will be accused of hounding/stalking and targetting a relatively new contributor etc. And this new climate, where societal sensitivities trump content, is how even good articles will become crap articles over time. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don’t actually know much about the subject, I just researched a few fighters, I used to box a little as a student and soldier (with gloves and rules), but nowadays I only watch it on TV with popcorn. Such is life Giano (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable citizens

Sitush, I remember, or somehow delude myself that, you and I and perhaps others have at times (and not so recently) together been involved in the whittling of lists of allegedly notable people (residents, etc) from articles on Indian or other places. Maybe not, but FWIW "Notable People"; your comments welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thiyyar are not Ezhavar

An Izhuvan will eat rice cooked by a Tiyan, but a Tiyan will not eat rice cooked by an Izhuvan a circum- stance pointing to the inferiority of the Izhuvan. A Nayar, as well as a Tiyan, will partake of almost any form of food or drink, which is prepared even by a Mappilla (Malabar Muhammadan), who is deemed inferior to both. But the line is drawn at rice, which must be prepared by one of equal caste or class, or by a superior. An Izhuvan, partaking of rice at a Tiyan's house, must eat it in a verandah ; he cannot do so in the house, as that would be defilement to the Tiyan. Not only must the Izhuvan eat the rice in the verandah, but he must wash the plates, and clean up the place where he has eaten. Again, an Izhuvan could have no objection to drinking from a Tiyan's well. Further, there is practically no mixture in the distribution of Tiyans and Izhuvans The South Malabar Tiyan bridegroom, dressed as if for a wrestling match, with his cloth tied tight about his loins, carries a sword and shield, and is escorted by two companions similarly equipped, dancing their way along. The Izhuvan does not carry a sword under any circumstances. The chief feature of his wedding ceremony is a singing match. This, called the vatil-tura-pattu, or open the door song, assumes the form of a contest between the parties of the bridegroom and bride. The story of Krishna and his wife Rukmini is supposed to be alluded to. We have seen it all under slightly different colour at Conjeeveram. Krishna asks Rukmini to open the door, and admit him. She refuses, thinking he has been gallivanting with some other lady. He beseeches ; she refuses. He explains, and at length she yields. The song is more or less extem- pore, and each "side must be ready with an immediate answer. The side which is reduced to the extremity of having no answer is beaten and under ignominy. Marriage is strictly forbidden between two persons belonging to the same illam. The bride and bridegroom must belong to different illams. In fact, the illams are exogamous. The following formula is repeated by the headman of the bride's party. Translated as accurately as possible, it runs thus. "The tara and changati of both sides having met and consulted ; the astrologer having fixed an auspicious day after examining the star and porutham ; permission having been obtained from the tara, the relations, the illam and kulam, the father, uncle, and the brothers, and from the eight and four (twelve illams) and the six and four (ten kiriyams) ; the conji and adayalam ceremonies and the four tazhus having been performed, let me perform the kanjikudi ceremony for the marriage of .... The son of . . . . With .... Daughter of .... In the presence of muperium. ”

Edward thurson on thiyyar

Thiyyar are not Ezhavar.

Please don't club thiyyar with Ezhavar. Why are you deleting thiyyar Wikipedia?

Are you funded by Christian missionaries ? Unniyarcha (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thurston is not reliable. The issues relating to Ezhava/Thiyya have been discussed to death here over many years, and with many sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts involved. The Ezhava article covers those issues. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

sir , thurson is a historian who wrote on castes some 200 years ago . please understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unniyarcha (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed he did. That is why he is not reliable. Please see, for example, User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Scots wiki post

This was a bad idea. I understand you're upset about the Arbcom motion today, but taking a dispute cross-wiki to oppose someone's RfA is not cool. Imagine what you'd think if someone from another wiki came here and did that during one of our RfAs. I urge you to retract that post. – Levivich 16:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. You're another of the drama-mongers and I have no interest in acting on anything you might recommend. If some admin there wants to remove it, they can and more fool them. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not upset about EC being blocked for socking. If you go into busybody mode you will notice that until the recent fracas it has been ages since I have commented on anything related to the guy. You need to separate the incompetence of MJL and ArbCom from the EC issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Avoid you

What if I went to another project.. oh wait. Despite you saying that:
I've painted a target on my back,
I'll find my time here limited and painful,
I am a sockpuppet of caroolmoredc,
I've made it my "life's work" to be an SJW on Wikipedia,
I've been doing stuff wrong since arriving here,
I am incompetant and a drama-monger,
I seem to bear a grudge of some sort about GGTF, and
I must be trolling in my response to you...

In reality, I have welcomed you to continue your contributions to Scots Wiki, ignored your worst incliminations by assuming good faith, and genuinely tried to engage in a constructive dialogue. For the good of this project, I simply ask you retract your latest reply to me on Talk:Cotswold_Olimpick_Games because it is inconsistent with your own advice for me which was that I shouldn't have to avoid someone constantly making personal attacks against me on this site. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please go away. - Sitush (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nambiar ,Menon ,Kurup are sub castes of Nair. They have wikipedia page. why don't Thiyya ?

Nair of north malabar is called nambiar . they have their own wikipedia . why don't thiyya have one ?

please remove the redirect.

this is our demand for over 10 years. please undestand our feeling admins .

please remove protection and redirect.

let's have ourown wikipedia please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unniyarcha (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No. And you seem to be suggesting that you are operating as part of the long-running meatpuppet/sockpuppet campaign, so you can expect to be blocked if so.

No I'm the secretary of Thiyyar mahasabha (caste community of Thiyyar) . Please contact me by mail - adhimonrkz@gmail.com. we are ready to give anything w≤hatever you says if you help us in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unniyarcha (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Now fuck off. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Simon

Why not run for Arbcom? That election is coming up pretty quickly here and while you and I may or may not have a different take on the banning of certain Manchesterians, I've always respected you as a solid content guy with the best interests of the project at heart — and somebody not afraid to throw a punch at the bureaucratic sorts who are slowly strangling English WP. Anyway, give it some thought. I'm sure it would be an uphill fight to win election, and the job itself sucks if you're unlucky enough to win, but running would be a bully pulpit, to steal a line from a dead Republican US President. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mancunians. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Banafar caste

The source cited in the article claims banafar brothers with combined Rajput and ahir background (which is false) but still let's consider it as true for sometime then also how can you say that whole Banafar community became "Ahirs" .For example if someone from Brahmin caste marries a Rajput boy ,does that mean that whole Brahmin became Rajputs just because of that 1 single marriage? Come to central India and check yourself ,I myself belong to banafar clan .How can some clain be both Rajput and ahir at the same time ? I hope your page stop spreading baseless claims by some extremist caste based groups and I hope you stop encouraging them .I have complained this issue to the admin Mr. Utkarshraj too .False information is being spread through your page .I hope you do some study before posting such baseless and unverified claim .Atleast open the source used as reference and try to understand it .Thank you . Thakur Singh (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently admin Mr. Utkarshraj is the same as User:Utcursch. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

First time I have heard of Alf Hiltebeitel described as an "extremist caste group"! - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation of Parihar

I have reverted your edit to Parihar, vide WP:CATVER: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. For example, a politician (not convicted of any crime) should not be added to a category of notable criminals". If you wish for the article to be in the category please discuss on the article's talk page and help build a consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Strategy recommendations summary

So, I remember someone (I think it was you? Or maybe someone else on your talk page?) saying on a talk page that the "Strategy Recommendations" were too long for them to read. Assuming it was you: I attempted to summarize the, ah, less messed-up parts of the recommendations at m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations#Summary, which I hope might be helpful. If it wasn't you, sorry for interrupting. :) --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Awan

Well than what do you consider reliable a neo modern source tell me the facts that i give are all very well documented in ancient,modern and neo,modern so just tell me that what era do you want my sources to be from i think i can manage will pre mughal era do Yoohooyoo (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well mr rather than edit warring if you were to do your research the author of the source given by me on the page awan is named sher muhammad awan and he was a respected historian of the awan tribe and a well published author in his native country and he died in early 1982 rather than the 1967 you are creating out of the blue just to spite and edit war with me now give a solid credible reason or leave it alone and i shall restore my edit Yoohooyoo (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

See the article talk page. Here. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Identifying a building from a photo

Nothing to do with Wikipedia but does anyone know how I could go about identifying a country house-style building from a 1960s photo? I have three or four family photos from that period which I think are taken somewhere in Norfolk but my mother reckons must be in North Wales (we do, at least, agree on the first three letters of the location!). I've tried dragging and dropping into Google Images, and my dad wasn't a particularly imaginative photographer so I should think his camera-pointing was done from a fairly common position. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends on photo resolution. If you post them online (or send them to me) in high resolution, I could try to help. Assuming you don't know the specific possible address (in which case the house may be still standing - possible google street view check) - the first thing to do is to look for signs, street numbers, and any other text that may identify the location (including - license plates - see Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom - there are codes for each office, and you'd assume most vehicles are local). This sleuth work requires a magnifying glass for a photo, or zooming in really close for a high-quality digital photo. You should also look for geographic features in the background - e.g. if you are able to ascertain the north/south/east/west orientation of the photo (e.g. via sun or other cue - and if you have a few photos at different times of day but same photo angle - you can make a rather strong bingo here (e.g. if you have 3 photos - one with a left shadow, one with a right, and one with a short forward shadow in the center - you are looking (if in northern hemisphere) north. If you have a short reverse shadow - you are looking south) and you are able to see the sea in the background - you'd have an easy way to discriminate between Norfolk (I'm assuming East Anglia, not Virginia - which would be easier actually) and North Wales (as the sea is in an opposite direction - at least if you have an east/west coast line). You can also reverse-image search the house itself - but - if it's a generic house you might not get too far. The key is usually first looking at background details in the images themselves and trying to sleuth off of what is available in the photo - often unrelated to the main object itself. If you have other photos from the same time period and location - they can help as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's a UK country house, Giano will probably recognise it if you post it here. (If it was North Wales, it's probably Erddig or Plas Newydd (Anglesey). North Wales isn't overburdened with English-style country houses; the fashion there was for mock-Tudor or stone edifices that looked like Scottish castles.) Stupid question but have you just looked on the Welsh/Norfolk tourist board websites to see if it appears in any of the photos there? ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, "country house" doesn't mean what you think it means. ‑ Iridescent 07:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sitush is using "country house-style building" - which seems a step below English country house - however if it is one of the major ones - then yes - rifling through the known ones in North Wales or Norfolk - would be much faster than what I am suggesting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I've uploaded three of them to GDrive. Crap photos and it might seem a bit silly but they form part of a set of family slides and are the only ones that might indicate the year (we know where we went on holidays and in what years, so if the place can be identified we will get the year). - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

shot of upper lake - same structure on opposite bank as in [1]

shot taken in 1964 of West frontage (angle more center - your dad was to the left of this)

more modern shot of this side (West frontage) of the house

Clearly Sandringham House. Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, dammit! Excellent spot. No idea why I didn't recognise it - I've even hobnobbed with royalty on a few occasions! So, that's the year we camped at West Runton, then. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Citations removal.

Bro you said citations needs to have all the author details and ISBN number etc etc. And did provided those this time. Then why were they removed? HinduKshatrana (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are referring to your recent addition of sources at Yadu and elsewhere. As I said in my edit summary, please see the information at WP:OVERCITE. You were adding a lot of additional, unnecessary citations and (although I didn't say it) some of those were unreliable also, eg: the "states" series of The People of India is not considered reliable even though the "national" series (which was published by Oxford University Press) is ok. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Biharis in martial race

Hi! You removed Biharis from the Martial race list with the justification that they weren't mentioned however, this quote seems to contradict that:

"For any traveller on the roads of Bihar, an inescapable image comes to mind. That of a peasant who always keeps his wooden club or lathi at hand, under no circumstances letting it out of his reach. The Biharis, who constitute a martial race in India similar to the Sikhs or the Pathans, in keeping with the role conceived by the British colonial administration, were a mother lode for Monghol and English army recruiters. Their independent fighting spirit, which has earned them a reputation for toughness, has been in evidence throughout their history."

