User talk:Sitush/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sitush. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

You beat me to it. I had just concluded, via Wayback, that we had a reserve copyvio (at Kulwant Singh Virk), but you corrected yourself before I could :)--SPhilbrickT 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I had a brain fart at first, there. I don't usually intend to create work for others. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush,

It is you who have already broken the three revert rule: here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I have not broken that rule: I added a section, and then reverted your edit TWICE. If you continue to engage in this kind of edit warring, I will report your actions. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have broken no rule, and am aware of the edits that I have in fact done. The warning is preventative: if you read it in full you will understand that it is saying that you may have broken it and need to be aware even if you have not yet done so. Honestly, just keep it to the article talk page for now - I have no desire to see you blocked but it will happen if you continue in the same manner. It is obvious to me that you are inexperienced: we all have to start somewhere & people will guide you, but there are few exceptions to 3RR & being inexperienced is not one of them. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: when I say "inexperienced", I mean with regard to policy issues. You are clearly not inexperienced with regard to editing here. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally it seems that Big Hugh has his fans in Canada; both the IP and Noel McFerran hail from the University of Toronto. pablo 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had spotted that. I am not sure that the plural of the word is correct & have been debating with myself whether to raise this at the AfD. If it is socking (or even meating) then it potentially disrupts the AfD process. There may even be another one knocking around, but I am still checking. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Although not yet commenting at the AfD, Special:Contributions/99.242.18.194 also locates to Toronto & is editing similar articles. There is something odd going on, given that these are fairly obscure topics. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You write, If you would rather see the titles reversed - ie: Gentiluomo holding the content and Papal G redirecting to it - then feel free to start a rename discussion on the Papal G talk page. My suspicion is that you would not succeed because Papal Gentlemen is the more widely used term in English language sources (and this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Italian one) but, hey, I have no great interest and will not be involved.

• Google Books "Papal Gentlemen" 17 results
• Google Books "Gentlemen of His Holiness" 17 results

What evidence can you provide that "Papal Gentlemen" is more widely used in English? 99.242.18.194 (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You've just quoted me. Read what I said. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And, please, stop socking. You appear now to have admitted to it and you are avoiding the three revert rule at Mariano by continuing in that manner. There is nothing to stop you logging in from different computers. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

If I've sent a previous and similar message, please consider this deja vu. I know that our fearless leader and Foundation staff are in India with invited guests. I attended a similar but different gathering in Boston a few months ago. I don't know what continent you are on right now, but I do know that I appreciate all the work you do on India-related articles here. Thank you for the professionalism of your difficult work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note. I'm not sure where we've crossed paths before but it rather seems that we must have done. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am simply an ongoing observer from a distance of the good work you do for this wonderful encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pl, dont'change anything without any reason, check the Jallandhar, Adampur Doaba gazette. Sikh Rajput 08:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Sikhdev Singh Minhas--Sikh Rajput 08:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhdev Singh Minhas (talk • contribs)

I am afraid that I did revert, having left your additions for 24 hours. The content was unsourced & I could make no headway with your comment above that I should "check the Jallandhar, Adampur Doaba gazette". If you need some help regarding how to cite info in articles then just holler. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now look what you've done, you monster. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it! And probably have made a better job of it also. Is there a template for "Further reading (not safe after a meal)"? We have an obvious candidate for inclusion under that. Ewww. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sitush, but I've lately been swamped by real life and haven't been able to get back to you on a number things, including Zuggernaut's ANI. I've now decided to take four weeks off to take care of business. I had hoped that the Kurmi, Yadav, and Jat pages would be reasonably complete by now, but they are not, and I do feel badly. Anyway, I hope you continue to work on those pages and keep them honest. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would, but because the WikiProject Bibliographies has a few distractors who think the project is making unilateral moves without consensus (actually not happening) and are looking for contraversy to hold against the project, I have chosen to take the more measured approach of RM. Please add your support to the move discussion. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case you should just have asked me. I would have moved it and taken the flak, bearing in mind that I am the 99.9% contributor to that article. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you used a figure in the Crooke RM - >80,000 List of Works of ... articles. I am curious as to where that number comes from. Does that include Discographies and Filmographies in that? That's a large number and if they were actually bibliographies, WP will have come a long way. Again, just curious. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, it will include a lot of extraneous stuff.. I'll try to remember what I did but it may have been a search on "list of works of". Full of a cold at the moment & my brain is a bit fuddled. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No hurry, I am on vacation in Florida for the week, so I won't be focused as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, it is refreshing to see a major contributor in one of these RM's. You asked about a meta-discussion on the naming issue. There is one here. We arrived at a formula that even one of the critics of our project liked. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the improvements that you reverted in Indiana in the American Civil War. Please don't edit war to enforce your own opinion, but rather, please seek a third opinion. On the question of HTML entities such as —, I'd recommend you read what the article Character encodings in HTML#HTML character references has to say:

• Unnecessary use of HTML character references may significantly reduce HTML readability. If the character encoding for a web page is chosen appropriately then HTML character references are usually only required for a markup delimiting characters mentioned above, and for a few special characters (or not at all if a native Unicode encoding like UTF-8 is used). However, to prevent HTML injection attacks like Cross Site Scripting you should be very careful to use HTML entity escaping properly. If HTML attributes are not fully quoted, then you must entity encode whitespace like space, tab, and others. Other HTML contexts like javascript, css styles, and URLs require different escaping formats. See http://www.owasp.org/index.php/XSS_(Cross_Site_Scripting)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet for details on each of the different contexts.

This is not a policy page, but nevertheless it is quite normal for our best articles to avoid such HTML for the reasons given. In general it is expected that characters are used where they are supported in preference to entities in order to make editing easier. I'll also point out to you that there is a difference between unit symbols and other countable sets. Per MOS:NUM#Unit symbols "Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space" as there is a long-standing printing convention that unit symbols should not start a new line (so we prevent them from wrapping). However we do not use a non-breaking space to separate '7500' and 'men', for example, as there is no reason why a line may not wrap at that point. I've corrected several of those that I spotted, but you may know of others. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help particularly, but I am past caring. Good luck fixing all the other articles. Thanks for the note. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, and to paraphrase a statement made by Jimbo in India last week, "ask 10 people about HTML entities and you get 12 opinions". - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have expected even more than 12 opinions as the various debates have been running for around six years, but nowadays the practice seems to settled on 'replace them'. So much so that at least one automated tool (WP:AutoEd) will automatically convert entities to their equivalent characters for you. I wouldn't seriously consider trying to reverse actions that anybody can do with a single click. Canute had better odds than that. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this due to indents below. Canute, of course, was trying to prove that he could not' turn back the tide ;) Sitush (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ndashes? hyphens? such things are offered for fixing by scripts such as:

• importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');

and

• importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");

I was at Indiana to fix a redirect to the {{sidebar}} I'd rebuilt the other day (an anon helped). As to templates, see

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

Alarbus (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I already have those scripts, and the harvnb script etc, thanks. Check my edit summaries & some of them show up there. The problem is when you unilaterally change something from one style to another. As I've said before, just because you can does not necessarily mean that you should. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RX#L.T.C._Rolt.2C_-_citation_request (as it was some time ago, so you might miss it) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Spotted it, thanks. You see the same as I do - bloody frustrating. I am starting to move around a little more than I have been able to do for some time & so the pleasures of Manchester Central Library may become open to me. Except that it has been shut for a year or so due to refurbs. I am pleased that you have noted RX for what it is, per your comment elsewhere. For those of us without access to sources (of various types, not just academic stuff like JSTOR) it really is a fantastic and underpublicised, erm, resource. I am on the list to respond to requests for things from the Newcomen Society. A new-ish contributor there - User:JanetteDoe - seems to have a remarkable access to all sorts of bumpf. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited content as you have done again on Talk Khokhar page and as I have been requesting you for long .Intothefire (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I've deleted no content from that talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now worked out what you meant. See that talk page for my reply. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush please do not delete the comments of other editors as you have done on the Talk Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya page. Intothefire (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAPBOX. I know that Bhattacharya is not necessarily liked by Khatris - one of your pet subject areas - but that is no reason to rant on a talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong Block review -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong Block review-- Intothefire (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And that editor seems absolutely determined to crash and burn in the most public venue possible. Even if I was Napoleon, I don't think I could interrupt him. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of them, actually. Intothefire is now taking a 24 hour break. It is very unfortunate but as some of the earlier contributors to the thread suggested, some types of behaviour probably will not change. Thanks for the Risley "noses" scan, btw. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Click here to see the page http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up This is a full book of 1891 census of india I am came here to give u this because i cant edit nair talk page their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinuvenu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, what I was asking for was the 1881, 1901 and 1911 census info. We already have the 1891 stuff - but thanks for providing the link anyway (I may find this version easier to read!) - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please find my comments on the article talk page. You have definitely made the article look better. But we can talk about the reservations you have over some of the information.

Regards (Prabhloch (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

Please remove the content from the talk page, you've made your point. Its being indexed on front page on bing. Thanks for your cooperation.

Regards (Prabhloch (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Hello Sitush. Yes, he meets the guideline for having appeared in one List A match, though perhaps for him one to forget - an 8 ball duck, ouch! There's literally hundreds on here who have been done literally nothing, except turn up for the match. Neville Shelmerdine comes to mind. He quite literally turned up, had a field and did nothing else! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a minor situation going on at my Talk page regarding removing Gyan Books refs from articles. As a more experienced editor, can you look over the conversation and the links and give me your advice? I am wondering if my edits (blanket removal of Gyan) are mistaken. Despite being Gyan, the subject is not related to India at all, amazingly enough. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference here to the Victor Hugo correspondence, which I hadn't heard of before. This amusing anecdote about Les Misérables helped lighten the misery I'm feeling about Wikipedia as a result of this incident. JamesMLane t c 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I've just noticed that Victor Hugo is not at all a well-written article. I've expanded the anecdote & may return to fiddle further. Re: BLPs - we have to take the utmost care, even on talk pages, because of issues related to libel. It can be frustrating, but it is necessary. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an attorney who's worked on defamation cases in the U.S., so I agree that libel is a valid concern. Accuracy and comprehensiveness are also valid concerns, but any thought of balancing these issues seems to get lost; all anyone has to do is intone "BLP" and perfectly appropriate material gets deleted. In addition, in this particular instance, there was an apparent ideological bias, in that the purported standard was not applied neutrally across the political spectrum. ("Lie" is a violation but "hoax" is permissible? Sorry, I don't buy it.)

That the whole ruckus has indirectly produced some improvement in the Victor Hugo article is, at least, some consolation! JamesMLane t c 05:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easier just to move on to other things. I spend far too much of my time here involved in squabbles and worse, as evidenced by the frequency with which my name is mentioned at WP:ANI. Alas, I feel some sort of "need" to fix some particularly obscene examples of unencyclopaedic content ... but I still manage to restore some degree of what I like to consider is my sanity by wandering off and producing stuff such as the GAs listed on my talk page and, more recently, articles such as Herbert Hope Risley. Don't be like the aromatherapist whose career was shortlived because she was burning the candle at both ends - burn two candles, not one. ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprized that you decided to remove mentions of inscriptions of archaeological significance. Dr. H.V. Trivedi was a distinguished epigraphist, and Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum is a publication of the ASI, a government agency in India. Dr. Kasturchand Jain Suman is a distinguished epigraphist and a linguist. Several of the inscriptions mentioned are also referred to by other respected publications. They are not unreliable sources as you claim. They are all from respected sources.

The inscriptions are the single most reliable source of information, far more reliable than any legends or follore. The 13th century inscriptions mentioned are in museums or monuments, and are very well documented.

Malaiya (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look at it. I do make mistakes. However, as a government agency - and one that, like the Anthropological Survey of India, has often been operated for substantially political reasons - the ASI is not necessarily reliable. It is also the case that we cannot just rely on the inscriptions as recorded by Trivedi etc since this would mean that we are using a primary source. We need instead to rely on interpretations of them, and show any alternative explanations etc. Alas, this is a common problem with India-related articles, although it tends to surface more with people quoting the Manu Smrti, Rig Veda, Sangam texts etc, none of which are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The texts like Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum give a discussion of the inscriptions and their significance. What makes them valuable is the fact that complete text of the inscription as well often a photograph of the inscription, carved in stone, is included. There is no stronger evidence. There is nothing political or controversial about them. They are just simple facts.

I note you say "ASI is not necessarily reliable". ASI primarily reports facts. I can't think of a more respectable organization. Do you know any?Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that some of the inscriptions were published by non-Indian researchers, Cunningham and Kielhorn. One of the inscriptions is in the Horniman museum in UK, Kielhorn write an article on it in 1898, published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Malaiya (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you misunderstand. Using a text that is 800 or more years old (be it via a photo or whatever) is making use of a primary source. It could be subject to interpretation & we do not know the circumstances that cause the inscription to exist. This does not mean that they cannot be used in an article about the inscriptions themselves but it does make them awkward to use in an article that is about practically anything else.

