User talk:Sitush

==Don't malign the history: you are terrorizing me :)

(Prashantv79 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Chandigarh Capital Region proposal

I've opened a centralized discussion there to handle a number of the different articles related to CCR. I'd like your input to see if I've broken down the articles correctly and if you think it's a reasonable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Carlos Slim

Hello. You have a new message at Free Bear's talk page.

Talkback

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

Next

Thanks so much for your hard work on Owl Woman! I can see that you spent quite a bit of time restructuring the information for better flow, with edits, and ensuring no CR issues. It seemed that the only other CR issue that you came across was related to Bent and Bent's Fort, which you removed because it's covered in their associated articles, which makes sense.

Questions:

• Do you think we're good to go for the Owl Woman article?
• Because of the number of places where citations needed to be verified, I'd like to take a stab at Anasazi Heritage Center - verifying that the right references are where they need to be, rewording the issue that TK identified, checking for CR issues and any editing that's needed. Make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You can move on to the next. I've got a fair bit more to go through on OW yet. Keep an eye on what I am doing there but feel free to self-check etc on other stuff. Do you understand why the section I removed was close paraphrase? And why mixing it up a bit breaks the slavish following of the structure of a source (moving that quote was a biggie for this, IIRC, but there are several paras where I have shuffled things around, added/removed bits for the same reason). - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. I thought some of the movement was for the information to flow better (removing the Wm. Bent section and putting him in with Marriage and issue, for instance. I'll go back to that portion of the edits and look more closely. The only place I saw mention of close paraphrasing was with the information that I thought you removed about Wm. and the fort. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Was that what you meant by "forking"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fork is splitting an article into one or more separate articles. However, it turns out that there were already articles for Bent etc, so if anything it would be a merge rather than a fork. WP:FORK - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I see. It seems most of the issues were with information I got from Varnell. Ok, I'll go back to the Anasazi. Thanks again!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When you get a chance, I have a couple of questions to run by you:

• Is it necessary to break up 1988 + operated + Bureau of Land Management into different sentences?
• Is it always necessary to reword, if the current words are really the best: operated? pilgrimage? I used "owned and managed" for "operated", but operated is clearer. I used "spiritual journey" for pilgrimage, but most people know straight away what is meant by pilgrimage.
• When there are a list of things that have no synonyms, such as places - is it necessary to break them up into separate sentences? Example: Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau. It seems confusing when they're not linked together.

(I also posted these on Checklist if you'd rather not clutter your talk page.) Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick update/FYI so you know where things are going... not at all a prod!!! I've made a lot of progress to the Checklist page, including some examples of article and source info from the Anasazi article, rules of thumb, ref info, etc. After touching base with Moonriddengirl and as a means of immersion, I've also started a draft for a revised Close paraphrasing article in my workspace. I have plenty to work on, am heavy into CP immersion, so no worries here, catch up when you have a breather!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Attacks

You've been personally attacked a few times on the Nair talk page and there's one username that means "Sitush's mom". I've obviously blocked this and a couple of others as part of the standard vandalism brigade (although they qualified for the username block), but if you feel offended I think there's an option for having the name redacted by oversight or something; I'm not entirely well-versed with that part of the policy, but you might be able to find out by poking around the UAA board if you're interested. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even I knew what "Amma" means. It didn't seem worth the effort of reading up on the procedures because it is not actually derogatory etc. Although someone might argue it is "passing off" I think that common sense would make it clear that it is not. I'll leave it for now. I am also inclined to leave the Nair Men section that keeps being added/removed. I have responded and the issue is dead as a consequence of my response. It may indeed be factually correct but without a source it is not going in the article. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The India Star

		The India Star
		WikiProject India thanks you for your tireless efforts in cleaning up India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the last 24 hours are anything to go by, my mother seems to have been reading up on some very obscure issues relating to Nair hygiene. <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Support and guidance

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for support and guidance in the review of examples on close paraphrasing. Your help increased my understanding where there were specific issues and specifically how to go about fixing them. Thanks for remembering from past experience that guidance helps me then be able to make sense of documentation. Thanks so much!!

Much more to come. There are some SPIs on the go and then, hopefully, things will settle down for me. I can't wait! - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations !!!

I would like to congratulate you for your valuable contributions to the article about Nair caste. Being a foreigner, you are taking so much pain to improve articles related to India. We Indians are really thankful to you. Congrats once again. - KoyilandySultan (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Madurai

Hi, If you are done with your cleaning up the article Madurai, pls remove the cleanup tag. Also it has been mentioned in teh reason as some important details totally omitted. Please go ahead with adding those details which you found omitted. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add that tag but it remains valid. It will remain valid even when I have done what I can because there are issues which I cannot resolve due to lack of access to sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. no issues. Wasifwasif (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whe will you be able to remove that.? The user who added din't reply when i raised in his talk page. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess and the points mentioned in the tag are valid: it contains a lot of trivia and is poorly written. It needs an expert because I can only do so much to fix things. It is not uncommon for articles to be tagged like this for a year or more. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of what you are saying. But tehre should atleast be one user who tries to do work on that article. Its better if that is, the user who added that bug. What will be the solution for this, in your opinion? if nobody cares and the tag continues to stay with no care. I already have informed in the talk page of the user who added the bug. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are possibly trying to talk with someone who "drive by" tagged. This happens. I have done it in the past. It is a valid action, although if someone pretty only does that then their motives might be questioned. There are periodic campaigns to sort out these tags, and there are also people who go round fixing things generally, and so the tag will be addressed at some point by one or more people. In the interval, it really does not matter what you think unless you fix the issues raised yourself. The article is pretty bad both in tone and content. It needs a lot of work. I am doing what I can, when I can. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dimbeswar Neog