Source (which you removed for some reason): Servan-Schreiber, Catherine (1998). "Indian Epics of the Terai Conquest: The Story of a Migration". Diogenes. doi:10.1177/039219219804618106.

And here is a screenshot which is taken directly from the source itself: https://imgur.com/2HRRveU In anticipation that you will likely claim the source is "not reliable", I will advise you to take note that the article was published in Diogenes (journal) which is supported by UNESCO. This in and of itself doesn't make it reliable but showcases its status. I eagerly await your response!213.205.198.2 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I read the sources, thanks. There were two and neither said that they were classified as a martial race by the Brits. That is what the article is about, not whether some group of people have been described as warlike in some random academic paper. We get this all the time with India stuff: everyone seems to think they can prove they are descended from warriors and gods - it's nonsense, usually for glorification purposes. Just because a source uses a word or term does not mean it applies to an article that also uses the same word or term: context is everything. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, one particular give-away in the quote you show above is the tense. The Brits are long gone from India, along with their weird attempts at social engineering etc, but you quote uses "martial race" in the present tense. Since the classification died with the British Raj, "The Biharis, who constitute a martial race in India" cannot apply to the article. And even the Brits classified by caste, which they saw as being at the heart of everything, and not by region: there are many castes in Bihar. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

We have a list of "martial races"? --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sort of but only in the context of the silly British classification - Martial race. The lists therein are repeatedly altered with no regard for the sources and for reasons that I am sure you can guess! - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The list is sourced to one book, so its accuracy is probably dubious. Shouldn't we just drop it? --regentspark (comment) 16:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You could try but the author has taken it from the official 1925 British Class List, per their footnote. There is also a secondary list at the article, which is not sourced to that book. I suspect you will meet with resistance. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Kaikalas and kaikolar were same caste

Kaikolars in Andhra Pradesh were called as Kaikalas. In Andhra pradesh OBC list, the word Kaikolar and Kaikalas or Karikalabakthalu were listed as Same caste(Group- B, vocational, caste no.9)

In wikipedia there is separate page for Kaikalas and Kaikolar. Please made Kaikalas and Kaikolar in single page

Reference: https://aponline.gov.in/Quick%20Links/Departments/Backward%20Classes%20Welfare/A%20P%20Backward%20Classes%20Co-operative%20Finance%20Corporation/FAQ/FAQ.html Tiruchengode (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You can propose a WP:MERGE of the two articles and see if you get consensus for your view. However, please note that the lists of OBCs, ST/SCs etc are not usually considered to be reliable and often are outright ambiguous, which is one reason why there have been over 1200 official changes to the OBC list alone since it was introduced. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The word Kaikolar is a tamil word. In telugu slang it is pronounced as Kaikala Tiruchengode (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir please see this source Kaikala or Kaikkala is an alternative spinning for Kaikolar https://books.google.co.in/books?id=i4pvVOd2L0cC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=Kaikala+and+Karikalabhakthula&source=bl&ots=uSOKdCW1Bu&sig=ACfU3U2dCrFAXy-RUgcqc7404dUVpNetBQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0jsfC5dXkAhVu7nMBHZ92CroQ6AEwGXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kaikala%20and%20Karikalabhakthula&f=false Tiruchengode (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it really isn't much good posting this stuff here. It needs to be in a formal merge proposal as explained at WP:MERGE. Also, please note that the book you have just linked is not reliable because it is published by Gyan - see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan for some background to that. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GulBDMgxcU0C&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Kaikala+and+Karikalabhakthula&source=bl&ots=x388u94HCW&sig=ACfU3U12VR866NUARMN_vPaZfkw2z2a0bg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilkLyb2tbkAhU0g-YKHRVMDQAQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kaikala%20Karikalabhakthula&f=false

Is this is reliable source Tiruchengode (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that is also published by Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewari MLA

You are wrong. no new election has held in Haryana since 2014. Edit was related to Legislative assembly elections, not Parliament elections...parliament elections took place but legislative(mla) elections are schedules in later part of the year...You are changing edits without having proper knowledge of Haryana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnywonderful (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

gurgaon

Hi Sir. It seems you changed my edit. The editings I made are based on facts and I provided references. its a common knowledge in Haryana that gurgaon district is considered part of Ahirwal region and Ahirwati is one of the language spoken there. I could have removed other languages mentioned but I did not even though most of those languages are not native and spoken mostly by migrant groups..but as Gurgaon is now a global city having people from different parts of world, I chose not to remove other languages mentioned, but you don't even allow me to write the name of local language/dialect spoken in gurgan, which is ahirwati language.It wasn't my point of view but its a fact that Ahirwati is one of the regional language of gurgaon, which can be considered mixture of Haryanvi as well as rajasthani..gurgaon is close to rajasthan so rajasthani have some influence And you are talking about references and how unreliable they are..ok forget the references I provided...the language section of gurgaon have 2 references and both of those references mentions ahirwati is one of the language spoken in Gurgaon...I did not added those references, the referfences mentions ahirwati but the wiki article does not...but using same refrences it mentions other dialects like mewati, haryanv...mewati in spoken in mewat district of haryana(nuh)..very few speakers in gurgaon...Ahirwati has more native speakers than both Haryanvi and Mewati in Gurgaon.

So using those 2 references its okay to mention mewati, haryanvi etc, but not ok to ahirwati when references clearly says ahirwati is spoken in gurgaon? Its a common knowldedge in haryana that Gurgaon is considered part of Ahirwal region and ahirwali dialect is spoken..even the wiki pages of parts of gurgaon district like pataudi, sohna, manesar, farrukhnagar says that they are part of ahirwal region...I did not edited those pages to say they are part of ahirwal region.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnywonderful (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Ahirwati article, which redirects to the Mewati one, has been the subject of a prolonged bout of sockpuppetting. I'm not sure if you are aware of it but someone has formally accused you of being yet another sock and an investigation is open. I'm not prepared to waste time on this until that investigation is resolved because I'm absolutely fed up of people being deceitful in pursuit of undermining this project to gain some sort of traction for their personal opinion. If the investigation comes back clear then I'll revisit things but right now I've not even read the wall of text above beyond noting which article it relates to. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your revert of on this day picture

I would like a rationale. It's interesting, relevant, and harmless. Also unless I find a 101 newspaper references, it will be gone in a week?--Nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave a rationale in my original edit summary. You then re-added the thing instead of discussing. Loads of articles have appeared several times on the main page and I can't think of one where we incorporate a screencap of the appearance in the article itself. It is navel-gazing and we're neither a reliable source nor is it relevant to whether an article is notable etc. I think you are out of your depth, sorry: you're floundering in attempts to find anything that might prevent deletion but you seem to have very little idea of our policies or conventions etc. It really probably does not help that you have a conflict of interest and I am appalled that you have been canvassing both on- and off-wiki: you say that the editing interface has changed in your absence, which I presume means you are now using VisualEditor, but core policies have changed very little over many years. People have tried to explain and provided links to policy etc but it doesn't seem to be sinking in and now you're casting aspersions etc at the AfD also, questioning peoples' motivations. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique. You and others are making up rules as you go along and ignoring precedent and your own practices. I am rusty about WP in-fighting, but I used to be pretty good at it. It took me a while to remember how to do it, but some of the old reflexes are returning. I'm not done yet. There is reason to believe that I will prevail, or I would not go on.

As to the picture: Please source a guideline or policy that supports your removal. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. No-one but you has challenged the removal and you were the one who added the thing in the first place. Since you are so keen on WP:IAR, try that for size, too. Not to forget WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:OR, WP:RS and, which should exist, WP:IDIOTIC. None of this is about in-fighting but if you start from a position of having a self-admitted COI and then repeatedly assume bad faith about people's motives etc, as you have done, then you have to anticipate kickback. Your stirring "I will prevail, or I would not go on" suggests that a read of WP:IDHT might come in handy, too. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrote over my t/p, few days back that he is a fierce advocate, and things get nasty fast with those who conflict him. Shall I shudder in fear? ∯WBG^converse 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

[2] - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nemonoman: Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on notable subjects, but notability and verifiability have not been carefully scrutinized in every Wikipedia article, which is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and why using appearances on Wikipedia to argue that something is notable or significant is Circular reasoning. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that using On this day to establish notability was an error. I removed the lame attempts at citing WP as a source. However, showing the picture in itself seems interesting and harmless.

Also, I know I am a tenacious advocate of my own positions, and I recognize (often too late) that I get personal and my comments can be offensive. I don't easily take offense, so I don't often don't recognize that my words may offend. When it is brought to my attention, I am anxious to apologize and make amends.

My comment to Godrick was based on my concern that his purge of 12 Meher Baba articles had questionable motivation. I am still concerned about this, and I'm considering my options.

This Silence Day AFD seemed to start as clearcut debate, but I see now that many of the participants have very different views than mine. I've been thinking hard about the matters being raised, and I think I have some reasonable and highly justifiable thoughts on AFDs and notability. I think others may see things my way, if not on this AFD, on future ones. Godric has already noticed that I'm working on an essay on my sandbox, and you are also invited to see progress. (If you have thoughts please express them on my talk page rather than changing the sandbox, however. It's a work in progress. FYI, I am including one of your comments in my current draft.)--Nemonoman (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to get involved with the essay, but I will say this. Wikipedia has a lot of material that can broadly be classified as "puffery"; this ranges from intentional, undisclosed, paid editing, to WP:FANCRUFT added by overenthusiastic enthusiasts. Cleaning this out is a very necessary task, and one that several of us perform. From where you are sitting it may look like WBG is targeting you; but that's not the case, and you need to recalibrate before you make accusations that could lead to further drama. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think WBG is targeting me, but he does appear to have it in for certain type of article, which he mentions explicitly. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I glanced at your Sandbox essay and have no intention of getting involved unless and until you actually try to do something with it. However, you are making personal attacks in the thing and I doubt that is ok even in user space. Please review WP:NPA. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Puffery now, guideline later, maybe. There are lots of helpful but non-approved guidelines floating around.

However I am concerned by you describing personal attacks, and if you can point out examples, I will fix them. It would be a generous thing, but I have no reason to expect this favor. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The entire thing reas like an attack against WBG, and accusing them of being snide is dodgy. If you have a problem with WBG's actions then the appropriate venue is most likely WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted, with thanks. I will review and correct. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lyn Ott AFD

I agree, delete. But I wanted to mention with appreciation your objective descriptions, and your efforts to find some other mentions beyond the silly refs in the article. Thank you. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Upasani

Noting your efforts to clean up the Upasani article, and again noting my appreciation of your approach. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

New message from Vikram Nankani

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

--Vikram Nankani (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Raheja Developers

Hey, is this notable? Some versions are spam; others are very negative. I removed the "allegations" per BLP as it concerns living people and we usually don't repeat allegations that are not proven in court. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it was originally created as a promotional article. Certainly, there have been organised attempts to promote the business on Wikipedia and, equally, to sanitise any negative stuff. I'm not sure how BLP can apply to a company. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Topics of Maithil Brahmin

I Saurabh Mishra, inform you that, Raj Darbhanga also known as Khandwal dynasty. (Raj Darbhanga means raja(king) of Darbhanga.) This dynasty was Maithil Brahman dynasty. See pages 58–59 in reference number 4. सौरभ मिश्र (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't what you wrote first time round but, in any event, I've reverted you again pending clarification and have left a note on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Raj Darbhanga was from Khandawala in Mithila, due to which that dynasty is called Khandwal dynasty. If you have problems with this, you can reach Darbhanga and get information. And Raj Darbhanga is called Khandwal, not Khandewal. सौरभ मिश्र (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not personal visits to the place. But you should be directing your comments to the article talk page as that is a more appropriate venue. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=A0i94Z5C8HMC&pg=PA55&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

I do not write anything of information on any subject. If I write anything further, do not remove it, this is a request. And the link is given above, read pages 60–61 in full. And the Khandwal dynasty ,not Khandewal dynasty. सौरभ मिश्र (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic banned editor

I've topic banned Thakur Singh from pages related to caste and social groups. Please let me know if you should see him violating the ban. Bishonen | talk 07:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC).

