User talk:Sitush

PRODed some more

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

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

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

Hope you feel better soon

Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.

Spread the good health by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New article E. A. H. Blunt, and whole book with pics of Indian Civil Service cats

Just a small start, but I'll cut-paste the photo in a few days. Any suggestion on specifically which copyright tag would apply to British books from 1907? Or do I have to use Fair Use for some silly Albionic reason? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

This is why I liked doing US topic for WP:MILHIST: any photo taken by a US federal employee in the line of duty is public domain, so I've illustrated, for example, Military history of Sikh Americans with photos from last year, since they were military public affairs shots. Boy, do I wish Crown Copyright worked like that... MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the person I always turn to with tricky copyright questions is User:Moonriddengirl (the alter ego of current community liason User:Mdennis (WMF)). Try hitting up her (non-WMF) talk page; she (or sometimes her talk page stalkers) has always been helpful in the past for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Unsigned

Sitush

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sitush,

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

Khatri page

Hi Sitush,

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, I'll revisit the edits in full later. With regard to the images, the edit summary says "remove: the linked articles have no verification of Khatri status". That is surely clear enough? We need some sort of verifiability that those people are/were members of the Khatri community and according to the summary it is not apparent. As an aside, it might be worth you being aware that there appears to be a growing viewpoint that these sort of images should not be in the infoboxes anyway: it is an issue that has been raised several times recently, in discussions at various articles, templates and (if I recall correctly) WT:IN. I would be surprised if consensus to bin them does not emerge sometime in the next few months, although obviously that has no impact on how things appear now.

The Khatri article is a bit of a mess even after my clean up, isn't it? Disorganised, numerous verification problems, puffed up, poorly written etc. It needs a lot of work and it is my intention to try some polishing when I have read up on the subject. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Resource request

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

its a honour!!

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

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

Your view

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

Kshatriya

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

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

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

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

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

Sitush

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

You are damaging Wikipedia ..

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

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

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

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

menon talk page

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

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

resource request

Hi Sitush,

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

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide

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

Removing references

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

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

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

Talk:Vaikuntha_Kamalaja#Removal_of_M_L_Varadpande

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

Khatri

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Origin 1. 2. Origin 2

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

Are you jobless???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kunbi DRN

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

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ganpal

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

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

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

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

I have just found another example of Gyan's cavalier approach. Compare this by them to the original from an academic publisher two years earlier. If nothing else then

This is probably why MSA Rao considers that the 'term Yadava refers to both an ethnic category and an ideology'. Indeed, the Yadav leaders succeeded in their fusion project since they persuaded their caste fellows to downplay the ...

in the Gyan book, compared to

This is probably why MSA Rao considers that the 'term Yadava refers to both an ethnic category and an ideology'. Yadav leaders succeeded in their social fusion project since they persuaded their fellow caste members to downplay the ...

in the original. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ganpal

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

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

I have spent a little time studying the polymathic Mr/Mrs/Ms Google, searching for "Ganpal" and "Gunpal". I omitted law reports because there appears to be a reasonably well reported case involving one person with the Ganpal name, and I omitted Ireland (as a country, not a last name etc) because that kept popping up but is clearly irrelevant to the article. I also tried the searches with a space between "Gan"/"Gun" and "pal", which gained a lot of irrelevant hits for "gun pal" in relation to military comrades etc but nothing else of use.

I am afraid that my conclusion tends to be the same as yours: there are no reliable sources at Google Books or indeed Google generally. Now, it is certainly possible that information is out there but not covered by Google, and perhaps not even in the English language. However, as things stand, it does not look good. Given that most Indian communities do at least manage a passing mention somewhere or another, I do have to question whether this particular community "exists" and, if it does, whether it is notable. (In theory, all communities of this alleged type are notable, but there has to be at least something to verify that they exist.

There are, of course, a lot of subdivisions of major caste groups, and a lot of those no longer exist. Some of them may never really have existed but nonetheless appear in reports such as Raj censuses due to various administrative errors & issues involving sankritisation. But the lack of sources is going to be a major problem, I honestly cannot see your article surviving the scrutiny of Wikipedia's policies even though I do not doubt that you believe the community to exist. WE have to adopt some sort of rules here, otherwise it would be anarchy. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR requests - Social Scientist, 1985.

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

Khatri : Kshatriya or Kshatri

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

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

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

29th Feb

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

<g> - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of cited content and citations from articles

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

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

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

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

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

Response 1 from Intothefire:

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

I will discuss the specifics of each article on the talk pages .

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

stay away from article rajput

stay away from article rajput. you have too much activity in that page. get a life you moron , get a girl or get a man. dont come to rajput page.. just stay away