I didn't weigh in on Dina Wadia because I was on the fence. Here is a similar situation. If you have a view either way, please say. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well with Dexthorpe

Hi Sitush request for help please. Have been working with Acabashi on sorting through and improving Lincs Villages. Never heard of a place called Derthorpe which redirects to Well - managed to find link to Thomas Allens book and it does mention Derthorpe. However in my memory Well was linked somehow to nearby Dexthorpe and I believe that its a typo for Dexthorpe. This place is actually just north of Dalby, although it seems that the locals used Well church, not Dalby church. Im finding it hard to cite that bit because it comes from Whites directory and that Historical Directories sites links seem to break every 24 hours. I do have some other references. But I need to be absolutely sure of what Im doing - cos I will have to de-redirect it, move it to the name Dexthorpe, and then re-link it - and I dont know whether to relink it to Well, or relink it to Dalby, Lincolnshire|Dalby, or obviously IF I can find enough, leave it unlinked as a stand alone page. Any help/advice appreciated. Panderoona (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Dexthorpe - pg 142 Pastcape -Dexthorpe Dexthorpe pg 161 Dexthorpe pg 156 I made this as a rough idea of what Im thinking of User:Panderoona/Dexthorpe Panderoona (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please god it isn't also in some way related to Derrythorpe! Some Derthorpe links:

• Lewis
• Poor Law Commissioners
• Moule
• Smith
• HofC #1
• HofC #2
• footnote
• Bell
• with Claxby also

It looks a bit messy, doesn't it? Sure, place names change and there are issues when using old sources, a notable one being plagiarism (by the sources, not you!). I am not sure right now that you can make a statement that Dexthorpe is Derthorpe, but I will see what I can be sure of. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OMG now Im really confused....... ho hum. Im sure it is the same place, after all, Well isnt exactly a large area, and generally it seems to come linked with Mawthorpe (which is actually listed today as being in Willoughby with Sloothby parish just to confuse the issue more) so I THINK(!) Derthorpe and Dexthorpe are the same place, BUT that it was known by both names in an either/or way. So... if I did write a page on it Id have to include said variations including links provided. Out for rest of day playing with my grandson, but will be back to try and work this one out further. Thanks so much Panderoona (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that they are the same. For example, Moule quite clearly calls Derthorpe a hamlet but Pastscape appears to be referring to Dexthorpe as remnants of a medieval village. Now, there is quite a gap between when Moule & Pastscape wrote but if the two places are the same then somewhere betweeen the two there should be some sort of reference to Derthorpe ceasing to be occupied, eg: some sort of parliamentary report on the census. I think that you need to be extremely careful here and not let your local knowledge cloud your judgement. These places may require separate articles (if they have articles at all), and on the basis of what I have seen so far it could well be WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR to state a connection. Since Derthorpe does not even exist now (if Pastscape is to be believed), I am not even sure that it would survive the notability test without several sources being present. As it is presumably not now an inhabited place, it is not inherently notable.

You need to take this to the Lincs project page and have a chinwag, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

yes that might be the best idea. As it stands Derthorpe redirects to Well, which is fine - but it would obviously be worth mentioning whatever I can find on Derthorpe (and or Dexthorpe) in the Well article, if its to remain a redirect. :) Panderoona (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

think you were right. Thomas Allens book names Dexthorpe near Dalby, AND Derthorpe near Well. Panderoona (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Socks

I don't think the VK page has been checked since the original decline. Also, the new legal threat is pretty similar to the old one, so I believe SK ought to be added to the SPI too. And you probably want to update the SPI clerk on your changes to the SPI for either a new endorse or decline. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Owl Woman

Sitush, I saw your recent edits and have a couple of things to run by you:

• Putting the citations in the same format. I really don't care what the citation format is in, I was just using a format that was used in other articles I've worked on and removing the p's was the least cumbersome approach (there were fewer of those). I see that you added back in "p." and "pp.". I'd like to have the same format throughout - are you saying that it's important for you to have the p. and pp. If so, I'll go ahead and add them to the other citations. Examples:

• 9.^ Hyde, p. 154.
• 10.^ a b c Hyde, 160.
• 11.^ Halaas, Masich, 12.
• 12.^ a b c Hyde, p. 155
• 13.^ a b Varnell, 9-10.

• As always, your edits are always polished. I think, though, that a couple of rewording attempts have put us back into "close paraphrasing" scenarios. For instance: She died in 1847 and was later inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. I'll go check that one out.
• A reference was taken out that I thought was needed: "There were four of these arrows and they were thought to have a sacred or medicinal role, which is why he was also considered to be an influential spiritual leader,<ref name=Halaas290/><ref name=Halaas14>Halaas, Masich, 14.</ref> "

Were you upset that I made some edits?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Update for the 2nd bullet: It looks like the place that I read that quote was not the cited source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I have not read anything about the HoF induction process yet, I would be surprised if it was close paraphrasing. And if it was then it would be practically unavoidable.