I would also be surprised if a 100 year old discussion has not been superseded; and if we're talking of the same Cunningham then he is not a particularly good authority in my opinion. Finally, since there is no such thing as "truth" there is no way that any person or organisation can report "simple facts", as you say that the ASI does, and government agencies are always notoriously iffy as sources (the British Raj censuses being a classic of the genre). But, like I said, I'll take another look at what I did. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As the one who created this article, I appreciate your efforts in substantially expanding it. Well done.Shakher59 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs)

Thank you! He's an interesting guy & there is more to be added to that article when I get round to it. Of course, it is easy to see him as being a complete lunatic in terms of his theories but, hey, that is with the benefit of hindsight etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, editcountitis is bad, but have you noticed the threshold you've just crossed as of the most recent WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I didn't realise that particular list even existed. It is an inflated figure because I break down a lot of my edits in an attempt to provide step-by-step edit summaries for the (many) inexperienced contributors. I know that some people appreciate that but my guess is that more do not see the point of it. I notice that there are plenty of admins & others such as Anna whom I respect and who are ranked lower, so it is a peculiar position to be in. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus it's very heavily influenced by the use of automated tools. Since Cluebot is temporarily down, I figured I'd do a turn on Huggle, which I haven't done in months. Doing that, I managed to rack up over a hundred edits in about an hour, which is hardly indicative of my editing "level". Using AWB to fix categories or template parameters can get even more for less work. Nonetheless...I can't help checking and waiting to crack the top 1000 :). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Need your help in Lunar dynasty and Khatri. KhatriNYC3 is still adding Khatri and Arora in Lunar dynasty groups, but they don't have any reliable source for this. How to stop him? --¢ℓαяк (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:KhatriNYC3 has not contributed to Khatri since October, so there is no immediate issue there. But, yes, I can see that they have moved on to Lunar Dynasty & appear to be making similarly problematic edits there. I do a bit of digging myself: the last time I looked at that article in any depth it was rather a mess in any case with regard to sourcing.

If you feel that warring is going on then the procedure would be:

• open a discussion on the article talk page about sourcing those claims
• warn the user on their own talk page if they then insert the unsourced info again, using {{uw-ew}} or {{uw-3rr}} templates as appropriate. Remember that the requirements of WP:3RR are more strict than those of WP:EW.
• if the content appears again then report the user either to an admin or to the relevant noticeboard. You will need to provide at least four recent examples of the dodgy content being inserted.

Remember that if you do not follow these steps then any attempt to report could boomerang on you. It is essential that you have shown a willingness to discuss and that you have warned the other contributor of the issues regarding their edits and likely consequences of continuing in that manner. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose that any of your research on Baid turned up any info about Pakistani Baid? I only turned up there due to some back-and-forth editing between two rival nationalist assertions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not specifically. However, I think the {{cn}} that I added for that statement is justified, for now. This is because the H A Rose source covers the Punjab and NWFP, which were the areas subject to partition post-WW2. I couldn't find out much about them but there is a little more to be added, if I can be bothered: they are mentioned in a couple of census works and in the modern People of India exercise performed by the Anthropological Survey of India. None of these sources, including those that I actually inserted, are ones that I would normally choose to use but I was hoping that it might kickstart something, and so it seemed like an idea deliberately to leave a couple out that User:Intothefire could find. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Baid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Paddy and Hakim

Reginald Edward Enthoven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Wellington College

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On the 8th of December you state on the Talk:Lunar Dynasty#Groups claiming descent

"I have a rather strict definition of what constitutes a reliable source for content such as that which is in dispute here. The works of the British Raj ethnologists etc, most of whom were amateurs, fall some way short of being "rock solid". I would much prefer to see sources that are published by university presses or peer-reviewed journals etc, and the more recent is the publication date, the better. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)"

But just one day earlier on 7th December in Article Baid , you provide the following citations yourself from British authors and books over 100 years old

• 7 December 2011 Sitush Rose, Horace Arthur (1911).
• 7 December 2011 Sitush Russell, Robert Vane (1916)
• 7 December 2011 Sitush Crooke, William (1906)
  

On my page on 7th December User talk:Intothefire#Proposed deletion of Baid
Discussing with (Wiki rules knowledgeable) editors including Qwyrxian and Boing! said Zebedee an admin .
You reiterate these sources stating I've added some sources. It remains a mess...
With these sources added , You are even complimented by the admin Bong said Zebedee on my talk page, Excellent example of the appropriate way to respond to a PROD..

PROD is removed by Bong said Zebedee There are some sources added now, so I think we can remove the PROD

An article is going to deleted , you provide the sources , an admin upholds your sources and removes the PROD based on the sources you provide .
Very next day you state on another article The works of the British Raj ethnologists etc, most of whom were amateurs, fall some way short of being "rock solid".

Intothefire (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what I have said, where and why. You have misunderstood both my writings and my reasons for making the edits to Baid. Gosh, you have problems if I raise an issue with you and problems if I try to assist you. Are you ever satisfied? As for what BSZ said, well, that is their opinion, not mine. Take that article to WP:AFD if you wish. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to work through this myself...but I'm about 2 straws short of proposing Leel for deletion. I've already cut out a half dozen obviously unreliable sources; most of the sources left are offline so I can't see them...but most importantly, the article seems to be asserting 1) divine descent, and, oddly enough even less believable, that basically anyone in the world with the name Leel, Layl, Leal, Lehil, or other similar spellings are all descended from the same gotra from Punjab! I can't find the term in any searches of my own in Google Book or Scholar, though one problem is that the surname itself is so common that really all I'm getting is false results. At a minimum, I think the article needs to be stubbed, with only the info about the Indian/Pakistani gotra left, and only the stuff that is from sources that might possibly be viable.

I can also take this to either the India or Pakistan Wikiprojects as well if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me a day or so to dig around. Your [2] is the old story and, as elsewhere, I would simply renounce it: they can name anyone who has self-asserted or who has rock-solid sourcing, but otherwise it is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, don't worry about it. After interacting with the user more, I'm pretty sure the whole thing is either fake or entirely the product of one fringe mind. He's adding books with English titles that don't show up anywhere on the internet except this page under the claim that Pakistan is just behind in IT, and was using UrbanDictionary as a source. I've reported the user for breaking 3RR, and once I can edit w/o breaking 3RR myself, I'm going to revert back to the original stub, found in this revision, which actually does look like a viable article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw you response above earlier but had other things on my mind. Yes, having reviewed the thing (but failed in my timely response) there certainly do seem to be some contributions that are at the extreme end of the 2 + 2 = 5 scale. Good call. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work with Nair article. It's time to take revenge. Lets add the dog article back to that page and remove all the references to nagvanshi ananta sesh nag and remaining things. They reference anantasheshnag's location as a proof too. Just dont budge. I will add lines making them a servant caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.52.77 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make any contributions that fail to meet Wikipedia's policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Situs you have of late edited some parts of Kayastha article. Have you ever noticed that it is written as some people called "scribe" in Hindu scriptures but it is not a sanskrit word. What is the actual word ? Can it be way to solve the varna status?117.194.196.123 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea what the Sanskrit might be, but the varna issue is already "resolved" - there are numerous viewpoints and we have to show them all. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have answered on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What are "valid maintenance templates"? And if I did remove them (without my knowing what they are), surely you can reinstate them instead of undoing hard work of other editors. I am not a professional editor that I would know about "valid maintenance templates" or such editorial lingo.

Please reinstate these templates (which I seem to have removed) as well as my edited text. Much appreciate your cooperation. - Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "professional editor" either :) There are three issues:

1. You removed some citation requests without providing citations; and
2. The amount of information being added about the railway system of Rewari is bordering on undue weight. I realise that you have an interest in railways & are a member of the relevant project, but that does not mean that we should have masses of "trainspotter" content in an article that is supposed to be about a place.
3. There remains the old problem with your edits to Rewari, ie: ascertaining which bits relate to the city and which bits relate to Rewari district. The two are separate and should be kept separate. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you pop up on the Silas Bent article edits. I hope you're doing well. After a needed break I've been writing a fair amount about the American Southwestern prehistoric periods. Are you still writing about India and boxing?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not boxing, no. Although there remain plentiful displays of cyber-puglism on the India stuff. I still hope to get a couple more of the bareknuckle articles tidied up before too much more time passes. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your hard work tidying up List of Nairs. Again. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Keep watching: I think that it will grow again -:( Sitush (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 00:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Sitush for his incredible work cleaning up India related articles. Keep up the good work! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. My day is made :) Sitush (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What sections did you find not sited? The BoycottKim.com site and the petitions exist on the internet for all to see.

The quotes were direct from the site. What can be removed?

I dont think it does readers justice not to mention the real public backlash about Kim Kardashian. Not looking to promote a cause, but to show the backlash exists.

F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbast (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The "real public backlash" needs to be sourced independently of the Facebook group etc, otherwise it is just advocacy. Also, we are not a news website & we have to consider weight. I have no interest in the Kardashians - have never seen a show, dislike celebrity culture etc - but policies are policies ... and 250,000 people is, really, not a lot given their apparent target audience. Personally, I would be quite happy if articles such as that one did not exist at all, but the policies say otherwise and so I live with it. I think that you will have to live with the requirements of WP:RS etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue this further then please could you comment on the article talk page rather than here. You will receive a much larger audience there, and perhaps you will find that I am incorrect. It does happen! - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind putting Balija on your to-do list? I took out Gyan refs, but it looks like it needs clean up from an expert. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Expertise is relative, as per "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" :) But, yes, it looks problematic and I'll have a dig around. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

Don't know if Sikhism is your bag or not, but I'm in need of a knowledgable India-related article editor to take a look at Nirankari. I've spruced it up as best I can, but it could use some expert attention. If you get bored fixing up List of Nairs, your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a great deal of knowledge about it but am willing to learn! User:Sikh-history is usually a reasonable contributor in my experience and, as the name suggests, would probably be more familiar with the concepts etc. It might be worth you dropping a note on their page, even though I'll take a look myself at some point. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not met User:Sikh-history before; thank you for the idea. I will drop a note on their talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Sitush. Thanks for your message at User talk:JamesBWatson#Deletion of Vaid per PROD concern. I've replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• messages below converted from barnstars to a normal threaded conversation

Hello Sir, Verma is a honorific surname that is found among the members of Kshatriyas, Mair Rajputs and Rajputs. It is being used as a common surname now a days but actually Verma belongs to Kshatriyas/ Mair Rajputs/ Rajputs clans. We would really appreciate if you please do not undo the corrections that we made.

With Regards, Our Team Mywiki member01 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Team? That is ominous! I am on the cusp of proposing a merger of the Verma and Varma "last name" articles because there is clearly a huge overlap. I have no opinion regarding which should take precedence and it is for that reason that I have not yet proposed. But feel free to do so yourself if you have a particularly strong and policy compliant preference. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a request. Nothing was ominous. The point was just to clear the confusion inbetween. With Regards. Thank you. Mywiki member01 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And the message was regarding Verma surname that it does not belong to Kurmi class. It belongs to Rajput/ Mair Rajput/ Mair Kshatriya clan. The intention was just to request you that please do not undo its deletion from Kurmi class list. Thanks. Mywiki member01 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That was a coincidence yesterday: I was doing some work on the Verma/Varma thing & someone popped up to add Verma to the list of surnames in the infobox (the summary box at top right of an article) for Kurmi or Kunbi or something like that. I removed it.

Now, the reason that I removed it is because there are numerous names in common use for the various Indian castes/communities. If people keep adding names to the list then the infobox ceases to be a lightweight summary and instead becomes an overblown mass of (often unsourced) detail. I will hold my hand up here & say that I am not too keen on infoboxes for these articles in any event ... but I am pretty sure that I would get support for not allowing them to grow excessively. It would probably make more sense not to list any such names there because in that way there could be no undue weight given to one name over another. What do you think?

By the way, I have converted your barnstars into a normal conversation thread because it is easier for me to reply. Also, if you click on the blue links above then they will take you to articles that explain the concepts to which I am referring. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to you that there are many names that are being used by various communities now a days so as this one is being used as a common surname by various communities now a days but actually it is a clan of Kshatriyas/ Rajputs and it is a better idea to write about it's actual origin. This is the reason I asked you to remove it from Kurmi class info box because it does not at all belong to it. I hope you agree on this :) Mywiki member01 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know User:Piya 1983? - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly merged Verma into Varma. The former article acknowledged "Varma" as being an alternate version, and the latter article has far more content and no worse sourcing. There is no point in us having two articles that are effectively duplicating content/sources/explanations etc. That said, Varma needs some work, just as Verma did - sources & decent copyediting would be a good thing, and finding a way to reduce the repetitive use of "kshatriya" would be an absolute bonus. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know this user. You have done a nice work of merging these two names. Actually these two are derived from the same hindi word but they just spell differently just like Mair/ Meir and Rajpoot/ Rajput. Mywiki member01 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was a bit concerned as per my comment earlier in this thread: basically, which way is the "right" way ... without trawling through census data to determine which is the more common usage. I would be really grateful if you can fill in some of the gaps regarding sources etc. And, obviously, any additional info that you could add would be nice. A lot of these things end up being about transliteration and, hey, sometimes we have to just pick one and go for it. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would try to add additional information and sources. Thank you.Mywiki member01 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, Thanks for deleting the Ghurye reference in the Balija article. I did not add it. A good many references were already there before i worked on the article. I was not sure about deleting pre-existing references. It wud be nice of you to delete other references which are not good sources. Please also edit the phrasings as can be considered appropriate. I wud really appreciate if we cud work together on this. I do not know much about wiki or how it works, and your guidance will be very appreciated. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

It was really a "Further reading" item, not a reference. Unless the item adds authoritatively to the subject matter of the article then it should go. And, to be honest, if it does add material in that manner then it probably should be included in the body of the article anyway & then cited properly as a reference. I am (slowly) working through the stuff at Kapu (caste). and anything that strikes me as having similar issues at Balija will be removed also. There is nothing to stop you doing this yourself: there will be some things that I simply cannot examine and about which I therefore cannot form an opinion. These clean ups take time, in particular because they often also reveal discrepancies in the articles themselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You know who I mean. If yes, I think this is not place for me :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly. You have just stumbled on a touchy area & there might be an element of Hindutva-style nationalism etc going on, but provided that no-one is insulting anyone else etc then it is just a lively debate. It is one that, in fact, I've been tempted to raise myself on a few occasions. Don't take it to heart: maybe just watch and learn in that particular area for a few days, and of course feel free to contribute elsewhere!

