User talk:Sitush: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:51, 20 October 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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.

Khatri

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

JSTOR requests - Social Scientist, 1985.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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) Sitush[reply]

Hi Sitush please see my message for you here..Cheers Intothefire (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush please my message for you on the Khokhar talk page where you have again removed a valid citaion Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure ...

... you understand that my edit summaries at Kunbi were not directed at you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that, thanks. I was overwhelmed with other stuff, notably the DRN discussion, and the massive influx of contributions was more than I could handle with my patchy access to those sources. I am quite concerned with regard to the revisionist behaviour but what's one more headache of an article when there are so many. I'll contribute as and when I find something worthwhile. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kachwaha article

Your lack of historical knowledge shines through in your edit of the kachwaha article. Many of your so called 'unsourced' materials comes from the books that are put in the References, and if you do not have the copy of the books yourself, you should have been sure to do some research before cutting out whole important sections on the assumption that they are 'unsourced' as you have done. Particularly, alarming is your removal of the whole section on the Kachwahas and the Mughals, which is not only a turning point in medieval Indian history, but an extremely important elucidation on the reason, that the emperor Akbar was able to absorb the rajput military machine into an integral part of his empire. The role of Raja Man Singh I in the conquest and administration of many parts of India, and Afghanistan has been totally removed. The injunction and the creation of the Shekhawats had been totally removed. The capture of Shiva ji, by Mirza Raja Jai Singh I has been totally removed. The founding of Jaipur has been totally removed. These are just a small parts of information related to this clan that is lost due to your edit. Another example is where you removed the reference to James Tod, you failed to notice that the original article infact did not agree with James Tod's view, but nonetheless gave his opinion, while putting in alternative opinions from other historians (whom can be named, with slight research, interest and effort).

The previous status of the article was admittedly in a poor and confused state, but your removal of information from history books through your assumption that they are 'unsourced' is equally damaging to the authentic history that the article had to offer.

I have been away from wikipedia for a long time but I shall try to become more involved again now. I would appreciate, that if you want to know from where the information is sourced or if you think something is unsourced please remove the particular sentence not the whole section. Additionally, I will be glad to help you to look up the source and authenticity of the information.

Rajpitroyalust (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire unreferenced sections and the article has been tagged for various maintenance issues for ages. The sources which are available do not appear to support the statements. You can lecture me as much as you wish regarding your opinion of my "historical knowledge" but reinstating this information as you have done is not acceptable. You may wish to refer to the Five Pillars in order to familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia operates. but if you are already aware of those issues and the problem is really one of understanding the things then feel free to ask for further advice. In the interval, I will be removing the content again, although I will first check the citation which it appears you may have added in respect of one outstanding requests (thanks for that). - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

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. The thread is Possible compromised account.. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life dude..I laugh on your joblessness and your limited knowledge

You are trying to confuse people by establishing that Yadav, Yadava's etc are different and thus have found a way for writing bad things about Yadav's on the page.

I pity you. and pls stop writing on page about ban and all. You should be the 1st one to get banned for making 1000s of reverts in a day.

god bless you. may you find a job soon