Good, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Talk:James Bevel.
Message added 17:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 17:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Seen it and replied. I am seriously thinking of a trip to WP:ANI because the multitude of CIR issues is astounding. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kratos123456789 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Hello, Sitush,

I don't know why you are CSD tagging pages by Ahmed Gop, saying they are products of a banned editor. Ahmed Gop is not a blocked editor, nor identified as a sock puppet. Please do not tag their page for deletion until they are tagged as a sockpuppet. This is premature. File a SPI report or contact a checkuser if they think they are a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You are thick, Liz. As I've already told you, it's a duck and the SPI has been filed. Now just leave it alone. - Sitush (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed SCP‎ - link to the SPI for reference. Honestly, you're not fit to be an admin. - Sitush (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, please stop your personal attacks now. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, I have never had any respect for Liz, who has definitely stalked me off wiki as well as, I suspect, on it (the latter may be paranoia on my part, driven by her own admission of the former some years ago). Amazingly, she is an admin but there are plenty of others and I would be grateful if you would ask her to find some other admin to do her dirty work in future if it concerns edits by myself. Yes, NPA can be a potential issue but, for example, it would not be an attack to speak the truth, neither here (eg: NOTVAND) or indeed in libel law. I'll let people make there own mind up but, of course, on this occasion the DUCK has been ascertained and the pages deleted as I requested, seemingly within minutes of Liz's reverts of me. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war in panicker page

Edit war from nair sock puppets {IPvandal|49.207.53.134}}

These sockpuppets are deleting original work which has citations and reference. Making nair glorification and simply vandalising page.

I request admin and moderaters to make.

Make semiprotect. Kalangot (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nair are shudra - someone deleted that.

Nair are shudra, sudra varna in kerala. Someone deleted that from Nair wikipedia page. Please add. Also add great historian M. G. S. Narayanan historical reveal that Nair are formed from Adivasi, present day sc st by Namboothiris. Link  : https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/081116/nairs-of-kerala-originated-from-the-adivasis-says-mgs-narayanan.html Kalangot (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject India

WikiProject India

Namaste, Sitush. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.

Subscribe

---

• Newsletter discussion
• Contribute
• Subscribe/Unsubscribe
• Archive

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification please...

Welcome back.

I sought some clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/From_the_editors. I pinged you because this comment you made triggered concerns for me.

I quoted this passage from your comment "I harass here every day and will continue to do so due to my belief that the content is what counts, not the people. I'm not here to be nice."

I found the surface meaning of this passage alarming, because, as I noted there, we are all subject to normal human fallibility. If, after reviewing your comment, you decide you don't stand by that apparent surface meaning, just say so, and I'll forget my concern.

If you think that being entrusted with administrator authority frees you from some or all of our civility policies and conventions, can I ask if you think there is a policy or conventions that justifies this? Granted, there are instances where good faith attempts at civility fail. But, in my opinion, everyone, including administrators, including Jimbo Wales, should try civility first.

I also raised a concern over whether administrators should offer Fram extraordinary protection from having other contributors pose good faith questions, or voice good faith concerns, over his edits or comments. In my opinion every member of our community should make their edits and comments knowing that other members of the community may review them, and voice concerns, ask good faith questions.

You left this comment on my user talk page. Fram was preparing his second RFA, had a draft in userspace. The advice for those requesting administrator authority points out that contributors with whom they had a conflict in the past are free to write their version of that conflict, in the RFA. It advises those requesting administrator authority to consider reaching out to those contributors first.

Fram had recently left a comment about me, on his meta talk page. But he did not contact me when preparing for his 2nd RFA. I think the comments I left on Fram's talk page are consistent with the comments that would have been completely within what would have been appropriate for me to leave on his 2nd RFA, and, thus, not "pestering".

So, what was the meaning of your comment? If you were putting on your administrator authority, and warning me that you were considering blocking me, or using your administrator authority in some other way, then I request you clarify (1) what kind of edit or comment would trigger you using that authority; (2) the policy or convention you think I was lapsing from.

I don't think anyone has suggested that, now that Fram has had his block lifted, he should be the target of uncivil or unfair comments or criticism. I certainly haven't advocated that. Nor do I believe I have made any uncivil or unfair comments about Fram, or about his edits and comments. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Uh... Sitush isn't an admin. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ah. Really. Thanks.
• Sitush, without regard to whether you are or aren't an administrator, I will encourage you to try to remember that you are as fallible as everyone else. I encourage you to regard your recognition that you share normal human fallibility with everyone else as a good reason to try to be tactful when you disagree with other people. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy McIlwraith

Hello again, Sitush. Wor Jimmy has finally arrived. All the best, Roy. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Been a while

I haven't seen your name in my watchlist for quite a while; I hope all is well. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Would live to hear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I just came here for thd same reason... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

...and me too.Deccantrap (talk)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

Miss your voice, and Eric's, and Brian's ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from London, Sitush ...

and may the New Year be filled with peace and plenty.

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはSitushたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Had a great time with you editing Wikipedia. Cheers. Surge_Elec (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Sitush: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks to your general cleanup efforts over the years, you have often ended up removing problematic text inserted by users under a Copyright investigation. You have saved me several hours of work; for this, I award this barnstar. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 03:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this article?

Hi, Sitush! Could you please take a look at the article Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha? I just full-protected it to stop the edit warring. It looks as if all three combatants are quite new users (autoconfirmed though), so I posted an explanation of what they are supposed to do on the talk page. But some neutral, expert eyes on the article could be helpful. Plus, of course, I undoubtedly protected the WP:Wrong Version! Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome back sir. Although not a contributor, I stumbled upon the articles of Kayastha and Ambashtha and noticed serious POV pushes, made by new users. Would you kindly check those. I would have restored to your version, but considering the big time gap and substantial good edits in between, I chose not to. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back - it really hasn't been the same without you - Arjayay (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

+1! Please stick around: you're needed. (But be careful not to burn out.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, so great to see new contributions from you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

+ another 1 Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is nice to see you back- as I said above, your cleanup is incredibly helpful. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yadav are kashtriya not shudra.

My dear i would like to tell you this thing, yadav are kashtriya not shudra.could you please show me where is mentioned about yadav are shudra.if yadu is myhthlogical king and what all about another kashtriya.bhagwat geeta is the main evidence of yadav.swami dayanand sarswati also spoke about yadav and told they are pure blood aryans.not like rajput or another because all they are mixed blood people of huns kushans and shqs people.milk selling is profession not varn.there are numbers of castes people sells milk include rajput jatt and gurjar brahmans.so how can you say yadav are shudr.correct your information which is spreading like roumours about it.which book tells yadav are shudra please tell me i shall read it.it very funny you have no real knabout yadav.you have just one word, yadu is mythological king.are you foolish man? And i also tell about ahir and yadav.ahir is the tittle not caste.so change the false information on here.and wikipedia is not holy book its present time man wrote book. Vrishni yaadvinder (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right brother. I am Dhakad (successor of Balram), we are brother.And are not sudra as our ancestors i.e Krishna and Balram are kashtriya Kunal Nagar (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?

Hi, Sitush! Could you please take a look at this discussion? --99v (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Senaithalaivar

Senaithalivar page contain many unreliable sources so review this page. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha

Nice cleanup! Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

Stalking

If you think I am stalking you report it, do not use it as an ill founded ad hominem, such action are a violation of wp:npa. I have no insulted you do not insult me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

just fuck off. you are constantly looking for a fight with me. how the hell did you find that article but not know the person you were responding to was a troll? rhetorical question - don't reply Sitush (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please step back from responding to each other, and from the keyboard if needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

sorry

Hi Sitush, Sorry I don't know how to control this. Someone has left a very vulgar message on my talk page in response to you. I want you to know that it is not me. Nevertheless, I am sorry as my talk page was used to abuse you. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@DifferentialCalculus: - thankz but nothing for you to apologise for. You've been dragged into a bit of nastiness. It isn't usually a good idea for someone to delete stuff from another person's talk page - see WP:TPG - but there are exceptions and in this instance I have removed the offending posts myself. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Chapeau

You made me laugh out loud today with I saw your !vote and comment at the AfD we've been discussing. Given how the discussion had been progressing it was unexpected. Anyway, I mean all this in a positive, collaborative way. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem keeping stuff for the right reason. It is entirely reasonable to object to a wrongly-founded keep rationale but do research that supports a valid rationale. I need to expand the article asap. - Sitush (talk)

Possibly of use: The ideology of class has yielded place to communal ideas. Javed Alam reacted to this by saying that the problems of communalism cannot be understood by counter- poising class against community. In India, the larger castes have collapsed into communities like jadav, kurmi, etc, who do not accept Brahmanical categories, hierarchies and ritual discriminations.

References

regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And a reference for your earlier comment linking Jadav with Yadav in Bihar. In the IHDS, a sample of 41,554 household yielded a list of 7,372 castes. Some of these are different spellings of the same group, Jadav vs Yadav; but others refer to totally different but similar sounding groups, e g, Jat vs Jatav.

References

--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. The verbiage for this barnstar sounds like it fits you to a T. Thanks for all that you do... and have done. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Carole. I rarely see this page at the moment because I am exiting in the mobile app & it doesn't show notifications. Sorry to you and anyone else whom I have either unintentionally ignored or been tardy with a response. - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, I am just glad to see you here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you look at this Vandal ?

Hi Sitush Outlander07 is distruptly editing contents on Kerala Caste pages, Could you check his edit history and See.

Look at this how he made this List of Nairs

l have never heard of Nair having Kingdom , he included every royal dynasties to list of Nair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:530:DF60:4D00:555C:CA7A:45C (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Why are you calling me vandal?? Dont you see false edit done by someone like 'Kalangot' in all pages without proper resources,reverting them to original edit is vandalism???

Outlander07 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Final Ruling on Kayasthas in 1926

Hi,

While cleaning up the Chitraguptavanshi page,you've cited one reason that there has been several rulings(namely Allahabad,Calcutta and finally Patna high court's) on Kayasthas. But,the FINAL RULING WAS BY PATNA HIGH COURT IN 1926. THE PATNA HIGH COURT RULED OUT THE OTHER RULINGS DONE IN CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS INCONCLUSIVE AND DECLARED KAYASTHAS AS KSHATRIYAS. THAT WAS THE FINAL RULING!

Unknown editor, Satish is doing a good job. Even an amateur knows that every Kayastha subgroup is classified differently. All groups do not belong to same varna and treating them as same by you and shouting at Satish is wrong. The British poked their nose in this to classify only groups that were ambiguous (Brahmins had not classified them) and looked at the customs of each group before classifying them. For example, the CKP group was not part of any classification by the British because the Brahmins of Maharashtra (unlike other states) had Gramanyas where written classification was provided for twice born caste status. Today in Maharashtra, every caste other than Brahmins, Saraswats, CKPs and Pathare Prabhus is considered shudra no matter what they claim and that is why only these 4 have sacred thread ceremony officiated by brahmins. This is well known and there are numerous references and existence of highly educated scholars only from these 4 castes in the 19th century proves it. Incompetent people will not understand the intricacies. You can stop shouting at Satish who is doing a good job cleaning up nonsense that does not even match the books.DifferentialCalculus (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The decision was made for all Kayasthas including CKPs. The Britishers declared all Kayasthas as Kshatriyas in 1926 Patna high court case!

His name is Sitush and not Satish.

The page has been locked now till May 6th. Plz undo the 'Notables section' changes of this page yourself when the protection is lifted. The Notables section consisted the names of all the sub-groups of Kayasthas.

Would like Sitush to add the following when possible as he's an admin. Talking about the revision no. 952244847 by him.