The reasons for me passing the comment that I did regarding making it compulsory to use Indian scripts is because (a) I know none; and (b) this is English Wikipedia, not Hindi, Tamil, Marathi etc. It will all settle down, and (alas) ptobably with no consensus to do anything in particular. Just sit back and watch the fireworks: they can be quite illuminating, you know! - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I see that there are many here for intentions which are rather dubious. These are no different from some people using unknown IPs to vandalize. However that does not discourage me anymore. I shall continue to contribute. thanks. KevinBraun 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

I've been cleaning up some orphaned articles and came across Aickara which claims to be a matriarchal caste related to Nairs. I've been able to find no information about this caste and wondered if you might have come across something. The spelling Aikara seems another possible romanization. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. It is not a caste but rather a family. Nairs traditionally lived in large family units within a compound, called a tharavad - sometimes a single building, sometimes several. These could consist of well over 100 relations, although 50 or so seems to have been more common. The info in the second paragraph is covered at Nair, whilst that in the first paragraph has pretty severe notability issues: there are plenty of families around the world that have four living generations, and so why should this one be so special as to deserve its own article? I would be inclined to send the thing to AfD in the hope that it might flush out some sources but, tbh, it will probably be deleted. If it survives then I'll fix the pov etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Prodded. If someone challenges, I'll take it to AfD. I did some searches and found nothing, though there is a Jacob Aikara who is quite a prolific author of articles on education and other sociology issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your guidance. But I tried looking for the source on Internet "People of India: Haryana (Volume XXIII) edited by M.L Sharma and A.K Bhatia pages 475 to 479 Manohar Books". It says it is not available now. Also the pages referenced are from 475 to 479 which means that the content entered on wikipedia is the interpreted summary (four pages have been summarized in 4 to 5 lines). There is no way to check the reliability, correctness and the validity of the summary entered on wikipedia. Also, other minor mistakes and grammatical errors can be taken care of if any. Thanks. Sky paul 001 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the frustrations: people cite things that others cannot view. However, we have to assume good faith unless there is clearly some major discrepancy. There is nothing that says we must only use content that everyone, everywhere can see in an instant, whether that is online or at a local library etc. Statements have to be verifiable but not in the time that it takes for a few electrons to travel from A to B. The internet is a wonderful thing but it is not all-inclusive.

There is nothing wrong with summarising a few pages and, in fact, it is probably A Good Thing because reducing several pages to a few sentences would most likely mean that there is little chance that there is a violation of someone's copyright, and that is a major concern here & (perhaps because of my current area of interest) appears to be a particularly common problem with India-related content. We have areas such as resource exchange where there are really helpful people who can often track down copies/scans of the relevant bits of cited sources if you have any doubts about them. I use it quite a lot, and the "success rate" - ie: getting a response that enables me to check - is extremely high. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

-I appreciate your consent here. If you check one of the sources "R.K. Gupta, S.R. Bakshi. Studies In Indian History: Rajasthan Through The Ages The Heritage Of Rajputs (set Of 5 Vols.). Sarup & Sons, 2008. ISBN 8176258415, 9788176258418" mentioned in the same article it says Varma as Kshatriyas. Also Verma is a variant to Varma refer http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Verma-name-meaning.ashx and the source is "Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4". Now the information about Vermas of Harayana is entirely different. Many times when information is not summarized properly change the overall meaning/ description. I would suggest here not to mention this piece of information since it cannot be verified and is conflicting.Sky paul 001 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but this is where it starts to get messy. The Gupta "source" is in fact not cited in the article - it is in the section that should really be called "Further reading" but that for some reason has been misnamed as "External sources". I will fix that. "Further reading" is intended for items that could be of interest to people who wish to delve further into the subject of the article but which has not been used directly in the article itself.

The next issue is that of Varma = Kshatriya. We have a Varma article, which is not great but is a starting point. It has some sources that seem to indicate Varma was in the past a name used by warriors - kshatriya or otherwise - but unless you can find a reliable source that says Varma was only used by Kshatriyas then the point is not valid here (it may be elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia). You are making a connection that we here tend to classify as either original research or synthesis.

As for ancestry.com, well, I am afraid that it is not a reliable source. It is one of those sources that people use here in error but which has been determined by consensus at venues such as the reliable sources noticeboard to fail our standards. Again, this does not mean that ancestry.com is wrong ... just that it fails to comply with the Wikipedia way of doing things.

Finally, it is perfectly ok for us to show various opinions in articles. We do not (should not!) make a judgement regarding which opinion is "true": as long as a viewpoint meets our basic criteria - reliability etc - and is not a fringe viewpoint then it has its place in an article. There may be issues regarding the weight that is given to any particular opinion ... but a contradiction is not a reason to exclude something. After all, we would then be in the awkward position of determining which to exclude or would be engaging in censorship.

Yikes, that is a lot of reading matter for you, in all those blue links that I have provided. Please do not worry if you feel like this is all too complicated: just keep watching, contributing and learning - you'll be surprised how quickly you pick up the basics here, although there is always esoteric stuff also! I am still learning, and I always will be. When in doubt, I find someone who I think may know more than me about policy etc, but I would never assume that they know it all. No-one does, because it is subject to the consensus of a massive community that is constantly changing. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely understand the concerns that you have regarding my edit. However, I am not someone who is motivated to perform such edits out of linguistic pride or regionalism. I am pursuing this change only because there is credible evidence to back up my claim. If you are interested in knowing more, please let me know. Additionally, please do take a look at the page where you originally raised the issue - I have my comments there. Thank You Jash121 (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Already replied at WT:INB, which is in my opinion a suitable venue. I would still suggest that you self-revert on the article until the matter is resolved. Edit warring is not a great idea and, rightly or wrongly, that particular bit of Munnar appears to have been stable for some time prior to your involvement. It is a complex area and, as you are now aware, has been the subject of a recent request for comments, so keeping things as per the state prior to the RfC is probably A Good Thing until matters are resolved at a higher (ie: wider community) level. - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As you look to be well-versed with all policies & i dont, i thought i could get some of my doubts solved from you. Only if you have time & interest. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not as well versed as you may think, and I often have to check things with other people. Nonetheless, feel free to bounce things off me here. There are others who have this talk page on their watchlists and I'd imagine that they will comment if they feel it necessary. None of us learn unless we enquire. I am, by the way, aware of the conflict between Wikipedia's way of doing things and the reality of the Indian oral tradition etc. There is no easy answer to that issue at the moment although I would hope that things can be ameliorated at least a little at some point in the future: it will take time, and by that I mean years, not weeks or months. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! & its okay if you dont have answers. I will come back to these India-related articles later on. I have another question as of now. Suppose some editor writes something defamatory against someone. Who takes the responsiility? Ofcourse not the other editors who didnt undo it even after being regular on that page. Then who? Wikipedia? They dont censor our edits? That editor? How do you track him? He is unknown. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this hypothetical editor allegedly defaming another editor or the subject of an article? Both are wrong, of course, if true, but there may be a subtle difference regarding how the issue is handled. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I was more worried about the case where an editor defames the subject of an article. I found this news saying how Wiki is not liable for any defamations caused by editors. Also its not possible to track down who the editor is. & other editors wont be liable at all for not removing the content. Right? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an odd story. I am not even sure why the French courts countenanced the case against the Wikimedia Foundation because the Foundation is subject to the laws of Florida and not those of France. I am no lawyer but by my reckoning the people who considered themselves defamed would have had to take action against WMF in Florida, not France. However, individual contributors need to take account of their local laws, as the WMF has recently advised in the case of the disputed maps of India: they should not edit in a manner that would contravene the laws of the country in which they reside or are otherwise subject to because they might be personally liable.

As far as tracking people down goes, well, it is possible to connect a username to an IP and then, if the individual's internet provider co-operated, it would probably be possible to trace an IP address to a specific location. However, even then there would be no proof of who made the contribution, merely evidence that a particular place/machine was the originating point. Whether or not that would be sufficient to give cause for a legal action would depend yet again upon the local laws and the precise circumstances, eg: to what extent it can be ascertained that only one person had access to the IT kit/ISP connection at the point of origin.

Please note that although the username/IP connection can be made, there are only a very limited number of people who have that capability and there is no guarantee that the information would be divulged even if a court ordered it. I would imagine that the circumstances would have to be pretty exceptional for the WMF to accede to such a request. But, like I say, I am no lawyer and, as a basic rule, if you suspect that making a particular contribution would be wrong then do not do it. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I too would not be sure about how it was tried in France. The reason i suppose, for one, is that the plaintiff were defamed in France & not in florida. Secondly, you can always plea in court to change the jurisdiction. WMF being a big economically able party could defend themselves even in france whereas the other party couldnt go to florida for justice. Anyways....
So in a case where a article's subject is defamed, the author of that is responsible. You very well could have stopped this defamation from happening, had you been aware of it being a defamation. Now you wouldnt recognize it as a defamation for various reasons; A. You think its true. B.You think even if its false its still not defamatory C.You dont understand it at all for it was in a certain script you cant read. Why in such case you dont wanna stick with the good faith clause? (This was in reference to someone's story about how some article contained some indic scripts that were identified as foul immediately) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between any one country's law regarding defamation and Wikipedia's WP:AGF. And although a country may not be able to enforce its legislation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia editors sure can enforce their own community's consensus upon its participants. As has been explained to you in several threads at WP:INB, you really need to get to grips with our policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources etc - I am not going to provide the links yet again because you have already been given the things several times. Mistakes happen, as may have done in the French "defamation" case, but that does not mean that we should allow them to persist. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I must remind you that my edits were constantly being changed by one Joyal867 and then, you. Is that not edit warring ? While reverting Joyal's edits, I had clearly emphasized the need to discuss. However, that was in vain. When I realized that my edits were being blatantly erased "without explanation", I had no other choice but to put them back !

Additionally, I find that your comment on my talk page is totally unwarranted. You are very much aware that the issue is being discussed in a particular place right now. I had earlier suggested that both scripts be placed on the article unless and until a consensus is reached, and that's the principle that I'm following right now. I have to remind you that I have not, in any way, removed existing data ! An additional fact shouldn't hurt the cohesiveness of the information presented earlier. If reliable sources is what you need to verify my claim, then let me know ! Also, if you do not agree with my principle, please let me know why. I do not see why only one point of view should be represented when there's adequate evidence for another. Jash121 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus to have just the official state script. This is apparent in two threads at WT:INB. Each time that you reinstate the additional script you are going against consensus and, since you are not sourcing it, you are also failing the verifiability policy. This has been explained to you previously. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please read the link to WP:EW which I provided on your talk page. You did not in fact initiate a discussion, but I did; and you continued to revert even after that. You are probably quite lucky not to have been blocked from contributing. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

please have a look at billava article.the article is badly sourced like most articles on indian castes.when references added they are being removed.27.4.216.105 (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed that there was some warring going on but it seems to have escalated in the last few hours. I am also aware that you seem to be contributing in the spirit of the project and that the 117.* IP etc are not. I'll try to weigh in later and suggest that for now you just leave it alone because continuing to fight it out will only lead to blocks being handed out. I would encourage you to register a user name in the interval: it is arguably more anonymous than using an IP address and it gives you some chance of being able to continue contributing in the event that the article is semi-protected, which may well be one of the outcomes of my involvement. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That will give me some breathing space to check out one or two things. I am pretty sure that the 27.* IP's contributions are correct, based on my knowledge of Ezhava groups generally. I've spent the last few hours picking my way across floors seemingly full of crawling babies, so this will be a relief! - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a member of the Billava, I partially agree with the assessment by Sitush for the 27.* IP's. However, I disagree with removal of some of the content related to garadi and notable people of the community by 27.*. Figleaf (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Billava please. I opened a discussion there some hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Below moved from top of this section for standard ordering.Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Hello Sitush, This is to inform you that some body had played with article page of " Billava" . All facts are misplaced and real facts are hidden. We really condemn this kind of activity being Billava by religion. We got many IT Specialist in various MNC's & got their own firm, not a toddy tapper anymore. So we can take this matter to legally & its a part of CYBER CRIME activity. We from Billawa Business Unit ( Powerful of organization billava) wanted to work on revise this article. So I request stop editing this page from Unknown Source because its making news among large number of Billawas. Its causing Racial Discrimination and please dont allow these allegations.

