Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 20 July 2015

Sitush is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Balija page edited with proper sources but had reverted back again

Hi Sitush,

U had reverted our page again, But we had given proper sources only but u had mentioned that as Unreliable one, whats wrong with my below proof.

By Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar. It mentions an inscription edited by Dr. Fleet, Vol XIII, p.185, in which Turagavedanga (Thiruvenkata ?) is mentioned as the "scion of Bali race" as Kishkinda-puravar-sevara and Bali-vamsa-odbhava. The publication "Genealogies of the Hindus, extracted from their sacred writings, pg. 48-49" mentions.The Epigraphia Indica, by Bhandarakar, Volume 42, p. 37. Yashoda Devi mentions in her book The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.: Administration, literature and society.

The above one is a strong proof and how everytime u r reverting back and we are highly disappointed due to this ,see we are describing our Heritage and its true and not a fake one right.

Not necessary for us to do this and to to edit wrong information in wiki.

Kindly check once again and revert back

Karthick

The Misplaced Pages Library needs you!

We hope The Misplaced Pages Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Anyone who attends this should probably thereafter be treated by default as a meatpuppet/tag-team member on en-WP in so far as matters relating to policy changes etc are concerned, and especially so in relation to policies that affect civility and the related favourite topics of the en-WP GGTF. What the heck are the WMF doing here? - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for this instance, but "ally-training workshops" are not a new phenomenon at academic institutions in the english-speaking world. They're typically not limited to gender issues (and they shouldn't be) like this one seems to be, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of them before. Sounds like yet another piece of management-speak spreading out of the US.

It involves paying $9000 to the Ada Initiative, a cosy WMF home-from-home where the "right-on" former journalist (and rather calamitous former WMF head) Sue Gardner has a major involvement. The idea of an invitation-only, closed session for practically anything related to Misplaced Pages is anathema to me, except where legal issues are of concern. Also anathema is the notion of discussing strategies for wikilawyering to achieve preconceived goals, and especially so when there is no evidence at all to support premises such as that women are put off this place because of perceived (and highly subjective) incivility. This place is infested with gender warriors from both sides of the debate (Gamergate, anyone?) and it pisses me off, in large part because the various rows etc are taking out good content creators and creating an environment of interminable and tendentious lawyering.

There have been attempts to set up women-only spaces here, there is the WMF-hosted echo chamber called the Gender Gap Mailing List, and there is also a women-only mailing list hosted by Systers that has been promoted here. All of these, and more, are ghettoising strategies and suggest a politicisation that is at best dubious in the context of the WMF mission. That Roger Davies has just referred to a substantial amount of "backchannelling" in an open arbcom case just adds to my concerns - I know that at least some of that would have been necessary but my bet is that much of it was not and was basically just more attempted hijacking of a specific situation for a wider purpose. There really isn't very much that could or should be done via backchannels when the spirit of this enterprise is supposed to be open-ness. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think ally-training workshops themselves rose out of activism/academia, not management. But this one certainly seems to have a lot of issues. Ally-training is important, but it cannot become the WMF's raison dêtre, that would be ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Babur

Hi. Hope you're well. I noticed the article on Babur was up for reassessment. It has been almost a month since you initiated the reassessment and the fixes haven't been made yet. Do you think it's time for it to be delisted? Cowlibob (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've not made much progress with it and neither has anyone else. Plenty of people have raised concerns, however, so delisting would appear to be the correct course. - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. It seems that because it was an individual reassessment and not a community reassessment that as nominator you'll have to formally close per this page: Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment or else I would have done it. Cowlibob (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sitush has edited the page significantly before this discussion, and therefore I don't think he can delist it; or even if he can, should not, just so we can play by the rules. It seems to me that there is enough input from enough editors to call it a community reassessment. Drmies and Abecedare both do not seem to think there is a quick fix for this, and RegentsPark did not seem terribly happy with it either. Drmies did not comment on the review page itself, but I don't think that means discounting their opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde--I did leave a comment on the talk page to that effect, and there have been no significant changes since that time. As far as I'm concerned delisting is still warranted. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just took another look at the article and many of the concerns I mentioned (prose, sourcing, MOS issues) persist. Here is one short extract from the article that illustrates all three:

One of the enduring features of Babur's life was that he left behind the lively and well-written autobiography known as Baburnama. Quoting Henry Beveridge, Stanley Lane-Poole writes:

His autobiography is one of those priceless records which are for all time, and is fit to rank with the confessions of St. Augustine and Rousseau, and the memoirs of Gibbon and Newton. In Asia it stands almost alone.

So I agree that the article should be delisted. Since I commented at the review, someone else should make the final call though (at least that is the convention at AFD, RM etc discussions). Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have delisted the article as an uninvolved editor as there is clear consensus among all involved that many issues remain. Cowlibob (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Babur, Emperor of Hindustan (2002). The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. translated, edited and annotated by W. M. Thackston. Modern Library. ISBN 0-375-76137-3.
2. Lane-Poole, Stanley. "Babar". pp. 12–13. Retrieved 2015-06-12.