Sitush's reasoning given: "again, inappropriate - their designation changed over time & British categorization was notoriously unstable, irrational and subject to social pressure. Why highlight the "glory" of 1931 status but not state in same para their lowly prior classification?'

The prior lowly classification of Bengali Kayasthas as shudras was because of using the surname of Das and not using the surname Verma. It was a ploy against Bengali Kayasthas by the Bengali Brahmins. Shudras of those time had a tradition that they could marry the widow of their deceased brother. Kayasthas never followed this tradition anywhere.

Would like Sitush to add the following when possible as he's an admin.

"According to some accounts, they are a literate and educated class of Kshatriyas, and they have been referred to as a twice-born caste.[62][63] The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as a 'upper caste'[64] i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kshatriya varna.[65][61]"

Presently,the varna status section looks like it's talking about Bengali Kayasthas and is not about all Kayasthas. When a person scans the page, it should show the result first and then show the reasons and court cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No Dinpoce. You are wrong. British cases have nothing to do with ckp. CKP were already classified as Kshatriya by arbiters in the brahmin community and even bajirao II issued official decree. They were doing thread ceremonies for centuries. There is historic evidence that they studied vedas and had thread ceremonies. There is no British case involving other groups like ckp. Every group is a different caste. All cases are from north India or Bengal. The simple reason is that the British had to go through religious texts was because Brahmans did not classify these subgroups(Bengali, north Indian) into any varna. However, in Maharashtra, caste varna is set in stone - do you know? - due to Brahman influence and sanskritization was not allowed unlike rest of India- read books on gramanya. Any brahmin who defied orders was ostracized. For example, there was a brahmin (last name bhat) at the famous Kolhapur temple who lost his caste because he recited some vedic verses before some marathas who were not classified as upper caste. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dinpoce, when I meant caste was set in stone it means - all decisions *are* now set in stone. Just google ckp munja you will find photos of events on facebook. Any caste that performed vedic rituals in maharashtra could be challenged. Saraswats, ckps, sonars etc were challenged. Only Saraswats and ckps prevailed due to decisions by brahmin arbitrators and because they had been following the shastras(learning vedas). These challenges and the verdicts that all had to follow were called gramanyas in marathi. There is historic evidence that saraswat/ckp performed thread ceremonies. The challenges were to stop the vedic rituals hence I said no sanskritization was allowed in maharashtra. This is a well known to amateur historians familiar with marathi history.

I dont know much about chitragupta kayastha - I think they were educated people and they have produced great people like Rajendra Prasad and Lal Bahdur Shastri but I dont know much at all. My friendly and well meant advise is to be polite and request editors to understand your view point. If you agitate them, it will be counter-productive. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Running/Supporting Propaganda!

Not sure, where your reply is coming form. Some one-liner references from some publications are being added as cite-able references in an article and when countered, the edit is not just discarded but also labelled as 'Canvassing'? Not just that, accusing of being part of campaign and what not... Also taking names of select publications in response also sounds like labeling the editor profiles start here early on at entry itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjamani (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Mudaliars

There has been addition of non-notable persons and people without Mudaliar surname in the List of Mudaliars page. It requires constant supervision and clean up of non-notable and personalities Who don’t have Mudaliar surname Thanks! Srivatsarcot1 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. People have been piping names in links so as to force the Mudaliar reference. Reverted to an earlier version. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding contents

Hi,

Is there any issue for adding contents in 'List of Nair' article with proper citations?.Saw you removed poorely sourced or unsourced contents from that article.Is there any restrictions? Outlander07 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The core information regarding inclusion in caste lists is that at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NLIST. There is some more specific guidance at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mays

Hi Sitush, I saw that you removed this saying "also copyvio from his official website". But these look like plain facts? Perhaps the phrase "the perennial victim of Sod's law whose girlfriend has dumped him to marry" might be easily trimmed out (although it seems to be a perfectly accurate description of the plot)? Apart from that, I can't really see how that list of roles and appearances could be easily "rewritten" in any way. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

See article talk. Mostly not a list and was word-for-word same as his official site. Either we copied from that or that copied from us without attribution. Removal pending rewrite errs on the side of caution, and I do believe it could be rephrased. In addition, the way it was presented made it appear that the cited sources supported the entirey of the group of statements preceding them, which most definitely was not the case. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Two of the three section were unsourced, but I think sources could easily be found (especially if, as you say, it's "copyvio from his official website"). Or are you saying also that his own website is not WP:RS? The third segment appeared to be sourced to Bradford Telegraph & Argus, but the same consideration still applies, I think. I'd be very interested to see your rephrasing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPS - would be better to find, say, interviews or profiles in newspapers. I am not going to rephrase anything. I have given the rationale for removal on the talk page and have zero interest in the article beyond that. I happened upon it, spotted some repetition, then noticed that it wasn't really sourced despite appearances, then noticed the copy/paste problem that definitely existed in one direction or the other. To be honest, it was so obviously a crap article that I am surprised the issues hadn't been spotted before - I don't watch much TV due to my deafness but even I knew who he was when I saw a photo of him via the article. We really do need to stop tolerating poor content: less can be more. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think something might be wrong with that page. I can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that I've done my encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Yes, WP:SPS applies I guess but, as one might expect, it looks 100% accurate. Still don't see the copyvio problem. I might try and improve. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: you apparently did not take care in reading what I did and have made false statements in restoring some stuff (eg: there was repetition). More care needed on your part. I couldn't give a toss whether you think "it looks 100% accurate" - who are you, the acknowledged reliable source? - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. By all means trim out what you think is repetition, perhaps with an edit summary of "repetition"? I'm sure we don't want "crappy gossip sources". No, I don't claim to be "the acknowledged reliable source", but one might expect Mays to know what's his own website? I still don't see the copyvio problem, or which material needs to be revdelled. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

How to increase the protection level of a page?

You are a major contributor of Kayastha page. Can you increase the level of protection of Kayastha page? Can you help me to add information to the page as you are old and experienced editor? I have good information but dont know how and where to add. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Propose changes on the article talk page, if you have not already. People have been restricted from editing the article directly because there has been so much disruptive editing, in particular by people who are clearly either sockpuppets or trying to make edits based on off-wiki canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles like Chitpawan have list of notables. Can you add the same to Kayastha? Can you add clearly the similarities and differences between bengali kayastha and chitraguptavanshi kayastha? The article is very confusing on that point. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am giving some links here.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=%22the+kayasthas+as+defacto+independent+rulers%22&source=bl&ots=OG77uuj6o8&sig=ACfU3U08gm-ZJSz4CwXR14TUuvFxzu34-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXwJbezqfpAhUPzTgGHaeiBlMQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=pfAKljlCJq0C&pg=PA64&dq=kings+called+kayastha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipqqKQz6fpAhXyyzgGHVUwCf8Q6AEIJjAA

Can u add 12th century Kayastha rulers in Andhra country in your encyclopedic language? They used titles like Arivira Brahmarakshasa. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You're still around, Sitush--I'm glad. Hope you are well. You'll be pleased to know that the CBX is running on all six legs. Take care! Drmies (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge

Hello Sitush. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Indian communities and POV

Hi Sitush - I see that user Nittawinoda has started engaging in his caste POVs again, He seems to be violating Wiki topic ban, can you please help check Sangitha rani111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at articles such as Vanniyar, Agnivansha, Maravar, they have been edited for caste glorification with false information and POV intents Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

(talk page stalker) hi, Sangitha rani111. Nittawinoda's topic ban is no longer in force; it has been commuted to a 1RR restriction. Please see [3]. But I have not checked the other problems you mention. Pinging User:Vanamonde93 and User:RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen for providing feedback. Regards Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Request

Hi, I would like you Sitush to have a look at the page of Samajwadi Party. A lot of vandalism has taken place there, and inspite of numerous efforts, incidents of malicious edits are taking place. A lot has been changed there. Kindly restore and do something about that! Thanks in advance.

Hello sir.. I just a question of the book name- peasants and monks in British India by sir willam r. Pich. Where is write and proof (koeris) is a shudra caste aur Clune ? Vicky Singh 2021 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been topic banned

But my only suggestion is let us keep wikipedia neutral and verifiable. Bangali Babu Is Back (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Dasi-putra Brahmins

Just wanted to let you know that Bengali Kayasthas are not the only ones who might have mixed with shudra and slave women.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nNsXZkdHvXUC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=dasiputra+brahmin&source=bl&ots=pdKu7tcLjv&sig=ACfU3U02vthEf9l_zbAPVwr6f3AoJdKxgw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9uTB8MfpAhUIyDgGHX9_DgEQ6AEwCXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasiputra%20brahmin&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-5irrXX0apQC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=dasiputra+brahmin&source=bl&ots=z5oxZNovTv&sig=ACfU3U24FP3Sp5HM9khXcClkmDRNqb5gOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9uTB8MfpAhUIyDgGHX9_DgEQ6AEwCHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasiputra%20brahmin&f=false

Here is another one:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5xhBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT101&lpg=PT101&dq=dasi+putra+Brahmin&source=bl&ots=fvn818BpG8&sig=ACfU3U2X6W5Q3E6F3dE9HGtAOOEQmQ3p4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXmcCphsjpAhXV4zgGHReUAAIQ6AEwD3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=dasi%20putra%20Brahmin&f=false

This is not regarding the Kayastha article. So,added this discussion here.

Wikipedia should not be made a battleground of caste wars.Dinopce (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't about the Kayastha article, nor indeed any other that I am currently editing. I have no idea why you are telling me this and, in any case, I was already aware. Cross-caste marriages etc are something I first wrote about here over a decade ago in connection with the Nairs and Nambudiris.

You are clearly not wanting to understand the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you and I find reading what you do say to be a waste of my time now. Consequently, please do not post on my talk page again. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

there is a slow burning crosswiki editwar/vandalism from this user and while this edit was "sourced" it seems like an intentional attack and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. You're the go-to editor around here for these things, so could you take a look? Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see they are blocked now and you reverted, so presume all is good for a while at least. I will check but the claim is new to me & I think I have read the source previously. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not in the source. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please look into this

Hi sitush,

Could you please look into the suspected disruptive edits made on pages Sambandham, Moopil Nair and Mannanar.Requesting a cleanup.Outlander07 10:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Nambudiris

Hi Sitush, frankly I'm unsure about how to deal with this delightful person; haven't encountered quite that level of venom before. I assume it may not be a first for you, so - does one shop the editor directly to AIV on the strength of those edit summaries alone, or try to go through some futile "discuss on the talk page" exercise first, or what...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Waste of time discussing with them. I think there are at least a couple of big sock/meatfarms in operation on caste stuff at the moment. This talk page is watched by a few admins who are au fait with caste disruption & so I suspect AIV won't be needed. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hi. Please take care when you remove references which do not support on statement to make sure that they are not referenced elswhere in the article, and if they are, please make sure that the ref is still valid after your edit. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian - that is why we have a bot. I am not an idiot and don't need my wrist slapping, thank you. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Yaduvanshi clans...