Regards, Billawa Business unit ADMINS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billawabusinessunit (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've blocked Billawabusinessunit indefinitely until such time as they withdraw the legal threat posted here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And per this edit, the editor has retracted their threat (though I've instructed xyr to come here to explicitly wihdraw the threat, and to discuss issues on the article's talk page...though I just realized now that there's a second problem: WP:ROLEACCOUNT. I'll deal with that too. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. The article does at least now have some sources, but I have been careful to point out that they are old etc and am still hoping to find something more modern and more reliable. It is such a shame that we continue to use these not-very-good Raj sources but, hey, I live in hope that one day I may get some form of access to JSTOR or similar, where there is often much more to be had if some digging is done. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would love JSTOR access as well. I checked with the university I graduated at, and even though alumni association members can get full in-person library access, they can't get off site access to the online archives and journals. Stupid licensing rules... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you must have gone to the University of Cambridge as I did <g> I am not sure that those who underpin the JSTOR resource understand just how much more they might gain by charging a nominal few pounds/bucks/euros/yen etc per annum. I live pretty much in (westernised) poverty, quite often skipping meals in favour of keeping my internet connection and electricity bill in order, but I would happily save up to pay say £20 for a year's access to JSTOR. I realise that this is not a lot to them but the numbers must surely mount up. Anyway, I have managed to find something from 2003 with which to bolster at least one section of Billava - it seems to be a reasonably decent source even though not published by an academic press. I'll live with it for now, while I do more digging in the not very full quarry that is GBooks. I mean, GBooks, archive.org, haithitrust etc are fantastic and have changed my world ... but they are not really "it" when it comes to anthropology and the like. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush Iam from Billava Community, recent changes in Billava Wikipedia has really hurt me and many more billavas, you have projected my community in a very embarrassing manner, I would request you to please change the content which you have added and restore the previous contents which are the real facts, I have no intentions what so ever to have any conflict with you, but if the contents are not deleted you & me cannot imagine the consequences since it is related to one of the most powerful community in Karnataka. We have already started the awareness among our people especially youth regarding this injustice, this is just the starting stage already we have enough numbers to protest against this racism and numbers are simply growing.

Sitush once again I humbly request you to do the needful, again I am repeating there is nothing personal between us please don't make it personal, lets solve this issue peacefully.

With Regards Nithin Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithinkumarpoojary (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please voice your concerns at Talk:Billava rather than here. I would advise you not to refer to potential community protests etc - someone, somewhere might decide that you have overstepped the mark and drifted into a threatening style, which would probably result in you being blocked from contributing here at all. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sitush If you think that I have overstepped so be it,your most welcome to block my id,be ready to face the music dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithinkumarpoojary (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot block anyone. I was merely pointing out a potential pitfall in the event that you do not phrase things carefully. Wikipedia is not censored but bullying is often disliked, and someone might see your comments about some sort of protest as just that. It all depends on how you word things when you comment on the article talk page. In fairness, I've seen a lot worse than your message above and tend simply to ignore them. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, in case you are interested, you could consider creating a start-class article on the Koragas, a Scheduled tribe found in the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka and Kasaragod district of Kerala. There is already an article on their language. See Koraga language. I would have created it myself, but i have been extremely busy with work lately (even weekends) and i doubt that i will have the sufficient free time needed until mid-January. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 09:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look but I really need to fettle Billava and some other articles first. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This should explain my confusion about percentages being spelt. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It is no biggie, JP. You did a nice bit of gnoming there & all I was really picking up on is that MOSNUM says US English is "percent" and British English is "per cent". The article is nearer to British English than US, so I stuck a space in there. Whether it could also be "%" seems to be up in the air but, really, I do not care about that one.

The date issue concerned me more. Using cite templates is great for ensuring a completeness of the bibliography but they do take up a lot of space in the edit box. I tend to use the yyyy-mm-dd format for the accessdate parameter simply because it is allowed there and it shortens the already lengthy markup. As it happens, in this particular instance it seems that someone else had already set a precedent for that back in March. Unless that someone else was me! - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but English isn't my first language. By gnoming, you mean flaming? Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no - see WP:WikiGnome. Wikignoming is A Good Thing. And if English is not your first language then I am very impressed. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks, although earlier i was surprised. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 15:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've set up Koraga for you. It is not great but it will survive any attempted deletion with ease. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well done! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 14:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be delighted to hear about your quest for Jewish jelly donuts in London. Were they embellished as lovingly as the Israeli ones in our article? Did you gain weight? Did you have to spend a lot of time washing your face and hands? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Manchester, not London. My route to hospital takes me through an area inhabited by a large Orthodox Jewish community, with the concomitant shops (there is even a kosher fish-and-chip shop, although I am unsure of how that can be given the dietary restrictions). The area that I actually live in has a high concentration of Jewish people also; although an eruv exists, the people here are mostly Reform - and with some who are partial to bacon sandwiches and playing rugby on a Saturday! The two areas combined supposedly constitute the largest group outside London.

When not travelling to hospital in a vehicle with a blue flashing light - a quite regular occurrence in my accident-prone/poor health situation - I sometimes do a bit of window shopping in the Orthodox area. And the bagels on a Sunday morning are always worth the trip. Travel another mile or so down the same road and it is chock full of Caribbean food stores, which are also tempting, and then another mile or two takes me into Chinatown.

The sufganyot looked nice and were tasty and I have made a note for next year. I got four jelly and two custard. I am one of those fortunate people who do not put on weight: I weighed 190 lb when I played basketball some 25-30 years ago, and I weigh 186 now. Or, rather, I did a couple of months back when the docs last had me step on that machine. Same waist measurement, too! - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming that you were in London rather than Manchester. That shows how little I know about British Jewish communities. As for fish & chips, any vertebrate fish with fins and scales is kosher, as long as it isn't cut up on a board contaminated with shellfish juices. Potatoes, vegetable oils, salt and cider vinegar are all kosher too - so, its all good. Wine vinegar would have to be made of kosher wine.

It is interesting to hear about the ethnic neighborhoods, as they seem to be on the way out in Northern California. There used to be Jewish neighborhoods 100 years ago in San Francisco and Oakland, but the Jewish population has just faded into other communities. The Orthodox, though, tend to live within walking distance of their synagogues since they don't drive on the Sabbath. San Francisco has its famous Chinatown that attracts tourists, but there are so many Chinese in San Francisco now that at least a dozen neighborhoods could be called a Chinatown. The traditionally Black neighborhoods now have people of many different races, for the most part.

I live in a small city of 20,000 with a heavy Filipino and Indian population (from India not Native American) but they are spread pretty evenly through the whole city and aren't clustered in specific neighborhoods. On my street, our closest neighbors are African-American, Indian Christian, Indian Sikh, Filipino, Chinese, another white family and one with a white husband and black wife. And several Latino families a few doors down.

I wish I had your physique as I struggle to lose weight every time I am planning a wilderness trip and seem to gain back extra pounds with no effort at all as soon as I return to civilization. On the other hand, my health has been pretty darned good as I approach my 60th birthday, so I shouldn't complain. I wish you a 2012 with the best possible health. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Purge the page, or make any other small edit. It's an artifact of the way English Wikipedia handles citation errors. Any time an editor that doesn't use English as the interface language includes a citation on a talk page, that error will show up. It will disappear after the next English language editor edits the page. I can switch my interface language from Dutch to English temporarily to avoid it, but I've always considered it to be too small of a problem to bother with.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to the hardgrave book??Mayan302 (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have some access via GBooks. Right now I am just tidying up the obvious, which basically means copyediting, but in due course I may take a look at the detail. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

K.i have an hardgrave ebook.let me know if u need it.Mayan302 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC) it was profitable when compared to selling other palmrya tree by products i think.that's what the book says....Mayan302 (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know much abt William Crooke.sorry.if i come across anythin interestin i ll let u know.BTW i actually need the templeman book.:) i am aspiring to be a politician.if u need any info regardin tamil castes or tamil politicians i maybe able to help u.Mayan302 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

	New Year Greetings for 2012!
	Wishing you a very Happy New Year, Sitush! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 19:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify, i actually decided to create the poll as i thought that the issue was clear by the section title, Mentioning caste of Individuals. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No biggy, but it is now quite obviously not clear. I've never closed anything before and had to nip over to WP:ANI to see the template in use! I hope that you do understand why I did it. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree. I should have mentioned the proposal while starting the poll, but unfortunately that didn't occur to me then. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice photo, and modern backpacks look a lot alike worldwide. The only place I've visited in the UK is the Heathrow transit lounge (twice) though I did get a spectacular view of Parliament and Big Ben from an airliner window. Suppressing my California "big mountain" biases, I remember reading about the early days of rock climbing in the Lake District ( as well as Scotland and Wales) when I first delved into mountaineering history 35 years ago. What I've read about the Lake District reminds me a bit of New York's Adirondacks, which are the complete opposite of Manhattan. I visited there at New Years 2004. And when I glory too much in California's 14,000 foot peaks, I just remind myself that the Himalaya are twice as high. Thanks for your words of encouragement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Lakes is small stuff but that place + Snowdonia has been the formative experience for a lot of classy UK climbers. I've had a wander on bigger things - around twice as high as the Adirondacks, in fact - but, hey, it is 90 minutes' drive for a great weekend. Or it was, until I broke my hip. I always fancied tramping the Appalachian Trail (& even had mates living at either end, for "hello" and "goodbye" beer fests!), but it won't happen now. As things stand, or rather wobble, I am lucky to be able to get my dog out for a stagger. - Sitush (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am no deletion spree and happened to notice that Chouda Rani was up for deletion. I still stick by my reasons because having studied Indian literatures, I am of the opinion that Chouda Rani cannot constitute a page by herself. Moreover, what has been written in the article warrants immediate clean-up or deletion in order to avoid floating "relative-biographies" around. Thanks Noopur28 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you correcting me since I am a new editor however I did have a rationale and the deletion "spree" was just nominating 2 articles that were already nominated earlier. I was going through actor stubs and AfDs and that is how I chanced upon both. I don't mind you contesting it, just don't want you to think I am a vandal/troll :) thanks! Noopur28 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for watching over my talk page. Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Just a heads-up, I reverted your revert on Kim Kardashian. This is regarding the wedding date. The article itself gives the August date in the relevant section, and the linked references also say August. The actual divorce documentation shows the marriage date as August 20, 2011. Just wanted to give a reason for my rv. Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your editorial improvements to the Manoj Tiwari article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Now what playwright came up with that one - Jonson? I recall acting the thing at school but that is a long, long time ago. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

An adage often attributed to Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745), the phrase "You can't make a Silk Purse out of a Sow's Ear" is a varient from perhaps from a century earlier when in 1579 Stephen Gosson wrote (in his Ephemerides) of "seekinge too make a silke purse of a Sowes eare."[4][5][6] For this barnstar, my own twist on the adage awards those who editorially create a "silk purse" from a "sow's ear" type of article. Good job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Swift the satirist and polemicist was one of my heroes way back when I used to be able to remember exactly what they said and, more importantly, why. I shall revisit him. I will also revisit dog-eared copies of old school magazines because I have a weird desire to work out where the heck the title of the play in which I performed (a walk-on role, only!) came from. Knowing my school, we were probably sold a dummy & it was an aspirational cobble-up of stuff from various sources. My inkwell + stand, loaned as a prop, spent more time on the stage than I did. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I know THAT feeling. Recently had a terrific role in Airsoft's Left 4 Dead - Impulse 76 Fan Film.[7] My old Volvo was used as one of the "abandoned" cars. See with its hood up 57 seconds in to the film and again at 1:08. I spent over 2 hours in makeup to become the game character of "The Boomer"... only to have my action and screentime cut short as daylight approached. I appear at 7:41 and blow up at 7:44. Great stuff was left out. My car did not get a screen credit (chuckle), but happily I did... credited at 8:32. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind weighing in your opinion here. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment Please can someone provide me with a couple of decent sources that specifically connect the Paraiyars to the Valluvars. This article is a mess & I'll be trying to tidy it up before too long. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, If you have read the sources,

• Castes and Tribes of Southern India. VI & VII,
  
• Paraiyan and Legend of Nandan, by REV. A. C. Clayton, Madras Government Museum Bulletin, Volume V, NO.2
  
• Volume V20, Page 802 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911.Pariah - Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 ,Volume V20,Page 802
  

It clearly states that Paraiyars have more than 300 subdivisions, like other castes in Southindia they are endogamous, do not intermarry with other subdivisions, some subdivisions are treated very low by paraiyars themselves, british colonial Researchers/ethnographers have done deep research found that valluvars are subdivision of Paraiyars, Interestingly among Valluvars there are many subdivisions, in which some who acts as Priests for temples and marriages only among Paraiyar subdivisons which are considered equal to them, among valluvars there are lower subdivisions who have relationship with lower subdivision paraiyars only, this relationship varies place to place, So in order avoid this confusion and contradictions, researchers/ethnographers have clearely summarised/concluded that The facts, taken together, seem to show that the Paraiyan priests (Valluvans), and therefore the Paraiyans as a race.......[Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Vol. VI. Edgar Thurston and Rangachari, K. 1909.(Page.89.)] valluvans are pariah priests and also as a subdivision of paraiyars.Pariah - Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 ,Volume V20,Page 802
1) why do you need other than these sources? everything is succinctly mentioned/summarised/concluded? by eminent authors/researchers/ethnographers
2) have you completely read these above quoted sources in article ?
3) why do you consider them not decent?
4) why do you consider this article(paraiyar) a mess & not tidy in this context?