As far as I am aware, most people use "p" and "pp", as do the cite templates. There are situations where the number might refer to something else, eg: a verse, an act, a section mark in parliamentary papers etc. None of those apply here (yet!). I had not noticed that you had removed those p's and pp's which I previously inserted because I was doing them as I found the things & so was aware that there was a mixture in the Refs section.

There appeared to be two citations from Halaas for the same piece of information, This is redundancy. However, I thought that it occurred as two cites for either medicine man or high priest, instead of one for each. I will check what went on there. In the event that I've got it wrong, then I would prefer to see <ref name=Halaas14>Halaas, Masich, pp. 14, 290.</ref>. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, by the way, should really be on the article talk page, not here. However, since you have started I will just add that the map & the section containing it etc are not likely to remain for long. They are relevant to the fort but not of much relevance to Owl Woman. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the comments here because I got the impression you were upset. I just referred to the map - and it shows the placement of tribes mentioned many times in the article. I'd like that to stay.

I will go add "p's" to the citations - and your edit for combining the two cites from the same source makes sense. If you would like me to explain why I thought it was good to use both 14 and 290, I'd be happy to.

Really, are you upset?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in the slightest upset. Not sure why you should think otherwise. Aside from being pointlessly threatened with various actions under (subcontinental) Indian law, all is ok. Not got to the map bit yet but I did glance over the section about the functioning of the fort. It seemed good, but slightly off-focus for this article. Would be ok in the fort article if there is nothing about that stuff already, but leave it for now. Let me check Halaas - probably blindingly obvious. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal award

	The Taj Mahal Award For Extraordinary Efforts In Improving India-Related Articles
	Kind Sir, Taj Mahal himself would, no doubt, also be grateful for your going the extra thusumbu in improving India-related articles. With my gratitude, Hon. Tamil Drmies (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that I'll have to cease my wikigrumbling about the wikilove feature, which has perhaps been based on wikienvy. Cheers, Prof. I will be back on 18C prizefighters and defunct engineering companies of Manchester before too long, and probably pestering you for access to sources again. Have you seen the 1938 Gold Star up for sale on eBay? Starting price of a mere AUS$228,000. Yikes. I am clearly worth more than my bank manager thinks! - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty. I think you should withdraw all your pension contributions and bid on it. Wow--it's REAL pretty! Even my daughters think it's great. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

He has dropped the start bid by $30k since I first read it. There are a few issues with that bike, only some of which he has edited the blurb to reflect. One has to wonder why, if it is a special as he makes out, he has chosen eBay over, say, Sothebys or Christies. The short answer is that it does not have great provenance, the numbers do not tie up etc. Anyway, my model is better than that one, so there! As for you, spend what ever you have on your daughters. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-review: other articles

Sitush, just to synch up on three things:

• I think you may have missed this from my talk page, this would really help if you have the time: "I started the self-review on two other articles - and have some work areas where I have article, source and reworded text that would be great if you could look at tomorrow." The link is: User:CaroleHenson/Working list--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• With you and TK under good steam on Owl Woman, I'm moving on to my third self-review, Frank Weston Benson.

• I'm also not sure that you saw the additional relationship information that I added to Talk:Owl Woman#Occupation of land by Cheyenne and Arkansas (five bullets starting at 04:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC). Onward!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen all of the above. The weather is too nice for serious WP'ing right now, and I have some bricklaying to get done, so I'll be dipping in and out of things this weekend (unless the weather changes). Mix some mortar, lay a few bricks, have a rest to preserve the dicky heart, take a peek here, and back outside. Repeat. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good! Sounds like fun!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ride your bike, Sitush. Laying bricks, there's always time for that, and you're getting too old for manual labor anyway. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I can ride a bike in the rain. I can't lay bricks in the rain. I live in Manchester, a place (rather unfairly, as Malleus would tell you) known for its rain. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I should have asked you earler: I'd like to ensure that as I'm doing my self-reviews that I'm relatively on the right track. I know you're busy with Owl Woman and other efforts. Do you have a suggestion of how to approach having my examples reviewed?

By the way, I actually thought laying bricks might be fun - I know it's hard work from having done it for several of my landscaping projects, but rewarding, too - if you get a pretty path, patio, etc. out of the process. It's fun to see a tangible result of work after writing a lot. Thanks for help with a suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your self-reviews will not be wrong. There are two reasons for this:

1. I know that you are willing to learn and you have acknowledged that, with hindsight, there were some issues. The very act of self-reviewing is a massive statement to the community.
2. Anyone here who has a modicum of sense, as you do, will always be self-critical of what they have written

I think that a part of the problem here may well in fact be drifting into the area of self-doubt. Nothing wrong with that if it can be driven in a positive manner, but you do have to trust your instincts to some extent. Believe me, I do understand why you should now have that notion embedded in your head. Do not panic. Do the best that you are capable of doing. Everything here is under review, always. Continue to pick up on comments made by others (and query/challenge as you feel fit). I am far, far from being perfect and the same applies to pretty much everyone else who contributes. It is true, as TK said, that you are not a newbie any more and, in fact, you probably could award yourself one of those bits of wikiglitter, but we are all learning, all of the time.