I read your message on my talk page. I got that. But why the information on Yaduvanshi Ahirs clan page was blanked and redirected towards the Ahir page when clearly details were given about that particular Yadu Ahir clan precisely, while there's a Yaduvanshi Rajput page who claims the same descent(for 2-3 tribes of their own) from Yadavas or Yadav lunar clan or whatever... So there are 2 sect of the society which claims the same descent but one is framed as false? And the information wasn't just written there on Yadu Ahir clan article, but the refs were provided for each statement too!HinduKshatrana (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See my edit summaries and the comments on that talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the summaries for all the edits you made, but why isn't there any place for specific Yaduvanshi Ahir clan over here? The page for Ahir is there but not for the particular Yaduvanshi Ahir clan? And details for this particular has been removed also from the Ahir page itself! The other clans Nandvanshi, Gwalvanshi, Chandravanshi (Lunar Dynasty) has individual seperate pages but Yaduvanshi Ahir clan page has been blanked and redirected. The clan exists, brother.HinduKshatrana (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been here a while now and should know that mere existence only rarely justifies a separate article. The notability of the article in question has been queried for years by people who have worked a lot in the caste topic area. The sourcing was terrible and there was synthesis etc going on - after discounting that, there was nothing left of note. I am afraid your attempts seemingly to promote things Ahir and Yadav might be better directed elsewhere than Wikipedia unless you start to understand basic policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You are personally showing yadavs down. The lead image on yadav page was knowingly changed by you. Your edit summaries are full of underbelt attack on yadavs. You are a jativadi yadav hating divide and rule agent. Propaganda machine of the rich and powerful. Yadavs will fight back. The African Hindu (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And you are most likely a sock. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi are no more chandravanshi. In fact, the king yadu was himself cursed by his father that he and his generation will no longer carry the family's lineage so yadu himself establish a lineage called yaduvanshi, ie:they are no longer chandravanshi. They were just an Indian tribes. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding editing of central page description of 'yadava'

Dear administrator, the central description of article "ancient Indian Kshatriya" should be changed to ancient hindu tribes. As their ancestral king was cursed by his father that he will no longer carry the family lineage/kingdom.So, they are just a Indian tribes. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it to "ancient Indian people" because that is the phrase used in the lead section. I am afraid that since we introduced these short descriptions for articles they have proved to be yet another outlet for POV, vandalism etc and it seems to me that tbey fly under the radar a lot of the time. Little benefit, lots of work - pretty typical of technical changes nowadays. Thanks for spotting it. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I am not an administrator, by the way. I am just a contributor like you. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, for your contributions.

Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone made this...

Hi Sitush, I know there's been a lot going on, in negative way, probably by me, but I recently found a problem bigger than that. Someone has created this page Khalistan Sovereign State for spreading seperatist propoganda. Please take a look. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Difficult to tell in the app but looks like it may now be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, it was deleted by Regents Park because it duplicates an existing topic, Khalistan movement. Bishonen | tålk 20:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC).

Yes. I saw your note on the real village pump and took care of it. Thanks, HinduKshatrana, for bringing it up here!--regentspark (comment) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, homies. HinduKshatrana (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Need Your Help In Yaduvanshi Rajputs page

Chudasama Rajputs were Yadava Rajputs (Yaduvanshi Rajputs) although Author Samira Sheikh in his book "Alliance, Genealogy and Political Power " says that Chudasama were originally pastoralists with links to Islam is it Valid ??? Chudasama were originally from Samma dynasty of Sindh. Raakuldeep (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is. The cited Sheikh source is from an academic journal & so meets WP:RS. Assuming the source has not been misrepresented, WP:NPOV applies - we should show all variants published in reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello sir Mr Sitush i have added more information in Yaduvanshi Rajput page with reference Kindly review it , hope it will be considered as reliable Raakuldeep (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, post-Raj era stuff published by university presses is fine. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Added some info about Yadu family

Hi Sitush, I've added some new data about Yadu family on Ahir page. Hopefully, this time the refs are reliable. HinduKshatrana (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HinduKshatrana, the first source is authored by Ram Sarup Joon, who is listed by Sitush among the worst type of sources – see User:Sitush#Ones to remove on sight – although I am not familiar with that author. The second non-scholarly source is authored by a freelance columnist, and it just mentions that, The Ahirs believe that they are descendants of the moon and belong to the Yadu family, famous for their fighting spirit. So the non-HISTRS source is misrepresented by you. And the third source doesn't support your claim. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk is correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jat clans of Delhi

A tag has been placed on Category:Jat clans of Delhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz is there any way to see what articles were in that category? Our cat system is appallingly poor and the Jat people are one of those groups that attract a lot of POV edits. It is very likely that someone, perhaps of Rajput sympathies, has gone on a spree removing cats from Jat articles. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: - anything? Genuine concern because I don't follow the goings-on of the cat obsessives. I can see that it might appeal to people with OCD or whatever but there is a big underlying issue in this particular case. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: still no response? I realise it wasn't an admin action but you were an admin last time I looked and you are held to a higher standard. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I will keep pinging you until I get a response. This is appalling comms fron an admin. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, don't, it's being used against you by trolls. Acroterion (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion am I missing something here or are you actually suggesting that Liz is a troll? Seems unlikely. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No, Liz is getting unwanted talkpage traffic from trolls who've been looking at this thread, who are trying to complain about you. Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I just blocked one.[4] Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, I reverted an edit by that account here; I think it was their first. I haven't looked at Liz's talk page but unless someone thinks it best to clear this talk page every time a third party posts here, thus making it redundant, the problem will only go away when the sockfarm gets bored. Liz is not the only person affected.

I handle the crap, both here and elsewhere, with help from various admins and since Liz is an admin anyway I don't see why they can't handle it - it's par for the course with caste stuff & Liz should know that by now.

Equally, if Liz had responded to my query, which is a genuine concern, not a kneejerk "I don't like it", then this section would probably have been autoarchived long ago. I still don't understand why Liz has not commented and thus leaves us both in an unsatisfactory hiatus. There are two solutions that seem simple to me but presumably not to Liz. Either Liz responds to a reasonable request that incorporated some background info of potential use for future CSD nominations or I stop editing caste stuff & we let the lunatics take over running the asylum. Which would the community prefer? - Sitush (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another one.[5] Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Diff as requested

My Village Pump (policy) comment. Ugh, I am sorry you're on mobile. Can you get it to switch to desktop view for each session? I am technically clueless, as you know, but Iridescent had some things to say about mobile access in a recent discussion on EEng's talkpage, including that Mediawiki will always serve up the mobile view and not save a preference for desktop view, but that one can switch on a per-session basis. Anyway, we are safe and well here so far, and I hope you and yours are, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, yes, it is possible to switch to the desktop version but you can imagine how much scrolling that involves for edit histories - one edit can wrap across several lines; worse now because of the relaxation on edit summary length. I am under instructions not to go out of the house - 14 weeks and counting! Thanks for the diff. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look , a fox pretending to be a sheep

Observed a recent edits to Moopil Nair and found that there are a numerous pov pushes . It's written as a Facebook post rather than a Wikipedia history article.

Also user User:Outlander07 is a Nair vandal.

His all edits are hisown edits and it's reverts done by himself only. For every 50 other edits he does a Nair pov push.

He is using multiple sock puppets accounts. Recent edits to Channar revolt and Mannanar are from the same IP he is using.

Look at Moopil Nair and other Nair related pages like Samantha Kshatriya and Kiryathil Nair. Here all these pages you can find a numerous POV pushes like vandalising the article by stating Nair are Kshatriyas ( actually shudras ).

Source doesn't cite anything written in these articles. Also Samantha Kshatriyas are kings of Kerala ,they hold the title Varma and not nair.they are not Nair.

I request you to look these pages

Moopil Nair

Kiryathil Nair

Samantha Kshatriya

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:12A2:3CD1:557B:CB9F:7074:22DC (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let me tell you I am not into edit warring as you said above. Don't call me vandal as I hadn't done any kind of vandalism in wiki pages (No abuse from other users till now). We are using Dynamic IP and i have enough brain not to accuse you that you had done the disruptive edit as your IP series are shown in above said articles. I can even accuse you as a sock of Kalangot as your anonymous behaviour says so. Sitush The said OR and POV's in above Nair pages are not mine. I just reverted an edit on the article Moopil Nair and placed a citation tag on it . The above guy is still on British raj era calling names like Shudras and all. I can show the above guy doing disruptive edit in a sourced article saying "not in the source". The guy said above was correct I had made edits in Channar Revolt and Mannanar check the edit history and find out what I had done. I know the rules of Wikipedia as I'm a registered user, not an anonymous like above. Already left you a message on the talk page to make cleanup on the suspected disruptive edit pages. Please look into his statement "Also Samantha Kshatriyas are kings of Kerala, they hold the title Varma and not nair.they are not Nair" Last time he from other IP complained (How Dynasties comes under List of Nairs Page? Who cares?) He need the articles in his way if it is sourced or unsourced. Outlander07 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Numerous people have been edit warring. Thus far, I have stubbed Moopil Nair and Sambandham. Instead of fighting over stuff you think you know, I think you should all take a look at WP:V and WP:RS before working together to produce articles that follow our policies and guidelines. Ridiculous, all of you. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please look into this, most likely the above anonymous guy doing [[6]], [[7]].Outlander07 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Please check Samantha Kshatriya and see the above guy who accused me a vandal doing.. Outlander^07@talk 04:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Objection on religion section of yadav article.

Respected editor, please note that 99.9999% of yadavs are in Hinduism so in section of religion only Hinduism should be written. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with at article talk. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Too many assholes

I've semiprotected this page for another three days. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone is in to disruptive edit

Hi,

Please have a look on the page Samantha Kshatriya. The very same IP Series who accused me as a vandal last week (check here [[8]]) for reverting his edits is into disruptive edit. I'm not going to revert it. Thank You Outlander^07@talk 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think someone else has reverted it. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have time keep an eye on the page Caste system in Kerala some POV pushes are going on. Outlander^07@talk 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I must be jinxed. I looked at that article recently for the first time in ages & it seemed to be in reasonable shape. I will look again tomorrow - it could be that the people xisrupting here are also involved there. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted to the mid-2017 version per my note on the talk page of 30 April. The thing had been affected badly by Nair POV pushers such as BreadBuddy. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Me sitush

I would like a reply from u for reverting the changes I have done. Rimeg (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which article? I usually give explanatory edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr sitush ur very active on wikepdia ....I would like to discuss something on kapu page Rimeg (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The source u have given on kapu stating shudra status only shows that reddy and kamma were different class than kapu kulana ( u can read it) and in kapu page u have edited that kamma branch of kapu and all so it's become confusing Rimeg (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So atleast u can explain above that anceitly kapu name was given to a tribe and these castes branched of it while the caste kapu ur refering on this page is different . Rimeg (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I will take a look at it. These conversations are better done on article talk pages, where everyone with an interest can see them. So, if anything needs to be done or explained I will post something there.- Sitush (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Jeypore 2

I’ve been seeing you editing & adding satirical remarks on every edit summary in WP:Kingdom of Jeypore. I’d like to remind you that making satirical remarks while hiding behind a username does not make you cool or enlightened. I understand it’s not your fault that you are not born in a royal family but you don’t need to be so salty about it. In your recent edit summary you stated that only 50 people attended the ceremony and hence you think it’s trivial. Let me tell you something because you sound really clueless, well again it’s not your fault, if you were really a smart person you wouldn’t be wasting your time editing random pages on Wikipedia.

As you already mentioned earlier that the titles & status enjoyed by kings of India was cancelled by Indira Gandhi in 1971. When all titles are already cancelled then how many people do you expect ? a million ? These coronations now are generally conducted to appoint a ceremonial king who plays a vital cultural role in the main festivals of Rath Yatra & Vijaydashmi Dussera. For instance the festival of Rath Yatra can’t be carried forward unless the king sweeps the chariot and only then the crowd will pull the chariot. Even when the prince was not coronated from 2006 - 2013 he did the kingly duties.

You can see any other modern coronation in India of ceremonial kings where you will find less than 100 attendees. And that’s simply because they don’t enjoy the same power and status as their ruling predecessors.

You can edit, remove, delete the page, we don’t give a s#*% . But when anyone writes those satires in the edit summary they are actually making a fool out of themselves. Bcz according to an Indian saying “when the elephant walks there a lot of dogs who bark at him but he’s unaffected, unmoved by their attitude, because he knows one small step and the dogs will be done for life.”

Meanwhile you must be thinking why am I so annoyed by this attitude. That’s because the royal family has taken care of me & my tribe for the past many years. Their trusts include schools & colleges and we all gain free education and medical facilities with the help of our King. And not just my tribe, basically, all tribes are helped. We face discrimination from the state government because of our ethnicity and if the royal family didn’t provide us the facilities we would have stayed in our little tribes.