A clear reply from you will enlighten me for futher contributions like Inscriptions with tamil translations mentioned about paraiyars.

regards - --Thistorian (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved your comment to the bottom of this page - this is where we generally add new sections on talk pages. I think that you would be better asking this question on Talk:Paraiyar because it relates to the article and is more likely to be seen by a range of people if place there rather than here. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the necessary. I am off out soon but I'll reply there when I return. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, where are the references for Y-DNA haplogroup G2a3b1 claim? The linked documents are not relavant to the claim. At least the Google docs linked earlier referenced to the correct claims.

Why r u removing d names of notable Sainis people? Wat proof do u wnt? All have them Saini Surname. This iz d biggest proof. If a person is from Punjab and have Surname 'Saini' then he/she iz 101% saini. No any other community in the world uses d Surname 'Saini' except d real Punjabi Sainis. Wen u dnt knw nothing abt saini caste, why u r editing it. Saini is a very powerful community of punjab. I dnt like d way u r editing and removing d refrences. I knw Saini Surinder, Harpal Ladda personally. Dey r mah frnds nd dey r 100% sainis. Hockey player Baljeet Singh Saini is mah far relative, he iz also saini. Pabla is pure saini gotra, den why u removed lt. soni pabla. he belonged 2 bilaspur village, hoshiarpur. i hv went many times his village. he iz 101% saini. so pls first get deeply understand abt saini community nd den continue editing. Thanx

-SAINI BOY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.5.161 (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read our policies regarding verifiability, biographies of living people and original research. There is absolutely no way that you can prove someone with the Saini name is indubitably and without exception a member of the Saini community. Unfortunately, what you know about these people counts for nothing here as you are not a reliable source (nor for that matter am I). - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I've uploaded the article from Indian Economic and Social Review that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find the link there. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as an effectively self-confessed sock (of whom I don't know, but it hardly matters) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 12:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! A user User talk:Simon5761 who says he is the "Promotion Team" for singer Jagjit Singh keeps making various edits on the article page. His major edit is always regarding the artist's image. Free image, he uploaded it. So i have no issues now with the image (although its not good enough for infobox. We cant see his face in there, even if it is a good resolution image). But he also keeps changing reference links. He does give other references which are applicable, but i dont see his point in reverting edits always. Hence i placed a Conflict of Interest notice on his talkpage as well as the article. He now removed that too. Now... why do i come to you? Can you please look in this matter? You are good with wiki policies. Hence you! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look if one of my talk page stalkers has not already done so. They're generally better at policy stuff than me! - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see you made a bunch of edits to the article (Sitush); I added it to my watchlist. I also note that the IP user has been blocked several times before for edit warring and COI related issues, so they're approaching their last straw. Let's see if any poor behavior resumes after your changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, My gut feeling is that the article is going to be drastically pruned and I have said as much on the talk page. I remember reading the UK obituary for the guy last year, but the present content appears nonetheless to consist mostly of hyperbole ... and of the rest, much of it definitely needs sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pls revert to madurai discussion page immediately. Amjath123 (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the start of a fresh organized assault from new accounts, so I've semi-protected it for a month -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for sorting out the sock crossing over from Yadav/Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is looking better every time. The bibliography isn't perfect: there's books cited in two places, I think. Boing, is it worth starting an SPI for the recent ones? The autoblocks might be helpful. Or do you think this is meat- rather than sock puppetry? Drmies (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your request to clarify the nature of outlines, I'll give it another try...

I can summarize the power of outlines in two words:

Taxonomical hierarchy.

Don't we already have that power with categories?

No, not really. Categories are so full of holes and are so prone to personal bias in category naming and tag placement that they are seriously flawed.

And, categories are click-heavy. They are so decentralized that this has become a burden.

Plus, detail counts. By design, Wikipedia outlines can contain more information (of relevance and about relevance) than categories.

Why does this matter?

For two reasons: 1) With relevant information, people can make better decisions on where to go next. 2) Computer programs can make better use of the taxonomies provided by Wikipedia's outlines.

It's the second reason that really excites me.

How can computers make use of taxonomical information about knowledge?

They can rank data extraction and data display options based in part on the information presented in our taxonomy. And they can get closer to "awareness" of what each thing is through our presentation of what classes it belongs to, and by what classes of thing belong to it. Search engine technology (via assignment of relevance ranking) is already springboarding off of Wikipedia. Outlines will make that even easier and more effective. This in turn enhances human awareness (the consumers of the data).

Whoa. What the *&^%bleep%^&* are you talking about?

Taxonomical technology, like this:

• "Intelligence in Wikipedia" Google TechTalk on YouTube, describing an intelligence project utilizing Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia articles could be auto-generated from web content

The core of the experiment above was the creation of a taxonomy from which automated article assembly proceeded. Using this or a similar approach, Wikipedia could in essence "learn" from its own content to assist in building itself. It's a form of recursivity: the taxonomy in outlines can be built in part from clues found in Wikipedia articles (and from clues available at-large on the Internet) → and in turn, the information in outlines could be used to determine what is missing from articles, insert it, and place it in the order that would be the most relevant to the most users.

The information "authored" by software bots could remain hidden until editors have had a chance to check it and its references for accuracy.

Another innovation might be using a taxonomy in conjunction with user-provided input to dynamically display Wikipedia content in an order that is most relevant to each user. And there are many other possibilities. Wikipedia is far from it's most technologically-advanced stage of development.

The more clearly the classification relationships are presented in a taxonomy, the better and more useful is the taxonomy.

What about helping humans directly?

One thing you can do is combine the power of the taxonomy and the search engine, using the data in the taxonomy to drive searches. For example, clicking on a link (or an unlinked term) in a different way to use that as a search term in a search (rather than going straight to the matching article or redirect). Sort of like this:

• Wikipedia:Tip of the day/April 9 – Search box bookmarklet for your browser

Also, outlines help solve search-related problems.

People have two main problems during their searches...

Synonyms are a problem for almost everyone. Outlines help to solve the synonym problem.

What is the synonym problem?

Things often have more than one name. People even make up new names (descriptions) for things as they go. But if you don't search for the right term, the search engine might not be able to help you find anything about the subject.

How do outlines help here?

They're conceptual maps. They show what's included in a broad subject and where it fits in with everything else in that subject.

What's the other main problem humans experience with searches?

Ignorance. You can't search for what you don't know exists. And it can be very difficult to search for something you know about but do not know its name.

Outlines show you what exists and what its called. So you can more easily find things you didn't know you needed or other valuable related resources. All in a summary format that is very quick and easy to understand and follow to potential destinations.

There are beneficial general effects as well. Outlines are chock full of search terms to fuel further searches. They are defacto word lists, and word lists have been proven to improve vocabulary. And Wikipedia's outlines are presented in such a way (in taxonomical context) to optimize the chances of finding the most relevant thing that the reader may want or need to know. That is, taxonomies display relationship information in a very compact and accessible way. These relationships are often obscured or non-existent in prose-based articles. Knowing that things are related, and how they are related, are important pieces of navigation decision-making information.

I hope this clarifies the nature of outlines for you.

If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Look what I ventured into: your territory! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. I need all the help that I can get while I await the creation of 48 hour days and eternal life. I've not actually been very involved with Indian extremist groups etc but it is one of those areas that I will probably drift into as I learn more of the background. The Naxalites, in particular, have quite an influence. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I just happened upon it. Interesting topic--you'll find some nice NPOV edits in the history. I've also redirected the article for the founder. The other organization mentioned maybe also should get an article. Some of the articles cited give interesting detail on the Laine book--what a mess. What idiots. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Maratha Seva Sangh ? I'll look into it when I've finished digging up (ha!) info for an article regarding a local botanist. I saw the wonderfully balanced viewpoints in the history, btw: elephant on one end of the see-saw, and a grain of sand on the other. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you fancy spraying some thoughts around then Wikipedia:NPOVN#Bunt_.28community.29 and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amitabh_Bachchan both need some input. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV issue is a bit too complex for me. As for the other club of thugs, I wasn't trying to put you to work! Drmies (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Thugs", of course, comes from Thugee - it sometimes makes it difficult to determine the context of remarks in Indian news media etc. The Bachchan situation keeps returning, both on the article and at List of Kayasthas. You'll see some comments on the article talk page. Sending that to BLPN was an attempt to get a reasonably long-term consensus to which any warriors could be directed. Thanks for commenting there, and no worries about NPOVN - like a lot of India-related diagreements, it will probably be ignored by the wider community. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

<--I see now that the article says he hails from a Kayastha family. The source is the worst piece of writing I have ever seen, and I thought the TOI was better than that. I could not object to its removal--it's like when a more or less respected Wikipedia editor has their account hijacked by an illiterate teenager. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I said as much about the TOI source at BLPN. Do not try to equate The Times of India with The Times: the latter is a "quality" newspaper, even with Murdoch at the helm. TOI stuff is almost invariably poorly written (although not usually quite so poor as in this example), and it also mangles content from other news sources, misquotes and "creates" quotes, gets basic facts wrong and ... well, you get the picture. The Hindu is pretty good. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you don't get? The Transhumanist 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It just generally confuses the hell out of me. I am going to read through it all again later tonight. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask you some questions to determine the source of your confusion?

Feel free to answer each question in its section...

...will help to track down the source of your confusion.

Cheers. The Transhumanist 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. I need to get my head straight first - a part of the problem may indeed be my present state of mind although, as I have said elsewhere, this has been puzzling me ever since I first saw it on CH's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mindmaps are another type of tree structure. Mind maps can be converted into outlines, and outlines can be converted to mindmaps.

Maybe these mind map views will help you understand:

• Outline of culture, as a mindmap
• Outline of geology, as a mindmap
• Outline of technology, as a mindmap

The Transhumanist 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: remember, when I talk about an outline, I mean a "hierarchical outline".

Sitush, i have produced below for your Editing in Paraiyar. from Thurston (1909), Vol. VI, pp.107-108

" Among Tamil Paraiyans there are families in almost every village, who hold a kind of sacerdotal rank in the esteem of their fellows. They are called Valluvans, Valluva Pandarams, or Valluva Paraiyans. Their position and authority depend largely on their own astuteness. Sometimes they are respected even by Brahmans for their powers as exorcists. It is often impossible to see any difference between the Valluvans and the ordinary Paraiyans, except that their houses are usually a little apart from other houses in the cheri. They take a leading part in local Paraiya festivals. At marriages they pronounce the blessing when the tali is tied round the bride's neck."

regards. --Thistorian (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at clarkpoon's talk page. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ww2censor (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Pilif12p 02:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I got involved with something on your territory--Anglo-Indian. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gawd. I wander off into the garden for a couple of hours - John Horsefield - and someone mounts a takeover bid. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you still want scans from this book? JanetteDoe (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I might do. I tried to find it locally without success ... and now I cannot find my notes! I'll let you know. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Any word on this?JanetteDoe (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked Nickk.writer and Beindian.ind as socks per WP:DUCK. Let me know if there are any others, and if you know who the sockmaster is, please tag. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

for what do u need a citation??? that the list mentioned to you above, whether have won sahitya academy, jnnan pith and National film award best lyrics and nandi award were true or not, or whether the list I gave you are telugu people are not???

(Vipranarayana (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)).

Dear user, c. narayana reddy, devulapalli krishna sastry, Sri rangam srinivasa rao, Jandhyala Papayya sastry etc have come from Telugu literature into the film industry, these are not good faith edits, sahitya academy award and jnnapith is given to literary excellence, please check history. the edits I have contributed, has to do with Literary stalwarts who contributed to andhra pradesh's film, not film people, the contributions I have made, are just the names, there are no sources required for it, I cant understand why editors, cant think good of a fellow editor. That too I have included my edits in a separate segment in the article, I cant agree with point of view, my edits are constructive.

(Vipranarayana (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)).

I suspect a quacking here —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You do? I've not had much involvement with the article other than a big clear-out in a short session. I may be missing the obvious. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am doing it for the n^th time —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, one of those. I'll have missed the action due to not doing much on the cinematic articles. Still, I know now. What I can never understand is why they even bother in their persistence. Thanks for the heads-up & I'll await the SPI outcome before wasting any more time on this. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

okay I will take the burden to add citation needed tag, but why ru crossing three revert rule and undoing my edit, I cant understand why some editors who needlessly take things seriously and wish to dominate wikipedia.

(Vipranarayana (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)).

(edit conflict)Hi & thanks for trying to explain. I'll now try to explain my thoughts! All statements made in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable using reliable sources and the burden for doing so lies with the contributing editor. I do not for one moment question your good faith, but your contribution to the Telugu literature article is nonetheless misguided and I would urge you to open up a discussion on the article talk page. The reason for saying this is because only a certain few people will see any discussion here, and most of them probably will not have much interest in the subject, but the article talk page will more likely get attention from a range of people who do in fact have an interest.