For your eyes only

....if you have the time/inclination. Enjoy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

Hi Sitush, in the open Lightbreather arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tomara clan

Dear user Sitush, edits in Tomara Clan wiki page with reference of Sh Jadunath Sarkar, an eminent historian has been undone by you, please look back at my edits today that you had undone, i added a very well known province of erstwhile Jaipur state. You seem to be taking all reference of British Raj out, they had their reference in oral traditions as books were not common in that era gone by (especially for very local history of smaller provinces) , with that in mind how is it possible to provide reference if its not via books or historians of an era gone by ?? also please let us know on what basis you throw out some references while allow some books as references, please provide a path for us to follow to refer something. If your criterion is that any book older than 40 years is unaccounted and can not be used as reference then it will be tough to provide reference, especially for smaller and lesser known places and its people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjtanwar (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarkar is certainly not as respected as he once was, and your edits introduced a lot of other dodgy sources etc. We do not say things just because someone documented it: the sources have to be reliable and the consensus is that pretty much everything from the Raj era is not, especially where it relates to caste issues. Can you not find any more recent sources? It surely cannot be difficult to establish the Tomara rule of the Jaipur region? - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For offering genuine advice and looking out for other editors, even those who may not see eye-to-eye 100% of the time with you. For taking steps to start discussion on a sexual harassment policy and doing so with the intent of aiding fellow editors (both individually and generally). For showing empathy and concern and for taking a more diplomatic approach to issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't quite put it all into words that make sense, but I was delighted to see your message on my talk page today. Unexpected and thoughtful. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EvergreenFir. I am much misunderstood regarding these issues.

FWIW, the RfC proposal to have a specific sexual harassment policy is making a mountain out the downward tip of a spiral molehill on a sloping iceberg. That form of harassment is just one of many, all of them inappropriate and all upsetting in equal measure to the target. Thus we'll need to introduce similar separate policies for race, religion, disability and so on ... and all of them will say the same thing, paraphrased as "don't do it". I'd guess well over 90 per cent of cases that would be reported would also be highly subjective, while the remainder would be so blatantly obvious as to be already covered by things such as CIV and NPA. The exercise smacks of tokenism and will just lead to a lot of lawyering. That Jimbo supports it is almost a rubber-stamp of its tokenistic nature. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

↑ What he said. Misplaced Pages has a lot of people who like playing lawyer, and are encouraged in this by Jimmy Wales who has a tendency to issue pronouncements on situations he doesn't really understand. I've not seen any credible proposal yet that isn't a variant of "if someone asks you not to do something again, don't do it again unless you can demonstrate that you have a good reason to do it". – iridescent 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is, there's too much procrastination on here. I've I'm knee-deep in article work (and I generally work in areas nobody else is bothered with), I will miss all the drama and policy stuff flying around through not concentrating. It's only when I think "what shall I do next" that I drift onto talk pages which leads to ANI and dealing with silliness. Ritchie333 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy relates to you:

6A) All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:

1. Mike Searson (one-way)
2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
4. Sitush (one-way)
5. Scalhotrod (two-way)

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Men's rights movement in India: just FYI

. I guess you didn't get very far with it? Bishonen | talk 17:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

No, sorry. I'm not going to do, either. The likes of Gorman, Tarc, The ed17 etc would love nothing more than to try to hit a target painted on my back. The encyclopaedia's primary purpose is thus diminished: it's about time we got a grip. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agri group

Hi, Sitush,
I was looking at a malformed article called Agri language and I came across the articles Agri people and Agri caste. Is this the same group? What is the typical designation, "people" or "caste"? Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz 15:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Same community, and I think most people (sic) would consider them to be a caste. Articles should be merged and every single unsourced statement removed. You'll thus end up with a single sentence, which itself is poorly sourced. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Fed up

Here we go again. I'm fed up of being mentioned in ArbCom proceedings, even when they do not escalate to being a case, and I'm fed up of seeing the outcomes of such proceedings being manipulated by a lynch mob of pettifogging WMF acolytes and POV-pushing warriors who do bugger all where it really matters on this project. Now everyone go figure why I haven't been editing much of late, and why I'm going to be editing even less. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy. Soham321 is in trouble and he is look for some friendly parenting :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

They mentioned you because of how well they get along with you. In this case, it is a complement. I did have to look up what pettifogging and acolyte meant. My tiny brain can only hold small words. Bgwhite (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care why, although Soham is misguided if they think I would be likely to defend their generally disruptive behaviour just because at one particular article there was someone who was even more disruptive. My bigger concern is that the more I am dragged into ArbCom stuff, the more it opens opportunity for twisting by the, erm, twisted people who are attempting some sort of power play here. I'm also rapidly moving towards the view that no sitting arb and no past or present employee/contractor of WMF should be allowed to perform admin actions that involve imposition of sanctions, and that the WMF need to shut down some mailing lists and IRC channels. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)