So If you can’t show respect then at least don’t show disrespect to anyone. I know being born as a commoner is not easy but you seem too burnt up. And if you are British then it makes sense because they only like their own race. They talk highly about their kings & queens when in reality these British kings and queens are no less than the kings of a Shakespeare play. Just acting as a king or a queen doesn’t make one a real king or queen. The whole world satires about how useless the Queen is and how stupid are those people who support this fake monarchy and this fake dynasty.

They captured a lot of our people as slaves too when they entered our valley and destroyed the fort of Jeypore and these days I see them crossing all levels of hypocrisy when I see them doing BLM protests. Because systemic racism is present inside every native.

So edit as much as you want and waste your time and energy because new books & articles are on progress and once we receive them we will edit again. Till then fo & carry on your multi million dollar job as a wiki admin. You must be getting paid a lot for being such a genius. Or if you need a job let me know I can get you a better one where you don’t insult people while hiding behind a username. Dallasyuri (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Me, a satirist? A job at Private Eye beckons? Sorry but satire was not my intention. I am pleased if members of the former royal family are willing and able to help people on a charitable basis etc. Such endeavours are good regardless of who does them. But before you or your friends begin editing Kingdom of Jeypore again, please note the information at WP:MEAT and WP:COI as I assume the we you use above is not in fact the royal we. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You assume a lot that’s the problem. Why would a royal, owner of three palaces, two forts and thousand acres of land would waste his time talking to a nobody, who doesn’t even have a real name. WTH is Sitush, LOL. We are a group of students in Vikram Deb College, Jeypore who were assigned with a project of creating a Wikipedia page (any) and we chose to publish an article on our kingdom.

Until you guys deleted almost half of our work. Why didn’t anyone inform us in first place that Raj Sources are not valid anymore. And who made this silly rule, most of the Indian history is based on Raj era sources that were republished as it was, word to word.

For example, WP:Sisodia is an article about a rajput dynasty. They have the same mythical crap but you won’t delete it bcz those books were published post-Raj era. I mean if we republish those books that you removed or rewrite it then you won’t be able to change anything.

Dallasyuri (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC) —-

I'm afraid it is you who is making assumptions. But one should not name-drop, as The Queen said to me not long ago :) You are acting in concert, that is not permitted per WP:MEAT and we do have ways to enforce that. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your highness, lets punish this useless Sitush, a jobless freak who is a burden on society. The loser is undergoing psychiatric treatment but I think he needs better doctors, probably someone from the subcontinent. We have the resources, lets drag him to court and make an example out of him. Or if you have better ideas I will be all to happy to participate. And Sitush... the queen wont even let you near her dog forget about anything bipedal, it seems you have been talking to jimmy on phone again?? Merry Passon (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, two more policies you and your mates should read - WP:NPA and WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I spit on such Queen & ppl who killed millions, enslaved them, robbed entire continents of their wealth. Buuuuuut I’m glad they didn’t even spend it on their own people. I mean I don’t hear Brits enjoying any part of that enormous wealth. Bcz it now rests with the elites while these thick head ppl dwell in their same mundane jobs. That’s why you all are so salty. Your own govt tricked you and now you all are the most hated human beings in the world. Dallasyuri (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So you attacking yourself by making fake IDs. This is what I expected from a wite racis c**t like you. But guess what you don’t own Wikipedia, we will Phuk yo mo my for doing these silly tricks. Dallasyuri (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am no apologist for the British Empire, if that's what you are getting at. And I'm definitely around 7 on the pH scale, so not salty. Enjoy your blocks. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You make fake IDs and you block. But can you stop me from coming back ? No doggie Dallasyuri (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Animals love.jpg

No doggie? Two doggie

So it’s better that we start talking seriously as I have a few questions to ask Dallasyuri (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Because if you keep on blocking me I’ll keep on coming back, and I have a lot of IP address so don’t worry about that. I just want to know if we those Raj sources are republished would it be allowed or no ? Dallasyuri (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not usually. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

But many wiki pages are using them. See WP:Sisodia they are using all mythical stories but it’s referenced so I guess it hasn’t been removed. I was just wondering if they could do that then why not others. Dallasyuri (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sure some articles are using them because people don't realise. Two things, however: (a) once they have been made aware, they should usually stop using them; and (b) Sisodia does not cite a single Raj source that I can see - it cites modern academics discussing the likes of James Tod (actually pre-Raj), which isn't at all the same thing. See WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now you have been blocked I suggest you wait it out. If you post here using some other account while that block is active, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Arjuna

Hello admin! I want to know for what reason you removed important contents from article Arjuna which have proper citation. All those sources were taken from K.M. Ganguly's dubbed version of Vyasa's Mahabharata. https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/ There's nothing can be more reliable than this. Please rollback your edits. Ratan375 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an admin but if you prefer it I will trim the article so it is just a short lead section and it can be rebuilt from there in a policy-compliant way. I have already explained what was wrong on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Why you removed all his other names like Sabyasachi. He clearly mentioned his all names in Virata Parva. This is about a character of Mahabharata. Basic source should be Mahabharata. Ratan375 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Article talk page, please. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Birha- spelling correction

A new page has been built about Biraha, which is a very popular folklore of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. But I am mistaken that the spelling has gone wrong in the title of the article. The correct spelling of the article is 'Biraha' but I have missed 'a' in it . Help Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Done it for you. I remember making a similar error with a new article, so you're not the first! - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Jeypore

I'd really appreciate it if you could find a little time to review the quality of the sources in Kingdom of Jeypore. I stripped out all of the obvious Raj era ones today, but they do get put back or replaced by equally unsatisfactory ones. I have taken one of the editors to WP:AE and am now considering taking the other, so any independent views on the sourcing (and the general quality of the article) would be very useful. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me - this can't be a real thing.--regentspark (comment) 01:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like it did exist after all. Even survived an AfD. But you're right, it needs a lot of work. --regentspark (comment) 01:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like RegentsPark is dealing with it. Sources at present seem ok but I suspect some COI editing by/on behalf of the current "royal" court. I've removed some OR & vanity. - Sitush (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's the problem with AfD - a few scrappy sources establish "notability" and that becomes the green light for the hagiographers to pack the article with adulation for the rulers and history of the place. At least it's in somewhat better shape now. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Kerala

Hi Sitush - I hope you are well.
At Religion in Kerala an editor is edit-warring (5 deletions today, so far) about one of the stories about St Thomas - he doesn't like one version so he is repeatedly deleting it. The section he is deleting is sourced to:-

1. "The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple">Ishwar Sharan (2018). The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple. New Delhi: Voice of India Publications.
2. "How christianity arrived in kerala through syrian immigrants". www.madrascourier.com. Retrieved 2017-08-25.

I am unfamiliar with either source - do you have an opinion on their likely reliability? (reliability for myths is rather a contradiction in terms) - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, how weird - I've just been trawling the history at Awan (tribe) and you're all over it! Nothing from Voice of India is reliable - they're a Hindutva front. I know nothing about the Madras Courier, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - As I recall Awan (tribe) suffered from mass puffery and multiple additions of people a) without articles and b) with an article but no mention/reference of Awan in it - I'm not as strict as you for self-referencing - I'm becoming more (probably too?) lenient in my old age. Best wishes and thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Arain

I differs but respect your views. Did my comment at talk page providing this RS made you angry? Can I not suggest even a RS at talk page? ScholarM (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a self-published book. Not a reliable source. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

I am not angry but I am incredibly frustrated at the moment with having to deal with so many liars, disrupters, glorifiers and incompetents at articles relating to subcontinental society. It is horrendous.

And, no, your source linked above is not reliable. See WP:SPS. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Muhammadahmad79

Said editor tried the same edit(s) back in April 2016. Is it time to notify an Admin? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that. They are clearly out to prove a POV and are faking sources to do it. Same problem at Qutb Shah and poor edits at another article. They have also uploaded a copyvio image at Commons.- Sitush (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Brothers! I don't support the edits that happened back in April 2016. There was too much rubbish being published on the article. There was too much unsourced stuff and too much exaggeration of the stuff that was not even in the sources provided. Even at that time, In April 2016, I removed many edit coming from those unknown ips but one thing I believe is for sure and also known countrywide is that the Awan (tribe) is of Arab Origin, books are filled with it, and I think that mention of it should be in the article. I cited many credible and reliable sources, and sorry to say but I don't know why Sitush reverted my edits saying that the sources were unreliable (Every reliable source is not on Google Books). --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Awan. You were using a website purportedly run by members of the tribe, sources from the British Raj era, self-published sources and at least one source (the Jaffrelot book) that says nothing at all about the point in question. I think you should review the information at WP:RS - you say that not everything is available on the web, but nor is everything reliable or even relevant. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the sources from British Raj are unreliable? Other sources stated were not all self published sources. There was a video source of Naseeruddin Naseer Gilani as well, it’s not recommended, but can be used as a supporting source. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush/CasteSources. And we should not be using "supporting sources" in the sense you have used that term. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

With the latest evidence on the Talk:Awan showing that Muhammadahmad79 misrepresented a source, perhaps it is time to talk to an Admin.

So far, Muhammadahmad has received:

• 4 edit-warring warnings[9][10],[11],[12]
• 2 removal of content warnings[13],[14]
• 2 discretionary sanction notifications, [15],[16]
• AND has misrepresented at least one source,[17]

Your thoughts Sitush? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. @Bishonen and Vanamonde93:, though Bish may already be trying to sort out an earlier ping re Deepcruze. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A polite reminder, Sitush! Actually, I don't think I can handle that awkward Deepcruze, sorry. Let's hope User:RexxS saw your ping. Also, did you notice Deepcruze recently reverted User:Aman.kumar.goel's redirect of the pretty poor article Vandalism of Ambedkar statues? I have looked into Muhammadahmad79, though, and posted a topic ban warning. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the reminder, Chère. I'm sorry, I must have missed that ping about Deepcruze. I've now attended to that and left a note on their talk page. Please let me know – or take it straight to WP:AE – if things don't improve. Thanks for all your hard work, Si; it might not always be obvious, but there are lots of us who really appreciate it. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the Kingdom of Jeypore page

Hello,

For the past few days I’ve been seeing edits made on kingdom of Jeypore by you and other editors. The page seems to be locked as well. We hereby request you to delete the page as it is humiliating to read an entirely fake narrative based on sources written by writers who have never been to the region and hence are not familiar with the significance of the kingdom and it’s history. The entire history of the region has been distorted and misinterpreted using foreign writers “little known” books. You must delete this page as we can’t let such version of history written by “Little Wikipedia editors” to get any relevance. You have also mentioned the family as Rajput, let me tell you something, you can’t change the dynasty and the roots of a family just because some European fool wrote it in his research book. Therefore, I’d request you to delete this page. JahangirMo7 (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If a subject is notable, it is eligible for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. The only sources we can use are those that the Wikipedia community considers to be reliable. We don't routinely delete an article just because someone does not like it - see WP:DP and WP:NOTCENSORED. You are welcome to suggest sources that could be used to improve the article but please note that sources from the British Raj era are generally unreliable and that family sources, or other types that are not independent of the subject, are also problematic. I think you should also read WP:MEAT. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasons of Deletion (6) “Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)”

I request you to delete this article not because I don’t like it. This article is spreading misinformation about a notable family too. You are using only those sources that are the works of European writers. Who don’t even know the difference between a Rajput & other kshatriya varnas. You mention the first king as a rajput when it’s clearly mentioned in the royal genealogy that the family is not rajput.

Not just this there is some irrelevant mention of Bissam-Cuttack. This article shows it has been written by confused writers who have 0 information about the place and are just relying on a few European journals.