Just have a think about what I say above about the burden etc and then if you still have concerns then raise them at Talk:Telugu literature - I certainly might have other concerns but it depends on what you do next. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(post-ec) I am not aware that I have exceeded 3RR. I'll check and cross all my fingers. My apologies if I have, although almost certainly that would mean you have done so also. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response... Drmies (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to propose Horsefield for DYK but left it until the last minute and found you'd already done it. Can I suggest an alternative hook for your consideration? ...that artisan botanist John Horsefield was born dead but went on to champion the "ignorant and degraded" Lancashire textile workers? Richerman (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Aargh! That is genius. Do it! I have got myself in a real muddle with DYK. Do I need to suggest the alternative or can you step in there? - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I can add it myself so I've done it. It is a pain in the arse having to review another submission when you'r not too sure what you're doing yourself - do you need any help with the other review? When I did the one for Buxton the one I reviewed was complete crap - and I said so. The problem was the guy that put it up was a serial DYKr who was only interested in doing the absolute minimum to get the article to DYK and had no interest in producing a quality article. Getting him to improve it was like pulling teeth! Then I got accused of being misleading by saying that websites were unreliable and was told that most of the DYK articles were based on information from websites. No wonder Malleus says that DYK is crap and wont have anything to do with it. Richerman (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the criteria based on which people should be added to List of Iyers? Well, you see "Iyer" is a surname exclusively used by this community alone. You can check out Robert Kanigel's The Man Who Knew Infinity (I do not have the book with me now and cannot provide the page numbers). References cannot be provided on whether every person with the surname "Iyer" belongs to the community or not. But there are sources that at present, the surname "Iyer" is used by this community alone.

I have made more than 39,000 edits in Wikipedia and been here for more than 5 years. I have not been blocked or banned from Wikipedia ever. I've been ensuring that no blatant nonsense or propaganda stuff are added to the list. I'm not going to revert you again and fall into the trap but I'd rather suggest that you either assume good faith or request for expert opinion before edit-warring with me without prior discussion on the article's talk page. Many of the recommendations made in the Wikiproject India discussion page are not feasible (Issues on caste-based lists and articles should rather be resolved on a case-to-case basis than through a general consensus).-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ravi, I understand your concern but, honestly, you will never, ever be able to substantiate that a "surname" - be it Iyer, Nair, Jain etc - indubitably designates a person as being of a particlar community. I have had this discussion across several "Lists of" articles and the result has always been the same. Indeed, I know of several "Nairs" who live in Scotland & have not the slightest chance of being connected to India, and I went to school with an "Iyer" who would also fit into that category. User:Boing! said Zebedee recently said that they had a similar experience regarding the "Jain" name.

It is a tough one, and I do not for one moment suggest that en-WP has got it right ... but those are the rules. In particular, those are the rules if the person is still living, per WP:BLP. As I am sure that you already know, we have to be extremely careful when stating ethnicity/religion etc for BLPS. Bascially, it they do not self-identify then we should not identify them.

I apologise for not repeating the discussion on Talk:Iyer but, believe me, it has been said often enough and supported often enough. I'll dig out some links after I have had a sleep, if you want to see them. Just ping me. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Good work on the article, Sitush--it just so happened you picked a difficult one, suffering from one of the problems I signaled. Can you leave them a note on their talk page? Thanks, on behalf of Jimbo also, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would leave a note if I could be sure where to do so. If you take a look at the nom's sig a DYK, the blue-linked talk page goes to one person and the redlinked name goes to an account bearing the same name as the nominated article. Worse, although that account seems likely to have begun as an SPA, there have been some edits from it on other articles. So now I have to spray comments around because someone is using multiple accounts. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Today, you tagged Trinity Episcopal Church as relying on primary sources and possibly unreliable sources. Could you explain this for me?

It is sourced to a newspaper, the State of Michigan, and the church's own site. The last is a primary source, however, it is used to state their current address, one sentence in the history section, the donor of land in Hancock, and is redundant to the newspaper article in the last sentence. That said, it doesn't seem to me to rely on primary sources.

As to whether the sources are reliable, if a newspaper and the State aren't reliable, then little is. In my opinion, the church site is reliable except possibly for the one sentence in the history section. Chris857 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper is quoting people from the church for the facts that we use, therefore is the same as the church & is primary in that respect - it could just be church folklore/gossip etc. It also appears to be a local "rag" - nothing wrong with them, but their reliability (esp. regarding fact checking) is often dubious and they tend to consist of content produced by tyro journalists etc. The story about a floating church is not necessarily wrong, but it has the ring of being embellished by word of mouth over many years, it needs a better source, and it should have been reported at the time ... and probably in a "higher" level of source, if you can understand what I am trying to explain!

As you say, the church website is primary. Between that & the newspaper, almost the entire article relies on what the church & its congregation says. Is it wrong? Possibly not. Is it great sourcing? No. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I had provided citation of Hindustan Times on 16 January 2012‎ at 19:12 hours the first time. Now I cited Indian Express in my edit, which perhaps you did not see while reverting my edit because you refer to only Hindustan Times.

2. While there is documentary evidence that he was born on 10 May 1951 (hospital record, high school certificate and - most importantly - certificate by 14 Rajput Regiment of Indian Army in 1966) (see Indian Express citation), there is no documentary evidence at all that he was born in 1950. The year 1950 appears in Military Secretary's record because Singh wrote it in the application form, not because there is any documentary evidence of his being born in 1950 (neither hospital record, not birth certificate, nor high school certificate). Therefore it is not correct to say that there is "conflicting evidence." Where is the evidence of 1950, let me know.

3. You may check Indian Express and all other sources. None of them ever states that there is even a shred or iota of documentary evidence of his being born in 1950. The dispute is only whether the mistake (of writing 1950 in the first place) can be corrected at this stage or not for retirement purpose; the dispute is not whether he was born in 1950 or 1951.

4. "Personal honour" refers to his intent to correct the wrong records straight. "Personal honour" does not mean that what I stated in my edit is wrong.

5. Therefore I will revert to the text as edited by me. There is nothing wrong in what I wrote.

Rao Ravindra (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Ravindra Rao

Hello Sitush, One more reason why your edit is wrong.

The Chief of (Indian) Army retires on completion of three years of service as Chief of Army or on reaching the age of 62, whichever is earlier. Therefore if he has to retire with 10 May 1951 as his date of birth, he would retire on 31 March 2013 (because he became the Chief on 31 March 2010) and not May 2013 as you have written. Please stand corrected. Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had already reverted. The problem was that you used the Indian Express citation very poorly and, more generally, the wording was confusing. It is still not perfect, but it is better. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned you on a discussion relating to Gyan/plagiarism from WP. I think it was you who found this, but I'm not entirely sure, so feel free to correct me. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a mess. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I have replied on my own talk page but thought I'd ping you here. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The source said "Gurjar of whom Chauhan was dominant". So this theory states chauhan as gurjar which dosen't talk of them as Gurjar origin. So origin word there should be removed.220.224.246.59 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am afraid not. The wording is poor & I will try to improve it, but yours was worse unfortunately. I am actually tempted simply to remove the statement because that seems to be a very old source. What do you think?

Oh, by the way, if you check out WP:OVERLINK then you may understand the rest of the point in my edit summary. I usually link to it every few times but forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, Yeh, actucally my point was this, since this theory doesn't really relate to the origin. So this can be removed either. And regarding WP:OVERLINK, actually the word kshatriya was nowhere linked in the entire article, hence it was necessary since Rajput is major sub-clan of Kshatriya.

Lets conclude and do the final correction.220.224.246.59 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a go. I'll take a look later because I'm struggling to get my head round something else right now. I see your point re: kshatriya, btw. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fine. Have a look once you get time. I' am trying to improve it.220.224.246.59 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Drmies (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that I had made about billionaires were based on updated figures compiled by Forbes in September 2011, please check its website to get a clear idea.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 09:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you not update the citation/source? It is asking for trouble. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya ur right I forgot to update the source, sorry! Thanks.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome Sitush.I Don't get it what kind of problems.is removing inaccurate information problem.barkha dutt's article was full of it the last time i checked.it has changed quite a bit today.maybe some secret wiki editor was part of the private audience session at jaipur literature festival where she ranted about wikipedia.i didn't no how to edit before.today have tried to edit and remove malicious info.is that wrong.and i apologize if i stated the abuse used by barkha dutt for tinu cherian(he is the face of indian wiki or atleast pretends to be one).i mean come on anyone will get angry if such malicious informtion about them stays on for so long inspite of complaining.108.59.252.58 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to be careful not to accuse people of bad faith. Most contributors do not mean harm and most are not a part of some conspiracy, despite what ever it is you may have heard elsewhere. Yes, there were issues with Dutt's article but most of these have been cleared out and if she had any issues then there is nothing to stop you or even her commenting as such. We do not censor but we do need to be accurate, especially in the case of biographies of living people.

Correcting mistakes is a good thing but you have been making some very unfair comments about people and it will get you into trouble. You have even accused me of something along those lines. Wikipedia is read by and contributed to on an international basis: people do not know every detail of everything, otherwise there would be no need for this project in the first instance. I, for example, had absolutely no idea what "Society" was, from whom Dutt had apparently received an award (it could have been a newspaper, a pressure group, a political party or a shop round the corner from wherever it is that she lives!). I was also one of those who cleared out the article and, believe me, I am not even on the same continent let alone someone who attended the Jaipur Literature Festival. Nor had I even heard of the woman until a couple of days ago - she is almost certainly not as well-known a person as you appear to think.

So, feel free to edit but try to do so in a polite way, and remember both that there are 3.8 million articles on the English language Wikipedia and that mistakes will happen. You have made mistakes, and there are plenty of other newcomers to editing who will do the same - but we all have to start somewhere, don't we?

All this said, welcome aboard and if you have any concerns or queries then drop me a line. There are others who watch this talk page & who might hep out if I am not around. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston#Irritating POV/OR pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Calabe1992 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On 26 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Horsefield, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that artisan botanist John Horsefield was born "dead" but went on to champion the "ignorant and degraded" Lancashire textile workers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Horsefield.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

why you undo my changes , their was neither any source and second thing plz see the talk section the army was under DIWAN MISR chand a hindu khatri not under hari singh plz visit the talk page and see all the sourcesw further ask these sikh hero fans to provide source that from when did the hell hari singh become the commander of kashmir expedition. So have a visit and see it was DIWAN MISR CHAND a hindu khatri not a sikh who led armies into kashmir in 1819 and defeated durrani empire general jabbar khan. Therefore a sincere request plz visit that site and if you dont believe me ask these sikhs to provide reliable source who say that hari singh was the leader. 122.161.78.118 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

you must follow same set of rules , their is no source which say that he lead forces into kashmir because history is clear from 1813-1825 Diwan Misr Chand was the chief of ranjit singh armies not hari singh nalwa, i can only urge you to remain neutral and adopt same rules as you have done in removing the whole "BHATI "article on the basis of source this shows your two sets of standard. Where was the source about that kashmir expedition then how you undo my edit and to expose your double standard go to bhati page you deleted whole page first out of frustration as i praised your "MOTHER" in abusive way but now you are not asking for any source . go and see the talk section of the same hari singh page i have added all these sources these sikhs are like muslims they try to show that they are the bravest in reality "HINDU GENERALS CAPTURED 80-90% OF SIKH EMPIRE FIRST IT WAS DIWAN MOHKAM CHAND AND THEN DIWAN MISR CHAND"122.161.78.118 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing one unsourced statement for another unsourced statement is not helpful. Find some reliable sources, as you have been advised, and then the issue can be revisited. I have no opinion regarding the current content as it is not something that I have yet read up in any depth. Feel free to stick a {{cn}} tag against what ever it is that you think is incorrect, and feel free also to replace it with sourced content. However, if someone does come up with a source for the contested point and you find one for your "side" of things then the likely outcome is that we will show both positions. We are not qualified to determine which of several sourced opinions is most valid. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

for example that content reports "he lead the armies into kashmir" in short sikhs have made him commander of the expedition , i have given sources in the talk that the leadership was with Diwan Misr Chand and not with Hari Singh but as you have seen these millitant sikhs have started distorting history here and their and will claim we are bravest , no one objects but atleast dont distort history i have given sources in talk section of hari singh page , kashmir campaign was under misr chand not under any sikh.their is no doubt this is no ancient history this is simply propaganda by millitant sikhs. 122.161.78.118 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Later today I'll take a look at what you have said on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/news.html sitush i really want you to look into this, almost all the content on that hari singh page is referenced from this book by vanit nalwa who is considered to be a descendant of hari singh nalwa, she has criticized all hindus even those who were probably the greatest general of maharaja ranjit singh such as diwan mohkam chand, diwan chand, raja gulab singh of jammu, plz i really want you to look into this book this book is criticism of everyone apart from hari singh can we consider this a reliable work i dont know how you guys decide therefore plz see this the woman writer is simply ranting about her claimed ancestor many of the facts distorted all other "GENERALS WERE COWARD ONLY HARI SINGH WAS THE REAL LION" this is the basic thing which that books portray and further i will accept that book if atleast one more author agree with those contents on the basis of such work which is the only work which support those theory about hari singh. The work is more of exaggeration first of all the writer herself has not been cited by other scholars on the same topic.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have read the article talk page then you will know that I had already raised the issue of this source prior to your message above. I am seriously not interested in your shouty behaviour here: your general tone doesn't inspire a great deal of enthusiasm in me. You are ranting on various pages about the POV of others whilst aggressively displaying a POV of your own. Perhaps you need to step back from these articles for a while and let some more neutrally minded people sort the issues out? - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a read here. Thanks SH 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the real thing, both Victorian copies while researching at university and "live" copies I was a child in the 1970s. It is a penny rag and not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