There are some really helpful people in this place - C.Fred, Drmies, Qwyrxian, Boing! said Zebedee and Anna Frodesiak are among those that I have turned to recently & regularly for advice/help/comment, while others such as SpacemanSpiff and Moonriddengirl are truly excellent in their chosen specialisms. There are loads of others, so apologies to them for the omissions. By and large, most of the regulars I deal with are also possess a decent sense of humo(u)r - it always helps! And from your perspective please do remember that this entire exercise is supposed to be fun, in the sense that you are not obligated and do it because you love it. Once it stops being fun then, I suppose, you stop for a while. I guess that some of this is about building a network of people who you can turn to. You will not always agree with them but, hey, you probably do not agree always with your family/friends/neighbo(u)rs either.

As for laying bricks, well, my current health situation means that I should not be doing it at all (I am under instructions not to lift more than 4 kg/8 lb in weight, which makes mixing mortar somewhat tedious). But it also means that I cannot work, so "needs must". I'm not in a position to pay someone and, under normal circumstances, I enjoy it anyway. I have a house and it is 120 y.o., so either I fix it or it falls down. No landscaping etc involved & that side of things may never happen in my lifetime. I re-roofed the thing last year, on the basis that I should start at the top and work down; and re-wired, and re-plumbed during the winter, and partially replastered. But this year was supposed to be all about fixing crap brickwork and therefore weatherproofing the thing. It is unlikely to get finished per my plans because of the imminent heart ops, but we will see.

I will get to take a look at your self-reviews. I have to if only because I made a statement that I would. In the interval, just keep plugging away at the things. You will do nothing wrong by doing so. As for events at Owl Woman, well, that has dragged on a bit but it has done so because I am interested and thought it worthwhile building on the article. I really do think that this could be a GA candidate, and it will be because of your laying of the foundations/brickwork. So, there are big, big positives in all of this. Bear those in mind. What you do is integral to improving that which WP has to offer. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush - you had me at the first paragraph, but I appreciate your input. I think it's fair to say that it's not tons of fun at the moment because I wrote about 60 articles - but I'm not in a panic - to your credit you've discerned that it's important for me to do a good job, and that's why I asked. (I'm what's called overly-contientious.) MRG and I are getting close on the revised "close paraphrasing" article - and that's fun, hoping that will be helpful to others. I guess I still consider myself a newbie because I don't always understand the short-hand language that transpires between editors - where they immediately understand the issue and concept - and I'm lost. I do get your point, though, thanks! I'll keep working away - but have been pacing myself more lately with real life. I know my mother-henness isn't always helpful, but please do take care of yourself! --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl has only recently done some work on the close paraphrasing article. It is a nightmare of a subject and, IIRC, Truthkeeper88 may have been involved that time round also (not intended as a detrimental comment). I will repeat what I have said to you previously: I would be astonished if I have not transgressed. The entire subject is very awkward in practice, and even more awkward to explain. But you are in good hands with MRG. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you meaning to say that you'd prefer to finish working with me on "close paraphrasing" and I should work with one of the other editors you mentioned above or MRG? If that's the case, I understand, I know you've been busy with the Nair article and are now digging deeper into Owl Woman. (not in a panic, just wondering if I'm reading you right, possible I'm misunderstanding). Yes or no will suffice, if you wish. You've been a great help over many months, so I will understand either way. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but I am not always around and, in any case, I am not always right. It is never a bad thing to be part of a wider group. Indeed, the whole Wikipedia thing about consensus relies on there being a wide group. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Drmies may pop in at some point, in between riding his motorbike, performing his admin duties, discoursing to his students and being adored by his daughters! Not necessarily in that order. See Green children of Woolpit as a recent Featured Article in which he was heavily involved. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, for the time being I'll go along with what you said above: "Your self-reviews will not be wrong. There are two reasons for this:

1. I know that you are willing to learn and you have acknowledged that, with hindsight, there were some issues. The very act of self-reviewing is a massive statement to the community.
2. Anyone here who has a modicum of sense, as you do, will always be self-critical of what they have written"

and continue my self-reviews.

I appreciate what you said about being part of a wider commmunity and will look for opportunties to reach out to others, too. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sitush for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahirs copyvio

Same text is to be found at http://mahendragarh.8m.com/HISTORY.HTM too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajput

So, Rajputs are like, the top, "royal" Indian clans, correct? That's what I gather from reading Rajput, anyway. So, would I be correct in assuming that when I start to go aggro on Rajput clans, as I've described on Talk:Rajput clans#More generally..., I should expect serious resistance? As I said in that talk space, I'm going to wait a while before doing anything drastic--the message was kind-of "fair warning" that the day of reckoning is coming. And when I start going through, I'm going to have to go into all of the linked articles to look for "hidden" verification. But is me moving on that article putting me in the crosshairs? Not that that's necessarily going to stop me, but I'm trying to figure out what I'm getting myself into before I do it? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had minimal involvement in Rajput-related stuff but, yes, I think that they are indeed at or very near to the top. I would presume that this still leaves them below the Brahmins in the varna system. MatthewVanitas appears to have been involved quite a bit and is another, like us, who is merely trying to make WP a fair and reasonable place rather than a cruft-ridden, POV place. However, if you do weigh in there then, of course, I am always willing to assist with sourcing disputes etc as and (more likely) when. I will take a look at your comment and don my flameproof suit! - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