Please delete this article. JahangirMo7 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Most European writers mention every Indian king as Rajput which is wrong and the same is done here by one of them. You have blocked editors, may I know why ? This is a case of online bullying and harassment. You have taken over a page, locked all editing and now you are just adding whatever you feel like. Which I don’t think is a sign of a decent man. So delete this page and end the conversation. JahangirMo7 (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Rigvedic quotes on homosexuality

Would you mind taking a look at the recent editing history of Hinduism and LGBT topics and Homosexuality in India, and giving your thoughts? Further context can be found on my talk page. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I am not good on matters scriptural, regardless of which faith is being discussed. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jadav are not Yadav ? Would you notice

The article stated that Ahir r also known as Yadav and even Jadhav in Northern India and Maharashtra respectively. Source - Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volume 10, Issues 1-2"https://books.google.com/books/about/Population_Geography.html?id Thank you. Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Source- https://books.google.com/books/about/Population_Geography.html?id=SQIzAAAAIAAJ Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has a link to Yadav. I am well aware that it can be a synonymous term and this was discussed at the recent WP:AFD. That discussion should be linked on the talk page.

You are welcome to improve the article but please do not usurp it in the Yadav cause. We have enough problems already with members of the Yadav community trying to bully us into ignoring our policies etc just to suit their power politics in states such as Bihar. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please help

Hello , @Sitush , I'm RoboShutter from kerala , can you please help for review a article and remove the deletion request. Article Shakir Subhan , sincerly RoboShutter (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please consider the request

It is not so fair to portray a community or a group as slaves like those written in "Caste System In Kerala".It is very clear throughout the article that someone needs to glorify their caste status by portraying others as very lowest and even trying to compare them with Animals.I am pretty sure that there are certain guidelines for wikipedia to write articles with good manners whether it is sourced or unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.222.251 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:CENSORED. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

VLS

Just been catching up with your work on VLS. Really careful good work, let’s hope the page starts to get a bit better now.

But be ready for a fight: VLS has used any number of sock puppets in the past, and seems determined that those who know the most about him (ie former collaborators) do not edit.

The history bears reviewing. Anything to do with his birth for example is clearly a sore point. Going back a bit further I found this version, also less than balanced though the other way, maybe it has things of use now that you have taken an interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Lewis-Smith&oldid=288489349

Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.83.158 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please have a look on the pages Nagavanshi and Vadakkan Pattukal seems cleanup is needed. Outlander^07@talk 04:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Will try. Am dealing with Arjuna at the moment &, as per usual, meeting a fair bit of resistance. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Help Needed to Add Sources

Hi,

Can you please tell me how to add link to a particular page of a book found in Google Books without copy-pasting the cluttery link? I need something similar to what you did in Arjuna wiki page in ref 4. How to get the url of that particular page?

(PatientWaiter (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

Thanks in advance. :) PatientWaiter (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I do copy/paste the link, usually from the address bar of the browser but sometimes using the link button on the GBpoks page. The trick is to edit it after pasting. If you dump your copied link here I will show you the edited version. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=u3meRFXGpq0C&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=draupadi+as+sachi&source=bl&ots=l9oCKePH5X&sig=ACfU3U2o5NwrWDk_lsy5UpFkkVYVUj7mxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb5uS_zJPqAhUHlEsFHWfaD3gQ6AEwE3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=draupadi%20as%20sachi&f=false PatientWaiter (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. The bit you need to keep is the section up to the end of the id and then the info about the page. GBooks usually indicates the page as "&pg=PA" followed by the page number but sometimes you will see it as "&pg=PT" and then the page number.

In you case, you can trim that link to read https://books.google.co.in/books?id=u3meRFXGpq0C&pg=PA153

Does that make sense? - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, should have said that the page is always the first thing after the book id in my experience, so look for the first "&" if that helps. If you see "lpg" you are looking at the wrong bit and can delete it. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I like how you added in Arjuna page in the marriage section. (Ref 4)

How can I make my google book reference of pg 153 look like what you did in Arjuna page?

Really sorry for the bother. PatientWaiter (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am speaking of the Ref to the Handbook of Hindu Mythology. PatientWaiter (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. You can only do that if you have already cited the source in full somewhere else in the article first. You give the original reference a name, so it starts <ref name=MyNameHere> After that, you can reuse it as many times as you want in the article by writing <ref name=MyNameHere /> (note the "/").

I have just spotted a problem with that source, though. You will see that the publisher is iUniverse. We don't use books by them because they are self-published sources. Click on that link for an explanation. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is never any need to apologise for asking a sensible question :) Sitush (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you :) If that source is not valid, do you think this one will work? https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/draupadi

I cannot find the google book for this excerpt, though.

PatientWaiter (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yay, that book would be fine. And happy day. I can confirm that the website accurately shows what the book says so if you would rather cite the dictionary you can do it in the following way:

<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |article=Draupadi |title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions |first=John |last=Bowker |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-19172-722-1 |doi=10.1093/acref/9780192800947.001.0001|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

I got that cite info by doing a general search for the book. I have a free subscription to The Wikipedia Library & that is how I could check that the website & book matched. Worth remembering, too, that a source has to be reliable but it doesn't have to be online.

There are other things you could add to the template, eg to indicate that the doi link is not a free resource, but the above will do if you are starting out here. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :)

I might pester you again for a thing or two. :P Also, if you need any help with Arjuna wiki revamp, feel free to ask. So far, things look good, though. :)

(PatientWaiter (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

No probs. Feel free to pester but my phone needs recharging so there will be a gap. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

VLS Intemperate Editing

I was going to accuse you of intemperate editing, but the previous unsigned lines "VLS" serve my purpose well. Your recent edits have excited the author of that weak diatribe. Critics like VLS attract such people (as his edit history shows) enough to make baseless accusations. Here the subject is accused of using "sock puppets", of being "ready for a fight", and for blocking former "collaborators" from editing. All the while, your new admirer uses fawning language to encourage you to draw on (probably the author's) old negative VLS edits. Talk pages should be as stringently controlled as main pages. The author clearly delighted in your inaccuracies, such as erasing the subject's honorary doctorate (I checked today with Westminster and you are plain wrong and it was awarded in 2008), and revelled in some of your other intemperate edits. If I can replicate the sort of time and energy you obviously have, I will start to clarify and rectify those (some of which you are right to challenge). But can I be bothered to defend a critic who dished it out in his time? Maybe not. Don't be a quick to draw Barnstar Bully. Gavelboy (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the hon. degree hadn't been awarded. I said I couldn't find a source. An email, phone call or personal letter etc with the university will not do. I will pay as much attention to you as to the person above - that four-letter word, "none". - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the subject of this entry any more than others I have edited over the years. The hon doc issue irritates me because I saw it in print somewhere. If I get time, I'll follow it up. Actually on reading it more closely your edits (and re edits!) do seem impartial and fair. I am a novice at this. Gavelboy (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am pleased you acknowledge my impartiality regarding the article. It is perhaps unfortunate that your username here is so close to being Gavelbasher, the name attached to a column in Private Eye. I am trawling through over 2000 results for "victor lewis-smith" on the ProQuest news database. Obviously, most of the hits are his own columns - it is a boring task & will take some time. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Rechecking articles

Hello I noticed that you are checking Hindu Mythological articles like Arjuna, Abhimanyu. I request you to check article Karna. Latest section "etymology and epithets" is completely unsourced. No proper citations are given. If possible, please remove it. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would need several lifetimes to check every article. My suggestion to you is to be bold but not reckless. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, actually I wanted to see version before you started editing article Arjuna. Hence I used twinkle and saw it but accidentally I pressed "restore version" option. Hence I reverted my edit again. Sorry for that and thanks for thanking my edit. I understood that you got my point. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi,

I needed to know, are promotional content allowed as per Wiki policies? In the last 2 edits of Karna wiki page, I find that promotional words such as "superhuman qualities", etc have been added which are not even used in the scholarly references cited. It makes the article sound like fan-fiction more than objective facts about the character.

Thanks. (PatientWaiter (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC))

That's a tricky one in the circumstances. WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL give some guidance about the tone of phrasing that is generally appropriate. However, in this particular situation, superhuman is probably intended in the sense that it would be used of a comic book character such as Spiderman. Our presumption is that the Mahabharata and similar works are mythology rather than history, so there is scope for using such terms just as there would be for a comic book. Since we are supposed to paraphrase our sources, unless using a direct quote, it is inevitable that we will use words that are not in the source - the key is whether our words reflect the essence of what the source says. I know there is a big tussle between fans of those who support Arjuna as a character and those who support Karna but I'm not sure why. I'll try to find time to take a look at the specific edits but I doubt it is worth making a big fuss about them and I really must get back to sorting out the Arjuna article - I have been reading a lot about that but I'm finding it difficult to pull things together. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand you are having a hard time with Arjuna wiki. You may refer to Kevin Mcgrath's Arjuna the Double Hero to get all your facts in one place.

Regarding Karna wiki, the said edits have not been done because the epic is mythology. The added words come under the category of what has been described as puffery and peacock in Wiki policies. It goes against the spirit of what the cited sources say. For instance, Kevin Mcgrath states, Karna is one of the key antagonists (despite his plus points). But the words are being inverted in the page to change the meaning. I cant undo the changes because, the page is edit locked for vandalism. The irony!

The huge tussle between fans of Arjuna and Karna have arisen from the considerable discrepancy between the primary sources of the epic and pop-culture literature based on it. In the primary sources (that, is the epic itself), Karna is more grey-shaded although he is also lauded in places. And the overall track record of Arjuna as a warrior is better. However, the depiction in popular culture, literature, et all is exactly the opposite. Karna has somehow garnered more attention (as all flawed characters do) and have been raised by later bards to surreal heights of glory, owing to sympathy factor of him being abandoned by his mother. Now, the masses don't generally read primary sources, they always refer to popular literature. And even if they do read the epic text, their mindset is already coloured by the pop-culture, and they refuse to accept anything otherwise. I hope that gives you a picture. PatientWaiter (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Very useful background info, thanks. I have read the Karna article & partially reverted the changes you mention because I am not sure that they accurately summarise what is said in the article - see WP:LEAD. I have suggested people should get consensus on the article talk page for that change. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking your time out for this. :) (PatientWaiter (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC))

PatientWaiter I've just begun reading another of McGrath's books, Raja Yudhisthira. Page 14 talks generally about the "superhuman" and I'd guess more appears later. The comment is Heroes and kings in the epic are both superhuman and at times super-natural, yet their political selection and maintenance is necessarily quite human. What we have seen here is a situation where the ordinary folk—in the world of epic performance and poetry—participate in the creation and in the practice of kingship by strange mythical figures who are not always human beings.