i would like you to seriously consider the source provided in the origin of sardarji jokes, it seems another creative story by a hurt sikh writer who is trying to show the same thing "WE SIKHS SAVED HINDUS" the historical authority of this is negligible . i would love you to consider the nadir shah theory this is work of another inferior sikh to declare that we save hindus first of all delhi in those times were all muslim populace city further no such history is told we cant allow columnist to become historians and use their columns as source of history. plz have a neutral look at that theory.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

otherwise their are various blogs which claims various things and are derogatory at many places can we use blogs or columns as source of history, that too where the columnist is clearly a hurt sikh trying to impose his fake history on others.122.161.78.118 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I have had that page watched for a long time. If you have any issues with it then voice them civilly at Talk:Sardarji jokes. I suggest that you self-revert your edit to that article right now & take the matter to discussion. You may be right, you may be wrong but you are definitely going about things in the wrong way. You should add WP:CANVASS to the increasingly long list of policies & guidelines that I have pointed out to you. So far, you seem not to be reading any of them. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is for your recent work for Patna University. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratualtion! - around 5,500 on the day as compared to Richard Buxton (botanist) that got around 2,700 plus another 100 after the name change (I thought those original stats were dodgy). I wonder if it was the more interesting hook, the timing, or a combination of the two. I don't suppose we'll ever know. Richerman (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My money is on that hook of yours, all £3.27 of it. I don't bother with DYK very often but I shall be moseying over to you in the event that I try again! - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, pal. Happy to provide a tiny bit of assistance - my very first DYK review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete external links and sources. You are also deleting important articles written by honorable Nasim Yousaf. Mr Yousaf is a renowned scholar & historian. His articles are published by scholarly journals/publications such as "Harvard Asia Quarterly", "Pakistaniaat" and "World History Encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The external links fail our policy, as I have already pointed out to you. Similarly, the sources by Yousaf fail our reliable sources guideline. Regardless of his reputation, we cannot use self-published sources etc in this way. If he is of such a high standing as you say - and I do wonder about that - then why are those items not being printed by a reputable university press or similar? I also suspect that there is a conflict of interest situation here, given the extent to which Yousaf is being "namechecked". I urge you to self-revert and discuss this matter on the article talk page, after first reading the various policies and guidelines to which I have already referred you. - Sitush (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Nasim Yousaf is so notable that an article concerning him has been previously deleted. He is certainly vain, but not much else that I can see - and vanity is not a viable indicator of reliability. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into your suggestion. I am sorry to say, I would not agree with your changes. Your changes are making the article on Allama Mashriqi irrelevant. As far as self-publishing by authors is concerned, I know, many scholars like to retain copyright to their works and do not get their books published through University Press/traditional publishers. Such authors are not interested in Royalty etc. You seem to be ignoring honorable Nasim Yousaf's contributions to academic journals, History encyclopedias, and other publications. Also Please keep in mind he has presented papers in scholarly conferences in the USA. Nasim Yousaf's articles are well researched and highly informative. Many people, I know, have appreciated his contribution on the topic; he seems to be an expert/authority on Khaksar Movement. He has edited and compiled digital version of "Al-Islah".

You have deleted all the important information including Nasim Yousaf's article in a refereed/academic journal ("Pakistaniaat"). By deleting information, you are damaging the article on legendary Allama Mashriqi. Kindly keep in mind, your wholesale deletion and your request to delete Mr Yousaf's page cannot be without a reason. I request you to refrain from making unnecessary changes. Please do not take it personal. I have given you my opinion now it is up to you to decide. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a vain scholar whose main line of work appears to be as a manufacturer of towels or something similar, and whose close relationship to the subject matter makes him unreliable as a source. He spoke at a trivial conference or two, and has been published by a couple of extremely minor learned journals (one of which does not even seem to realise that its website has been hacked for months now). He paid for an entry in Who's Who and has contributed to a not-very-good encyclopedia about - guess what? - his relatives. Please, tell me what there is to like about this, bearing in mind our policies. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for dumping his valuable contributions. I am sorry, I cannot agree with you. You are cooking up stories against the most respected and a well-known historian/author (Nasim Yousaf). The bottom line is, you want his works and page to be deleted. Your language is enough to understand where you are coming from. Am I right?

I checked worldcat, his books are available in the top research libraries in the world such as Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Upenn, Yale, University of Cambridge, Toronto University. From my side you can delete whatever you want; you are certainly doing disservice to Wikipedia and many researchers around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are copyright libraries etc - it means absolutely nothing. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment speaks of your knowledge. You definitely need to do some research. Do not make unnecessary comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have time to discuss any further with a person with such poor knowledge. Go ahead and delete his page/references. Hopefully, it will please you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.108.113 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

read the anon IP attacks against you. They are intolerable. SH 08:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are only the ones that you can see! Some here were revdel'd a few days ago when they were operating from another IP (self-admitted). - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[8]. You can search for copy of the print ads online too, they're pretty good and the tv ads are on youtube. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. Regardless of its growing readership etc, the ToI remains a crap paper in my opinion. They get too much wrong, too often and a lot of the content is so lightweight (the size 0 model info etc mentioned by the ads) that it makes me question whether we should be using it at all here. Frankly, it seems to me to be no better than, say, the London Daily Mail ... and that is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The print ads are actually better as they're more realistic, but there comes a time when we need to start checking if the "news" passes our RS guidelines as opposed to just the newspaper. —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean celebrity cruft etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not just cruft, I mean real news. There are times when I've read four different papers the same day (ToI, HT, IE and Hindu) and three of them would have one interpretation of a certain news piece while the fourth would have a different one. Invariably, the fourth is mostly ToI and sometimes IE. Luckily, the poor editorial oversight hasn't spilled over to the Economic Times. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. And that is one reason why I like The Hindu so much. ToI & IE in particular even contradict themselves internally (sometimes on the same day!), and somehow manage to mangle stories even when they are based on agency reports. I've not had a great deal of experience with HT but it seemed ok on the odd occasion that I've taken a look. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Situch, I have added one column regarding hari Singh Deora in Chauhan Talk Page. please have a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.235 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. I had already replied, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New outline. Far from complete. The Transhumanist 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not forgotten about this concept - just getting a bit sidetracked. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, will you stop it with Nair, Ezhava, and all those other articles you own. You seem to control what goes in and out, and, since this has gone on for a while, I will be seeking administrator attention. I am also considering filing at WP:AN/I24.107.242.174 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Yadav- although you are usually correct you're still edit warring there, and I will be filing a WP:AN.24.107.242.174 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Gorilla Warfare's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted, seen your note there and responded. Another trip to a noticeboard appears possible! I am thinking of creating a Template:Top icon to record them, akin to the little icons that air forces use on their combat planes. OTOH, see the photo of the duck at near-top right above. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Standing at the water's edge, whether a peaceful pond or some roiling waters, and watching how the ducks thrive and flourish and socialize and splash about, is truly among life's great pleasures. And watching the geese as well. And on Wikipedia as well. Life is sweet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a case here. 24.107.242.174 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I am now definitely going to look at creating a template such as that described above! ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the temple man book right now. Do you want the entire book or just relevant pages?Mayan302 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased that you have managed to get hold of a copy - I know the frustration of wanting a book for my collection & not being able to have it! Much as I would like to read the entire thing, that is a very big demand on your time. - Sitush (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:)Hmm.i ll give u the pages relevant to the discussion for the time bein [9].i am quite busy right now.i ll send u the rest of the book in a week o 2.scannin the entire book is time consumin.this pdf may not be very clear.i used a mobile app to make dis pdf.cya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan302 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

this new guy is removin every sourced content frm the nadan article without any explanation.i won't near a real computer for another week.could you please look into it if u find time. I using my mobile to edit.it's very difficult

I have noticed. Similar behaviour going on elsewhere. Some of it is ok, some of it is less so. I'll try to keep on top of things but, in any event, the old stuff will still be retrievable from the history. Don't panic. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK.thanks.editin caste articles can b a real pain in the neck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan302 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

caste warriors such as yourself make it worse with all kinds of glorifications.Pernoctator (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just calm down, the pair of you. Mayan is quite protective of Nadar stuff, yes, but s/he has also demonstrated a high degree of willingness to co-operate. You, Pernoctator, have suddenly turned up & appear to be editing pretty much the same range of articles as I do. You clearly have been around for a lot longer than your edit history suggests, perhaps operating as an IP. That's fine, but some of your edit summaries are, shall we say, "punchy" and the one thing that (so far) I have not noticed in Mayan is a tendency to be a caste warrior. A bit of AGF wouldn't go amiss. Let's see if we can work things out between us. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not a reliable source as per whom?it it your personal opinion? and where might be the citations for others? Nijgoykar (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already left a note on your talk page. We may have had an edit conflict. - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

your edit at Nadan article.not every petty landlord or tax collector is an aristocrat right?.and they are ritually polluting too which means they are people of higher status than them.otherwise my understanding of the term aristocrat is wrong.one more thing all indian castes claim to be aristocratic or have an aristocratic past.lol.yeah no one worked in the fields or were labourers or menial servants.i hope you know this.Pernoctator (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We say what the sources say, and Hardgrave is still the source for Nadar stuff. He specifically uses that word and, if anything, our problem might be one of close paraphrasing rather than false statements - I am looking into that. If you disagree then by all means find another source that says so, and then we will have to show both opinions. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

just felt the term aristocrat is wrong as per the standard definition.also know well about caste warriors on wikipedia.so thought their edits can't be trusted.anyways i will take your word on the issue.Pernoctator (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

...where maybe you experise maybe used. This article, has some incredible nonsense and copy edits added to it. That seem to be removed and readded. Can you lend a hand? Thanks SH 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Expertise?! Give me some time & I'll mosey over there. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

can we remove native scripts? and use IPA.is this limited to only india related articles ?.i am quite out of touch.Pernoctator (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is complex and I am testing the waters a little. There was a RfC but it was very messy even in its closure. It applied only to India (which I am extending to mean pre-partition India in suitable cases) and the discussion was concentrated on geographic articles/biographies rather than castes/communities etc. I think it is probably best if you avoid the issue for, say, a fortnight. Let me take any flak and feel out where the consensus lies. Doubtless someone will kick up a fuss and everything will then clarify rather better than it has done so far. What we will likely really need is people who can handle IPA creation, and I am not one of those. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i personally would like the scripts out.there are lot of edit wars regarding this.Pernoctator (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And there have also been instances of some nasty insults etc masquerading as encyclopaedic info. But, like I said, the RfC was a bit of a mess and I am testing the limits. I have a fair few admins watching what I do and they will be quick to step in if something is untoward. Once a series of precedents have been set and are either unchallenged or resolved by challenge then we'll know where the limits lie. I'm afraid that the chaotic situation here seems pretty standard for India-related stuff. I recall one respected Indian contributor telling me on this very page that chaos is the way of life in that country, but I've never been & so cannot confirm! It's not a great idea to stereotype people but it was an interesting opinion, given that it came from "within". - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i have always learnt never to stereotype people.especially a diverse group of people called Indians.(India is probably more diverse than europe).though agree partially with the chaos thingy.also if i am not wrong it was probably BBC's Mark Tully who once said chaos is the way of life in that country.Pernoctator (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Tully may have said it, but here it was SpacemanSpiff or Sodabottle or someone like that, and it wasn't a quotation! If you want to experience extreme and consistent chaos then you could do worse than be a fly on the wall of my life. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded to Sitush, for their improvement of India-related articles. We are proud of you ! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Our favorite WP:Primary aficionado has returned from holiday. Our last little dance. Judging from this he's still going the tl;dr route. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed. If they drift into areas that I have been or am working on then all I can do is hope that their habits improve at that time. If not then they are likely to get extremely short shrift from me this time round. No way am I putting up with the crap that happened last time. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These editors have been at it for quite some time now (see discussions at Talk:Ra.One, a day's rest won't change much I feel :) (Grateful for the break though!) Lynch7 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for your kind comments at my RfA! Lynch7 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed! Cinema is not something that interests me and I dip into that area more by chance than by design. However, this particular group of people are going to have to learn to rein things in a little and we have to start somewhere. Says me, who feels like he holds some sort of record for being reported at ANI etc re: India-related stuff!

As far as your RfA is concerned, what I said is no less than you deserved. I have complete faith ... until you block me. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help in correcting the article Kallar caste. This article is being updated with information with out any references. Kallar originally meant thief and were involved in banditary till the 19th century.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h7cBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&dq=kallar+thief&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hlUHT5-cOeGhiAeYzuyUCQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=kallar%20%20&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=03qFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA581&dq=kallar+thief&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LVcHT7y9LMmeiQes0cypCQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=kallar%20thief&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dbw4fXovC1oC&pg=PT102&dq=maravar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_1kHT4e2H4uamQWu_JCxAg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=maravar%20low%20caste&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I dipped a toe into that murky pond recently and now have it watchlisted. I am dealing with a lot of other WP issues at the moment but, sure, I'll take a look at it when I can. Please remember that everything is still there in the history. If it takes me a week and no-one else turns up then just live with it for that time. There is no point in putting yourself in an awkward spot. Believe me, I know that from experience. If you have not already done so then please open a discussion on the article talk page. It will work in your favour if you are correct and the others continue with their behaviour.