T'ing is, with Rajputs, is they're pretty much the guys with the strongest Kshatriya claims, all things being relative. Bearing in mind that there's a pretty strong Brahmin argument that the Kshatriya were wiped out back in the Vedic days. Rajputs certainly [i]consider[/i] themselves to be Kshatriya, perhaps the only Kshatriya. Back a year and some ago when I first posted on Talk "hey, I'm not finding any really definitive cite for Kshatriya, does it have to be there and/or so definite-sounding?" the basic reply was "let someone dare to remove it from our article, and the floodgates will open!!!". I semi-finessed it into "considered as", which I feel is generally accurate.

I don't have all the details on this since I've been stuck on Deccan articles, and helping Sitush with Kerala a little bit, but some chaps on WP:INDIA said that actual academic history pretty clearly indicates that the Rajput were at one point too far from the Hindu homeland to be Hindus, so just basic out-caste/heathens. Later they were incorporated into Hinduism, at which point I reckon they may have been Shudra as Hindu-ised outcastes. Then at some vague point they signed up en-masse for military campaigns, smacked around enough people to gain some street cred, and then either elbowed their way into Kshatriya, found some helpful Brahmins willing to cut deals and "discover" a mythic past, etc. Bluntly, it looks to be nearly exactly what the Maratha did, except the Maratha apparently didn't do it as convincingly since apparently it's a lot less edgy to doubt Maratha Kshatriya-hood than Rajput.

That's my basic read on the matter. Y'all may have noticed I've been a bit swamped In Real Life and thus not as helpful the past couple weeks, but if it'd help Q. I can try to devote whatever Wiki time I have (aside from just defending/reverting current revised caste articles) to providing some support on Rajput issues. Are you primarily doing Rajput clans? That's going to be a fun one; were you around when I just ended up purging Maratha clan system from 40 screens of names down to one screen of concept? With Rajput clans, the ticklish bit is sorting out which clans are generally agreed to be Rajput, which are allied to the Rajput and considered as members though technically adopted, and which claim to be Rajput but are rejected by all other Rajputs as imposters (see Lodhi, which is predictably vandalised by removing one key sentence from the lede). Alternately, you can do what we did at Maratha clan system, delete any pretense of making a list (since such will invite constant tampering) and just explain in concept what a Rajput clan is, and refer to several off-wiki British chronicles or whatnot which purport to list and categories the Rajputs. Note what I did at 36 royal races, another article where there's an ice-cube's chance in hell that any list of 36 names is going to remain un-mucked with for even days.

Just a few ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Yes, the task I am thinking of taking on right now is Rajput clans. Looking back, at the history, it looks like I ended up at that article by accident when I came to answer a Semi-protected edit request back in Novemebr 2010 (one of the random tasks I do from time to time is reduce backlogs at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests). Since then, there's regularly been requests to add or subtract one clan or another from the list. When I was looking at the most recent one, I actually took a closer look at the article, along with a few linked clans, and really realized how badly sourced and, overall, unverified it is. Since I currently lack a "big project", I figured I might as well tackle that one.

As for a "plan", the next step is to wait. While I don't expect there to be a sudden flurry of verification, I'm going to give the article about a week or so (maybe two, since real life might just keep me busy until then) before I do anything. That way, I've made the initial good faith offer by saying "Hey, this is unverified, how about somebody who actually added this stuff verify it?" My next step will be to go through and just scrape out everything that's not linked and not explicitly verified with an in-line citation. After that, I'll start going through the wikilinked stuff, and saying, for example, "Well, it says that Chandela is a Rajput clan, but there's no references...lets see if Chandela has any references to back that up"? If it does, even if I'm not sure about the quality of the references, I'll probably leave it be. But if there's no references, I'm taking it out, and definitely taking out any specific details that aren't referenced. I'll probably assume for the moment that the Tod reference is sufficient to verify the Ancient 36 (their inclusion, not details about them). Then, at some point after all of this is done, it will be time to start looking at the actual sources themselves. However, at that point, I'll probably have to stop or turn over the work to someone else, because the vast majority of sources are offline, which means I have no access to them.

This will clearly take quite some time. Plus, my assumption is that in the middle of this process, there will be numerous objections that need to be answered. Ideally, of course, some of those objections will include reliable sources that can be incorporated into the article. My goal, of course, isn't to remove info as much as it is to be sure that what info there is is verified, so whether that is achieved by removal of unreferenced info or addition of referenced info is perfectly fine.