Also, a tip for the future: when you reply to messages, it is best to indent them. You can see that I have begun each paragraph of this reply with a ":", which indents the message as a reply to yours. If you now reply to this, you would use two colons, ie: "::". Then I would use three, and so on. The etiquette can be a bit more complicated than this but it is a good start. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yadav page

I am not interested in brightening the image of the Yadav community but if the image is tarnished, it is my duty to improve it. Today, when Yadav is capable and prosperous, he is being described as a shepherd, cow dung, on the page, it shows inferiority and hatred towards caste, except Yadav empire, princely states, kings, only cow, buffalo And cow dung has been shown, if there is humanity then stop this discrimination and caste hatred. इतिहास विश्लेषण (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the information at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED. ,- ,Sitush (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look on the page Samantha Kshatriya. I think it is better to merge the article with Kshatriya or Caste system in kerala.Outlander^07@talk 19:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Feel free to propose a merge but I don't fancy your chances of it succeeding. There might be scope for a rename because we know academic consensus is that the kshatriya varna does/did not exist in South India. I had a very long discussion about this with a Nair POV-pusher many years ago - Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) was involved in it but I can't remember at which article talk page and Qwyxrian has long been inactive. Of course, it could be that their common name is indeed Samantha Kshatriya even though it is vanity. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, but there is definitely scope for a merge - see Samantan. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we can't merge Samanthan with Samantha Kshatriya as Fuller and Geffrey say Zamorin was from Samantha Nair subcaste and not Kshatriya but can try to merge the both with Caste system in Kerala as there was no kshatriya. Outlander^07@talk 08:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand. Both articles concern the same Nair subcaste as far as I can see. Sure, there are a couple of outlier sources that seem to think kshatriya exist(ed) in South India but that's ok - we just mention them as we would for any other situation where academics disagree. What am I not understanding? - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying merging Samanthan with Samantha Ksatriya?. If so a redirect would be better.Outlander^07@talk 13:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to where? If two articles are merged, one is always made a redirect to the other. We would just need to determine the more common name and start a merge discussion at the relevant article talk page. I can set up a discussion using Twinkle if you don't use that. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Not Good

Sorry but you know that what you did at Awan (tribe) is not good. you reverted my edits and moulded the statements according to your thinking and completely deleted two statements with good, reliable and independent references. i mean that’s not good. you also removed infobox saying it had issues. May i ask that what issues were with infobox? my advice to you as a brother is that sometimes the soul need to rest, the heart needs to find peace and the body needs to connect to universe. Close your eyes, listen to your heartbeat, and tell yourself that we all are humans, and everybody is just like me, and everything in world is my own extension. Trust me brother you’ll find peace because good hearts find it. I see you have a good heart but rude outlook. It’s always good to spend some time and effort on yourself. i will pray for you. Wikieditor7799 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Wikieditor7799 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You are breaching your topic ban. You should not be referring to caste matters anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for the warnng. i will take care not mention caste matters anywhere but its not just that. paraphrasing is wrong and the sequence is also wrong. i study literary writing and i have learnt that any thing definate should come first, then claims and then objections but the history section of the article has objection first, which is not specific, its general objection which should be alwys at end. its objection made by only one man so it must be quoted. the correct sequence is not for caste articles only, its for all the articles. i might be completely wrong, these are just my thoughts and knowledege. i hope that you will look into this. Wikieditor7799 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Koeri article

Hi sir, sorry to disturb u again.I want to ask something.....i know hindu caste is a sensitive issue.And from various caste article i came to know that majority of sources used are book sources of genuine publishers.As mam @Sanghamitramaurya: also did in koeri article.But some latest developments can only be found from newspapers as books for these things will be written in future.And by going through article of hindu caste Rajput i came to know that they also used newspaper to show the issue of reservation though majority of sources are book sources. I m asking this coz i have used newspaper source at 2 place in my addition to koeri article.If you get time (i know u are busy ,being a senior editor here #ur profile says ...u r here since 13 yrs) then plz evaluate wht i m written. I promise won't disturb u again. Tq Heba Aisha (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you're not disturbing me - Wikipedia is a team effort and so we all need to work together. Good quality newspapers are usually fine for things like the current reservation status. It is things like that which will always be a problem for book sources because of the delays in publication. I know that you and Sanghamitramaurya have been editing the Koeri article and will take a look some time but, please, don't worry. You are encouraged to be bold. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Tq..so nice of u.....thanks again for motivation

. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Eyes, please, on an editor adding caste

Please will you examine these contributions to see whether I was correct in warning the editor on their talk page for what I deem to be vandalism over adding non self identified, non referenced statements of caste. I know you have substantial expertise in the matter. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are fine, although the ones I have looked at have all been BLP violations also. My own summary of the situation is at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists - although that summary is geared towards lists, the principle is the same regarding mentions anywhere and the requirements of BLP. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy...

Hey, Sitush. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hi! An experience user added information from primary source in Karna's article. I don't have much knowledge about proper citation. So I think you should revert the edit. Ratan375 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, two in one day. I don't get this many cards on my real birthday :/ - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Chola edits

Hi Sitush, just wanted to remind you that I left you a message on the Chola talk page addressing your concern about my edit. I have also added a non-self published source to support the content that I want added. I have pinged user Kautilya as well, if there are others whom you want to invite then do so. Nittawinoda (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Paswan and Koeri

Hello to notify you. ...i have expanded paswan article with reliable source and added an image on Koeri from commons.If you get time plz take a look and if any problem exist plz notify me.It will be helpful for me...thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Also added image in Kushwaha with infoboxHeba Aisha (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cat question

Thank you for your query. Actually, I did respond to the question in April, on the person in question's page, as I am doing here. Many categories have sort-keys. The effect is to make the category marginally more manageable, though you are right that any impact is indeed marginal. Rcb1 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)rcb1

An example, perhaps, of why it is better to keep threads on the page they were started instead of creating non sequitor threads such as this one? Thanks for the explanation, though I still can't see how it makes any difference at all to my viewing of the cat - the cat page looks the same before the edit as after it. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Scheduled tribes

Just wanted to say thank you for the explanation. I was beginning to wonder whether there might benot something like that Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby no problem. It would be better if the list did not exist but some people think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to mirror primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I dislike lists in general, since they often lead to silly arguments. The point where I started thinking that the situation wasn't one where I should ignorantly blunder around was where I got to Hill Reddis and realized I had already wikilinked to it with some other type of Reddis whose name translated to "hill". And yet they were separate entries, so possibly wikipedia was wrong. Anyway, you were right to revert, and I appreciate you explaining why. FYI the article is on a list of articles lacking wikilinks, so perhaps you could see about getting it removed, so it doesn't send any more people in here to try to fix that. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI, on investigation removing the “” will keep this list from that list. I have verified that it is not there now. So I agree that there is good reason not to list in there, because yes I see the ambiguities. I think someone runs a bot, though, that automatically lists below a certain number, so someone should watch the page for well-intentioned wikignomes like me. Meanwhile it’s a little unusual, so you may want to explain this on the Discussion, meanwhile I agree with you Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of the tag but not of the bot. Perhaps if I dig around I can find an exclusion list relating to it but I suspect it doesn't exist because the idea of not linking articles is pretty barmy in normal circumstances. I do think it might be worth me punting the thing to WP:AFD again but the problem is that people just do not understand the complexities of trying to make the thing work in the way Wikipedia is intended to work. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

hopefully someone is working on the ambiguities? Are you basically saying it’s inaccurate but it’s a government list? If so you might want to see how things worked out at List of Algerian Cultural Sites, or however they decided to translate “biens”. I gather some Arabic speakers are trying to reconcile it with the (post-colonial, I guess) version at ar.wiki Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn’t seen your answer yet when I wrote the last bit. AfD is worth a try but I am skeptical. Maybe there should just be a bunch of footnotes pointing out the issues, but that might be tough to get also. In any event, I’ve been convinced that there are things here that I don’t understand. The bot is speculation, but probably well-founded. I wikilink things as a form of digital pacing, so I see quite a few articles from that list, and some of them are literally one sentence, where every word that can possibly be wiki linked already is. Since this happens frequently I believe there is/was a bot looking for a minimum number of Wikilinks Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Vishal Aditya Singh

Why you delete his award info ? He won star parivaar awards for kullfi kumar bajewala. M.pfromb (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Request_for_Comment:_Star_Parivaar_Awards. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thondaimandala Vellala 2

Hi the reason for my tagging of this article was 1. its is too reliant on once source at the moment and 2. the ta.wiki articles shows that there are other sources available. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, yeah I realised that, sorry. But I will wager a lot of money that the ta-WP sources are not acceptable on en-WP. They're usually terrible. Will go take a look now. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Those sources were put in when our article was created. After reviewing them, I removed the things. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok well feel free to unreview if you think it’s warranted. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, the problem with sourcing is being discussed above at User_talk:Sitush#Thondaimandala_Vellala. Basically, the number of permutations of spellings is large, the sources can be ambiguous because Thondaimandalam is a place (so there are Vellalars present who are not of the Thondamandalam caste subgroup), and Vellalars generally have sprung up left, right and centre - they're a very amorphous and nebulous grouping (basically, if you fancy raising your status, call yourself an XYZ Vellalar and get a few mates to do the same - create a new caste community). - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra you might want to take another look at Kondaikatti Vellalar now, and at User_talk:Nittawinoda#Rajaraja_I. The sourcing looks impressive but it is nigh-on useless and almost certainly misrepresentative. I've added two academic papers to the article & have a third here which I have queried in that talk page thread. None of them say what is being said in the article seemingly by use of Google Books snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sitush thanks for adding the new sources. As I can't access any but no.6 I'm not really in a position to challenge the content of the article. I did notice though something I'd forgotten and have only just clocked. When I curated the article it had already been rated as C class on the talk page. This gave me some confidence that on an unfamiliar topic, more expert eyes had already evaluated the content. In fact looking at the talk page history, it appears to me that the article creator simply assessed their own work. Mccapra (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I must admit I have assessed my own creations but only ever when they have been stubs/start class. I'm not criticising you, Mccapra, I just think there are issues with India stuff that tend to fly below the radar and this particular contributor has problems with sourcing. I've just left another note because I don't think they understand even after I have tried to explain. There are certain tell-tale signs with sourcing that indicate snippet view has been used and/or search constraints that produce confirmation bias. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Lohana Wikipedia Page

Sitush if I add a primary source such as Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (which is a reliable source, even according to Wikipedia), it was written by Colonel James Tod who was a historian during colonial times of India. If I write a short sentence of information derived from the 'Annals and Antiques of Rajasthan Book'bon Lohana Wikipedia page that will be ok right? Please check our thread on the Lohana talk page to know what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.80.98.79 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied on talk a few days ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thondaimandala Vellala

Hi Sitush, Periyarist (talk · contribs) has created a pseudo caste page called Thondaimandala Vellala. Since you are active on many caste articles request you to review the page. I believe the page should be deleted as the references are dubious as I do not think they say anything what the page purports. It is nothing but an artificial grouping of a few castes that the user thinks should be clubbed under one umbrella. Nittawinoda (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations are indeed misrepresented, as is the idea that it is an umbrella term. But see my edit here - there is a subcaste bearing the name. We're not going to get much out of that Gough book because it is a local study but there are a couple of generalised bits that might be used. I have a copy of the book here. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. Nittawinoda (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Saw your comment questioning if Kondaikatti Vellalar were the same as TM/TV or a subcaste. In my opinion unless the source uses the word KV interchangeably with TM/TV I would not interpret them as being the same. The reason being, other Vellalar castes like Tuluva Vellala also label themselves as Tondaimandala Tuluva Vellala. Fyi, I don't have access to Gough, so I will go with you but Irschick uses KV interchangeably with TV. So it is better to have separate articles and interpret the caste depending on the source. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is more complex than that. The problem is, the Vellala have never really known who they are/never had a "proper" identity, and that makes it difficult for people writing about them. As, indeed, we have always found here.

You have seemingly found sources that say the TM/TV are synonymous with the KV but I have found sources saying that the KV are a subcaste. We're not supposed to make our own judgement on such matters when we're talking of academic sources, so we must show them all.

It often depends on what you search for and, of course, there are a lot of permutations - Vellalar/Vellala, Thondaimandalam/Thondaimandala/Tondaimandalam/Tondaimandala being just some of them. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other messy alternate spellings that are relevant include Mudliar, Mudaliyar and Mudliyar. You may find this note that I've just added is worth a glance. That is the cause of the classification/definition problem in a nutshell. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Do wikipedia accept Edgor-thurtson’s CASTE AND TRIBES OF SOUTH INDIA as valid reference? Periyarist (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you mean Edgar Thurston, User:Periyarist? No, it's not a valid reference. Writings from the British Raj are not considered reliable. See this discussion. Bishonen | tålk 14:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

Yep, Bish is right. Always is <g> - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

When will this continued onslaught of Wikidata enthusiasts across a multitude of forums stop? It is difficult to keep track of them all but the latest seems to be Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Wikidata_identifiers, where one of the arguments is basically "we use it, so let's use it" (!) - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bhima

Hello Sitush! Please visit Bhima's article. The article relies way too heavily on primary sourcing. I think the article needs some cleanup and improvement. Ratan375 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect pretty much all of the articles about Mahabharata characters are in the same sort of shape. I'm still trying to get hold of a copy of a book for the Arjuna article and really do not want to spread myself even more thinly at the moment, sorry. There is nothing to stop you making the necessary edits (WP:BOLD) unless there is some form of editing restriction applicable to you. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)