As far as I am concerned, I need to read up on stuff and, like I said, I am a bit overwhelmed right now. I have nominated an article for "Featured" status and it is the first time that I have done this - the process is quite demanding but "I believe" in this one and want to see it through. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

...sometimes referred to as simple past. So, not "Peabody has gone further", but "Peabody went further". These usages are dependent on context--AE and BE may differ. I prefer simple, but again that may be a matter of taste. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, on that hyphen: User_talk:Drmies/Archive_24#Brassicaceae. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't trust anything by a sockpuppetteer who's causing problems, and the NR listing name is the default. However, you're absolutely right about the COMMONNAME thing, and you're obviously not a problematic sockpuppetteer :-) so I'll defer to your judgement on the matter. As far as I know, there's nobody at WP:NRHP who would disagree; look at the name at the top of the infobox of Court Avenue for an example of an article with substantially different common and NR names. By the way, the only thing that should definitely remain Koontz is the title at the top of the NR infobox, because that's always meant to reflect the name given in the NR listing; Green Leaves is given as an alternate name, while Koontz is the primary name. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and, yes, the infobox should show Koontz House. It definitely did but it was subject to to-ing and fro-ing due to the sockpuppet. BTW, your faith in me is not universally held: I have been accused of sockpuppetry on a few occasions and at least one of those did end up at WP:SPI. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Meant to say, I am not sure that I can revert the move. Can you do the honours? Or even honors? - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. But why couldn't you do it? The only edit in the GL history was the creation of a redirect from me moving it from GL to K, and any autoconfirmed user can move a page back in such a case. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think that I could move over a redirect. It is a vague memory of something I was told by another admin. Clearly, I've got that wrong - I'll have a go using a sandbox. Sorry about creating unnecessary work for you. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well played. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That was just editorial machination. The edit summary for this one is pure genius! Appreciate your input on this FAC. We are not going to agree about every point that you have raised but the positives far outweigh the negatives ... and I have had ca. 3 hours of sleep in the last 72 & really need to get my head straightened. Tinnitus is driving me crazy. - Sitush (talk)

Hey, so far so good. Fix that pillar! Oh, I need to leave a note on general stylistic remarks, but I'll do it there. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Left you a response to the Macaulay thing. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You said "jatland.com is GFDL but an open wiki". What do you mean by "open wiki"? In what way is Wikipedia less open than jatland.com? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing at jatland.com is generally non-existent unless they have mirrored our content. As with us, they have a lot of people wanting to push a pov but their articles also contain a vast amount of original research. Or, at least, the couple of hundred or so to which I have referred did so. Obviously, just being an open wiki fails WP:RS and I regularly have to remove citations to it. User:Qwyrxian is aware of the situation and we did at one point consider whether a filter might be worthwhile. I vaguely recall considering asking User:ReaperEternal about this but cannot remember if I actually did so. As things stand, I just do a search every few weeks, check the sourced article and inevitably find that there is nothing worth keeping. BTW, that article title contained Hindi script, probably because the contributor is a new to us and does not understand disambiguation. The real oddity is that I spent 20 minutes or so checking the usual sources for Indian castes/communities and was unable even to confirm that this group exists - it could be a complete hoax, although it could also be the case that the community is incredibly small. There are some such communities that had < 50 members, for example, when the last caste census was carried out in 1931 (& at least one "community" had just a single member!). - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you are working on the article in the creator's sandbox. I do not understand this at all as we already have Mohanbari for the place. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, I need to stop for a bit. I see that is a redirect. I'll go have a lie down. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was lucky for me - I did not check for a Mohanbari article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was screwing up big time. Grabbed two hours' sleep, which is something of a record for the last few days. Sorry for all the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For delicate thoughtfulness and not abandoning a fellow-in-distress. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Just stopped by to say Hi :) Nice to meet you.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Does wikipedia not accept the on-line articles as source. The article is sourced in that sense . This is a poor uneducated community , the numbers are not always important.Most of them are not aware of their identity. Only the name they know.Not even are they aware of the meaning.If the policy is depended on the number then you need a plebiscite , is it?Definitely that is not possible. Arniban Ssej 06:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

Replied on article talk page and sent it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

while cleaning up lists of notable kunbi and maratha people.i find some people who were listed as kunbi also listed as maratha.do you have any idea what separates a kunbi from a maratha ?.Pernoctator (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of similar examples, especially among the more widespread communities (eg: Yadavs). Just go with the sources. If the source is ok then use it, and if the end result is that they appear in two lists then there really is not much that we can do about it. However, if it is a BLP entry, the source has to demonstrate that they have self-identified, and so would need to be of a pretty exceptional nautre (eg: an interview). You will probably end up with lists containing about a dozen or so names, having pruned the other 90%. That is my experience, at any rate. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush

U have reverted my edits in the article Rajput. I want to ask what is there to discuss?

To improve the article, I added italic fonts ... What is to be discussed here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.159.235 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not just add italics. You removed valid requests for citations and you added the word "later". You have no means of knowing who converted when, nor indeed whether it is or is not an ongoing process. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush

Can we discuss it here ?

U posted a link of WP:RSN. I checked the page. Nowhere I found that Gyan is not a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.143.72 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made a wiki account. U may discuss on my account's talk page also. I am the same user who posted a message in this section from IP 1.23.143.72 just a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Try this. It is also scattered over numerous article talk pages and other venues. Never, ever use anything from Gyan, ISHA or Kalpaz (the last two are the same outfit as Gyan). - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have checked this [10]. But its just a discussion about Gyan publications with no conclusion. I mean Gyan Publications was never blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read all of the others also? There is a preponderance of evidence and a fair degree of consensus. Look, I can get some people to join in this conversation here if you want but they will all say the same as me and many will have vastly more experience than me. There is no way we use stuff from that publisher. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have checked all others as well. Nowhere I found that its has been blacklisted. Secondly, a user was earlier complaining that some Gyan books take content from Wikipedia. Its not mandatory that the book I am refering ([11]) is taking material from wikipedia. Moreover I was referring to the clan system of Marathas in reference to their lineage (Suryavanshi, Nagavanshi etc.), which is not even mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. So its highly unlikely that the content is taken from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already. Lynch7 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking content from Wikipedia is only a part of the problem. Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Mikelynch

"I think Gyan has been on the blacklist for quite some time already."

Please provide some source that it has been blacklisted.

@ Sitush

Honestly, will you not just accept my experience in this matter? If the point that you are trying to make in the article is a good one then there should be alternate sources for it.

I don't think that there is some rule that only one reference is not allowed. The source I am giving is a book from Gyan. But the point is "Has Gyan been completely blacklisted?" If yes, then please provide the source. Otherwise, allow me to restore the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gyan has been placed on the list of Wikipedia mirrors and forks here. The front page of WP:MF states clearly and without qualifiers: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

can you have look over the article. i am dealing with a language warrior.who insists on using hindi script when thats not even her mother tongue.also likes to issue bogus warnings.Pernoctator (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, just noticed you removed the caste information on Deepika Padukone. Instead of removing it altogether, I suggest we put it across neutrally. For instance, the fact that she is Konkani is neutral enough, but mentioning that she is Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin might be more problematic. I suggest we just mention the Konkani aspect. What do you say? Lynch7 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Konkani an ethnic issue? In particular since she was born in Denmark? In any event, I am happy to follow your lead on this one. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning Konkani is more informative rather than disruptive. "Konkani" is a fairly broad term, yes, its ethnic, but without the caste overtones. Lynch7 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, do you want to do the honours? Or even honors? - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Done :) Lynch7 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Before coming to conclusions without knowing the subject at hand, I would urge you both to try to understand the subtle nuances of the subject's identity. Swaroop Rao's edit makes it appear as 'Konkani ancestry' with a reference to an article that has 'Chitrapur Saraswat' painted all over it. Be aware that Chitrapur Saraswats DO NOT identify themselves as 'Konkanis', but as Chitrapur Saraswats. This community happens to be a very small community and this is what they call themselves. I'm looping in AshLin to educate you both. RicardoKlement (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. DP is alive, therefore this is a biography of a living person, therefore she has to self-identify as a Chitrapur Saraswat and we have to have a reliable source for that self-identification. So far, we do not. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Prakash Padukone's sister was my wife's neighbour for more than ten years. The personal knowledge I have helps me to put things in perspective. Deepika Padukone is a Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin, a community which counts itself in few lakhs and by the epithet "bhanaps" or "amchis" not "konkani' which identifies the broader group to which the community belongs. Her parents are both Bhanaps and she was born in Denmark because her father spent a significant part of his life training there to become a world class badminton player. Her mother tongue is Konkani. However, that does not resolve Sitush's point about self-identification, so I guess it is no go unless we find an interview or autobiography where she says so. Identifiction as "konkani" is not suitable. Either it is self-identified or bust, I guess. AshLin (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I thought "Konkani" is a much broader term and could be used with a decent enough source, but this works as well. Lynch7 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why have we then identified Deepika Padukone as 'Indian'? Has she ever self identified herself as 'Indian' ? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nationality was never a disputed topic on Wikipedia, not on the level of caste and ethnicity at least. Lynch7 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute or no dispute! I believe self-identification is key to establishing identity (based on what Sitush has been saying). Consider the case of DP, who possible holds Danish nationality. How do we know she is Indian? RicardoKlement (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No dispute is No dispute; Having no reliable sources (self identified) for castes comes under WP:BLP. Nationality does not. Lynch7 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RK, the issue is now becoming pedantic. I already concur with Sitush & so does MikeLynch that without self-identification, we do not include the caste/community to which she belongs/is reputed to belong. Where does the nationality question arise? AshLin (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

+1, this is becoming too pedantic. Lynch7 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RK has a point.if anyone's interested then there is tricky issue about Salman Khan 's religion.see talk page.15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know then that DP is Indian? What reliable sources claim so? The only thing that comes out of a reliable source is that she was born in Denmark, by virtue of which, she would be a Danish citizen! How is she an Indian? WP:BLP doesn't mention anything about castes in particular (I've read the link, and couldn't find anything related to castes per say - unless I'm missing something). On what grounds are we branding DP an Indian? Just because she lives in India? Pandit Ravi Shankar has been living in the USA for too long... are we going to brand him an American? RicardoKlement (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your response. I myself had reported the User in question at ANI for edit warring who has resorted to name-calling several times despite being warned about being civil. I would urge you to look into it. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you were behaving particularly well. Even if you think that you have policy on your side, WP:3RR almost always means that you need to stop the warring. There is an exception relating to biographies of living people but you are advised instead to take the matter to the BLP noticeboard as it is tricky. Furthermore, the conservative solution (always a good thing with BLPs) was to leave out the information that you were repeatedly attempting to add. I doubt that the ANI report will come to much because neither party had followed due process, but I will take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for a block on my account. I was trying to protect the page by urging the user in question to discuss the RFC on the talk page. I myself reported the incident at ANI as I thought it was going to lead to edit warring. I have consistently warned the user in question about it on their talk page... specifically about name-calling. If there indeed was an RFC, it should have been discussed on the article's talk page... (like you provided the link on my talk page). RicardoKlement (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

With all the effort you took to ask the other user to start a discussion, you could have started the discussion yourself. Yes, there indeed was an RFC .Lynch7 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynch, I was not the one asking for a change :) RicardoKlement (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

wouldn't anyone get irritated if bogus warnings of vandalism are issued.Pernoctator (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 3. I cannot see any relevant report at WP:ANI but you have presented a malformed report at WP:3RRNB. As I said earlier, it does not matter whether you are correct or not: you should not breach the three revert rule in a situation such as this one. If Pernoctator was unwilling to open a discussion on the article talk page then you should take that initiative. As it is, the pair of you have gone beyond what is acceptable. As your WP:3RRNB report stands, a reviewing administrator will not see much at all: it does not mention the article, it does not show the necessary 4 reverts, it does not show that you had warned Pernoctator and it does not show that you tried to resolve the issue on the talk page. All of those things are mentioned in the template that you have to fill in on WP:3RRNB. My guess it that it will be thrown out unless you fix those things ... and if you do fix them then the chances are that the report could boomerang on you. Sorry, but that is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no rule saying that the one asking for a change should start the discussion. Sure, the onus is on the other person to discuss, but you could have done it yourself, and saved us the trouble, and probably yourself a block. Lynch7 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Being irritated is no excuse for name calling. Sitush, if you believe that both of us had gone beyond what is acceptable, why am I the one to be blocked alone? I agree my report may be malformed - I don't care what comes out of that report - my only intent was to stop the edit warring and have an oversight look into it. It just so happened that you looked it and provided clarification, which I am completely okay with. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You were both name-calling. School playground stuff, really: one starts, the other hits back in the same vein. I suggest that you both just get over it & remember to be civil in future. Furthermore, if you do not want to pursue that WP:3RRNB report then I suggest that you make it clear there and save some poor admin a bit of time trying to figure out what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, Sitush! I realize I was never blocked, but that you left a 3RR warning on my talk page. As for Lynch (aka Swaroop), don't put yourself in high light with the use of words such as 'saved US the trouble'. LOL. No one asked you to butt in to the conversation. RicardoKlement (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oi! You are being uncivil again. There is no need to take a pop at MikeLynch - he is welcome here. I suggest that you apologise. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts Sitush. However, when I have tried to preach civility to others, only to have it backfire on me, I don't see why I should apologize. I'm done with this thread! Happy editing! RicardoKlement (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should count yourself lucky that MikeLynch - who is an admin - will not block you himself for this continued incivility. As it is, I'll drop yet another warning on your talk page. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ricardo, please note that if you keep on being uncivil you might end up blocked. I agree with Sitush, here: your behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)