It may well be that, at the end of the day, the best solution is the removal of the list (save the Tod list) like you did at Maratha clan system, but we'll have to see what turns up at the end of the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While you're looking at that, I'd also glance at Category:Chhatis Rajkul ("royal races"). I have concerns that this cat will be ripe for abuse. The Col. Todd list of "36 royal races" is, as I understand it, not necessarily definitive, as it wasn't his original concept and he was just taking down whatever folks told him. I've already had some trouble with, for example Ahir, where they found some RS cite stating that Tod's list includes the Ahir, and yet when I actually look at the list they're not on there. I might take that to WP:INDIA as a "an RS says X, but X appears to be demonstrably not the case". I'm not even totally clear if the "36 royal races" is completely by definition Rajput, mostly Rajput, or what. Similar problems with Category:Ruling Hindu clans, Category:Ruling Kurmi Clans, Category:Ruling Jain clans; need to figure out if those cats have any legitimacy, or if it's more "the Fooians once produced a king/dynasty, so the whole ethnic group is royal." MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Madurai and Coimbatore

This is what you're looking for. The GO for city expansion was issued (which was the Tamil doc with the new sub-regions of the cities and their population), but there's confusion as to when that comes to effect and probably more flux now because of a change in govt. Sodabottle will probably know more about this as he'd have edited some content on ta.wiki about it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am particularly concerned about context. Eg: are they estimates and, if so, who calculated them; has the contributor here synthesised the numbers etc. Stats are so easy to abuse. I'll check it out. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The nos themselves are not estimates, they are from the 2001 census. A couple of years back, the govt decided to expand the boundaries of a few of the cities. So the population just includes those parts from the '01 census. However, I don't know if anyone knows if that's been done, this is a rather cumbersome process and they had set a target of 2011 to complete. But with the change in govt, I don't know if it's happening or not (agsin, I'm not saying it is or isn't happening, just that I don't know). Sodabottle and Ravichandar84 have an interest in these matters, so they'll probably know. —SpacemanSpiff 20:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Sodabottle. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are 2001 census numbers and not estimates. The tamil document is the govt order for expansion of city limits. However, this order hasnt come into effect yet. It ought to come into effect from the 2011 local body polls, provided the new govt doesnt cancel the order (in TN canceling the previous govt's schemes and orders is the norm). So the current status is a govt order has been issued but not implemented. Thus we should be using the pre-expansion nos and not the post-expansion ones. (A mention could be made in the article body though. I have mentioned this in coimbatore article as . Such a merger will increase Coimbatore's population to 1.26 million (2001 census figures) and its area will be more than doubled to 265.36 km, )--Sodabottle (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should certainly be mentioned somewhere. It may also be one of the "important" things mysteriously referred to in the maintenance hat tag at Madurai. I would much prefer some sort of English language source or a translation but will do my best based on what Geico2000 wrote. Not now, though, as my dog is getting itchy paws & needs his walkies. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

SpiceJet

I have reverted your removal of colors from the fleet table. The color is acceptable and is per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines). —  Abhishek  ^Talk 10:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But the centering is not. Should be using css not html. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot see where the guidelines you link to mention that the colour is ok. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

See the sample fleet table mentioned under the Fleet section. Besides this format is followed across all airline articles in wikipedia (even for centering). If you have any objections, raise it at WT:AIRLINE. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 10:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I will. Not the colour issue, but the mark up issue. If only because of WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Here's the code for the sample fleet from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines):

{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="3" style="border-collapse:collapse" |+ '''Foo Fleet''' |- bgcolor=#ccccff !Aircraft !Total !Orders !Passengers !Routes !Notes |- |[[Boeing 737|Boeing 737-300]] |3 |0 |148 |Europe |Out of service in 2099 |- |[[Boeing 777|Boeing 777-200ER]] |2 |1 |220 |North America | |}
—  Abhishek  ^Talk 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now asked the question. Projects cannot over-rule the wider community and the issues surrounding using html for alignment of block elements can be considerable. I accept that different browsers also implement css in different ways, however! I am really not that fussed about the colour issue: it seems wrong that we should subliminally promote carriers in this way, but I have far more important things to worry about. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whether colors are allowed or not, you'll also have to take into account WP:COLOR, especially the point about accessibility to our color-blind readers. Sometimes even the simplest of stuff may cause problems, as I found at one of my featured list reviews. —SpacemanSpiff 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking from R.V. Russell directly?

Greetings, I'm really digging R.V. Russell (1916) now that I'm reading more of his stuff, and he covers a plethora of precisely the sort of castes we're weak on covering: "low", "criminal", etc. castes. Jugglers, thieves, magicians, musicians, etc.

His work seems pretty professional, more early-20th academic and not too terribly much Raj-apologist. He does clearly cite other works, seems to have a lot of direct observation and results of field interviews, etc. In the interests of expanding coverage, and in-line with the precedent of, as a starting measure, chunking the 1911 Britannica into WP semi-directly, I'd like to start grabbing whole sections of Russel and using them to start articles like Mang (caste). I could take the section covering the Mang, clean up the tone/style, remove any undue ramblings, apply WP formatting, etc. and then put the "taken from a work in the public domain" tab at the bottom. I'm pretty sure it's PD by now, and it's on Gutenberg, though since it's Brit I'm not totally sure how I need to mark it so it doesn't trip the Copyvio 'bots. If this idea is a go, maybe we could submit a new template equivalent to the "taken from 1911 Britannica, a work in the public domain" spiel?

Let me know if this sounds like a course of action to you. I would of course tag them "one source" in the interim, and newer data would of course be a good addition, but personally I would feel comfortable using Russel directly without fear that it'd be pure Victorian clap-trap.

On a complete side-note, do you mind if I steal you "keep calm and carry on" image for my Talk as well? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

See Keep Calm and Carry On for the backstory. I'll take a look at Russell & let you know. I've been having a bit of a slash and burn 24 hours! - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Sex Ratio, 2011 Land Acquisition Protests

Hello, Sitush. You have new message on my talk page. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for your comments on my contributions to the Human Sex Ratio wiki page. I am fine with the way you now left my contribution.

On Land Acquisition article, I will seek direct citations, instead of relying on synthesis of data within the article or report; I will also not rely on links to Wiki articles that you feel may be suspect. As for rest of my citation and comments, see my talk page.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit

Did you clean out the copyvio on this one? I see you've edited it so don't want to spend time looking at it if you've already done so. I'm coming from a CCI that includes this article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I cleared some out of it. I doubt that I got it all because it was my intention to return. I'll go through it top-to-toe tomorrow if you want to move on, although you're probably more experienced with the CCI tools than I am. Can ping you when completed. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The case is here and it lists all the diffs of text addition, so if there;s anything that's left over, you can check that out. It's better to look at the diffs rather than existing text because even if the existing text doesn't look like a copyvio, it could be derivative. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits on Kashmiri Pandits

Hi,

This is regarding this edit, reverting content with contents mentioned as unsourced.

Please check the page for 'Jagti' to get the mentioned content. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The jkmigrantrelief page seemed to be mostly irrelevant: different month, no indication that the project was completed etc. I had already checked it. If you could prove that the thing was actually finished then it might be worth a line, citing the source that supports the completion. Otherwise, all we can say is that "it was begun in 2007", which leaves things dangling a little, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly suspect section of Ahirs

This section Ahirs#Abhira_jatis appears to be another Abhira bit shoehorned in to prove that Ahirs can be of other varnas. Again, as mentioned on Talk, I'm still vague on the Abhira/Ahir connexion, and one of our blocked editors was the one that brought in this section as a hedge against the Shudra designation. If you're taking a peek at refs, this might be any area to check on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that. Will get round to it eventually. I'm not keen to get massively involved in Ahirs right now but pruning is pretty straightforward stuff in situations like they were earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we archive Talk:Kashmiri Pandit?

There's a huge amount of gobbledygook on Talk:Kashmiri Pandit, can we pick a hack (mid-2010?) and archive any discussions pre-dating those? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to archive @ 6 months. The bot will not kick in for a few hours. It can be tweaked if things go wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir kleanup

I'll try to knock out KP cuisine later, and in the meantime I've created Category:Kashmiri Pandits. Also went to Category:Culture of Jammu and Kashmir and sub-cat'ed the conglomeration there. Also created a cat for the religion Category:Kashmir Shaivism, as its minutiae articles were clogging up the J&K cat.

Also found Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel‎; as history it's ludicrous, but as historiography it's fascinating. I'll try and get it some real refs, and then steal the 1880s missionary map outlining the theory to pretty up the page.

This is a fun change of pace from the Deccan and the South, but I do see we keep running across the same kind of people wherever we go... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nair talk page

In my experience, any time a relatively new editor rants/worries about being blocked in multiple posts, its an indication (though not a guarantee) that they're either a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. I only recently started following that talk page; does the writing style of Vivwiki seem particularly identifiable? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is a sock alright. I am leading him/her on a little in order to develop the point. I've come across this "cardiologist" before, and he even cited that same occupation IIRC. But for the life of me I cannot put a name to it right now. Looks like a bit of a sleeper account to me, as it has dabbled a little over a long time.

Now, on a different subject, take a look at what I've just done at James Tod#Reputation if you have a moment. Would you trust that guy as a source in caste articles?! - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, I'll keep that in mind when I edit Rajput clans in a few weeks. I'll probably leave him in, but I may consider removing the list...MatthewVanitas is probably right, that the best thing to do is transform it from an article listing the Rajput clans into an article discussing the Rajput clans. Of course, then part of me wonders why it's distinct from Rajput...or maybe there's a way to make it about arguments and disputes about what constitutes a clan, or not. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, bear in mind that Tod kinda plagiarised his list of the 36 royal clans. The list is in his book but it is not his list, if you see what I mean. I am hoping to have cleared some of the backlog of "near done" stuff before too long (was that a pig I just saw, at 500 feet?). I'll join you on that venture if my heart op is done by then. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL - I'm (in)famous

Brilliant! - I get paid for doing this? - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

400$ an hour!!. Where do i sign up?--Sodabottle (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In Liverpool, apparently. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If they open up an office in France, this might be useful. I've just found put from the AN/I report just above this one that "POV-pushing" in French is "le POV-pushing".--Shirt58 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Jats #2 < User talk:Abstruce >

Hello Sitush,

I am really sorry that I was not able to reply instantly after You posted a message of My talk page! Well, I have reverted that text, till we can resolve it; if I won't be able to convince You, then I won't add that again. But atleast, I would like to try and convince You :)

First, I would like to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War with You. The Hindu people believe that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, and a number of historians suggests the date mentioned by Me, in the added text to the 'Origins and genetic studies' section of the article 'Jat people'. We do have an article here on Wikipedia regarding that, its: Gita Jayanti. In this article it has been stated very clearly that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, so I thought that it might be safe to mention a date alongside. [Check-out the stuff here: http://www.google.co.in/search?q=mahabharata+war+5000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a].

But Dear Sir, I will be very honest with You, I live in India, and there is another school of thought here that suggests that maybe The Mahabharata War took place around 1500 BC. We even have such an article on Wikipedia in which this date has been mentioned, it's: Indo-Scythians in Indian literature. [Check-out the stuff here http://www.google.co.in/search?q=mahabharata+war+1500+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a].

And believe me, if You would try to google the dates of The Mahabharata War, then You will encounter both of the dates; isn't it frustrating? But, since the celebrations in India are done as per the older date, so I believe it's preferable. The two different dates could be due to the controvercies between these two theories: Indo-Aryans or simply Indo-Aryan migration vs. Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory One of the dates seems to have been invented to suit a particular interest, theory and propaganda. But, I believe I should avoid discussing that at the moment. So YES, I used it as a date to refer to The Mahabharata War (as per the celebrations of Gita Jayanti done every year in India). Also, in case You allow Me to add that text to the article, then i would like to refer to The Mahabharata War rathar then any such date, that's for sure.

I have a very interesting article to share with You: http://www.bvashram.org/articles/105/1/Mahabharata-The-Great-War-and-World-History/Page1.html (please do have a look!!!). By having a look at this article, You will realise that how confusing the history of The Indian Subcontinent is!

So, I hope it was not unreasonable to prefer that date over 1500 BC.

And Dear Sitush, The author C. V. Vaidya has been highly focused, trying to discover the history of ancient Hindu India, so I though maybe I should use his reference in the section which is dedicated to the Origin of the Jats. Like in his book History of Medieval Hindu India, he suggests that Jats are further mentioned in a 5th century grammar treatise by Chandra, in the phrase अजय जर्टो हुणान ajaya jarto huṇān”, which refers to the defeat of Huns by two Jat rulers under the leadership of Yasodharman. This gentleman seems to have been really interested to highlight the Jat History in ancient period. And as Jats are one of the 36 Ancient Royal Races of The Indian Subcontinent <http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_marque_royalraces.htm>, so I believe that their ancient history desverves some attention! Thought, let's not get involved into another topic, I personally do not believes in racism but I used this reference just to highlight that when people say that Jats power rose to prominance during the Mughal invasion, they forget that the Jats are a part of the Ancient 36 Royal Races, and have had kingdoms before as well. Maybe sometime in future I will raise this topic on teh talk page of article 'Jat people'.

Since the connection between Jats and Yadavas has been accepted on the page; so I thought that maybe it would be safe to add more text regarding the connection between origin of Jat ethnic group and The Mahabharata War, as a number of Jat people believes that they have originated sometime around the Mahabharata War, and have an ancestral connection with the Mahabharata War. I hope You are getting what I mean to say. As per the Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory, Jats are those warriors who were able to win The Mahabharata War, but had to migrate 'Out of India' due to political unstability of the region due to the war.

So, I thought maybe I should highlight the other side of the history suggested by some scholars. that's why I added that text. But, I have revereted it; and maybe it might be not reasonable to add the text as it is question as well, that shall be fine. But if You feel that the text can be added to the section, then please do let me know.

Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You cited one source. I asked a very simply question: what is the title of the chapter in that source? I asked this because I can see the original version of that source but the page numbers do not appear to match those that you cited. This seems to be because you were using a reprint. I am not quite sure why the above wall of text has appeared in response to a simple query but let's start from the beginning here since it appears that most of what you say above is unrelated to what you added to the article.

I did not ask that you remove the content from the article, by the way. I just wanted to check out the details because I could not make much sense of them. We'll work through stuff, don't worry. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Thanks You once again for being so polite. I guess I am just messed up with My own added stuff! I want to drop the idea of adding that content to the article, since I don't have enough grip over the subject. I am dropping the idea to add that content to the article. I think I would like to study the subject deeply and get to aware of the views of some more authors about the subject. I am sorry to reply a bit late. I discussed it with some of My friends who are students of history, to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War, but interstingly some suggests it around 1500-1400 BC, while some suggets roughly about 5000-4500 BC. If You ever come to know the very exact date, please do shate that with Me! P{lease pardon me, but I think I would like to go in more details of the subject and the earliest mention of Jats in any Sanskrit Literatute overall. Right now I am not in a position to discuss the subject, in case any user wants Me to. I believe it's best if I shall drop the idea of adding thay content at the moment, and do some more research. Pleas let it go for the moment. I am sorry for Your consumed time. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of Tea for You!

Dear Sitush, Thank You for always being so polite, practical, and understanding towards the less experienced Users, like Me :) Abstruce (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop berating others

Hi,

The behavior edit1, edit2 is repelling. Please avoid it in the first place, and more even taking it to userpages to give unsolicited demeaning advices to third party against users. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, er ... - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want this trinket, just holler and I'll switch it off. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Might as well leave it there. I use Twinkle quite a lot but will read up on this. As I understand it, one advantage of this (sometimes) cf Twinkle is it auto-fills the edit summary with a "revert B to A", so if used judiciously it could save me some keystrokes. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You might be interested in what's being unearthed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)