Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:58, 11 June 2012

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.

Periyar River

When you see a fact that you have known from childhood, is mis-represented in wikipedia, i thought, it is right to do the discussion. But a lot of questions are still unanswered.

3 Questions 1. Why are the following references of not available in the topic?

  http://www.nias.res.in/docs/B4-2010-%20Mullaperiyar.pdf (also from IISC)

  http://en.mapatlas.org/India/Mountain/Sivagiri_Malai/7177/road_and_satellite_map 
(No other documents show the origin of the river, the Sivagiri Peak and the boundary)

2. Why is that text used in the topic is copying the words and not the complete stuff?

  Why it is spreading half truth?

3. Discussion of the topic seems to more towards where the Sivagiri peak is situated.

  The point I was raising was the logical reason why this mistake was made. 
  I don't see any reference to the argument that i was putting forward in the entire talk. 

The point that i did not discuss, is about the 114 sq km of catchment area, this area is not near the Sivagiri hills, but the near the Indira Gandhi National Park.

Sorry, it may be seen as rude, but the fact that people who does not know anything about the topic is taking decision based count of references and not the quality. For better judgment of facts in this issue, the following items should be considered 1. Nature of the writing and the author, whether he is an involved party (eg. Politician) 2. Understanding of the terrain, give importance to the references that deals with the origin, people who visited the area/understand the nature of the boundary between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. 3. Analyze the facts

Anilkumar.p.76

You need to raise these issues at Talk:Periyar (river), although you should read the discussion there before doing so because I am fairly sure that most of your queries have already been dealt with. Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of stating only that which is verifiable using reliable sources, and we show all points of view that are found in such sources. We do not accept original research, such as your suggestion that before people make a decision they should visit the area and understand the nature of the boundary. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you said, it. You are "Fairly sure". It clarifies my doubts that whether you did read the topic or not.
Do you have answers to any of the 3 questions that I asked?
I did not edit the topic, but put my arguments in the Talk, but you removed it. And now you are asking me raise the issue in Talk? What else was that i did earlier ?
I believe the criteria of reliable sources and points of view are not accounted in this topic.

Sitush, you have a blind spot, you think the old stuff is good, the people with whom you have a good rapo is good. Probably you are too old to accept anything new.
Anilkumar.p.76 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained at your talk page my rationale for removing your numerous and repetitive comments on the article talk page. Like I said, removing your comments was not something that would usually be done but I used some initiative and I invited you to reinstate them in the appropriate place. You are still welcome to do that, but expect trouble if you start to attack me as you have done above. There is no need to get personal about this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To me you are totally illogical.
1. You removed my talks and asking me to do that again?
2. You yourself, is admitting that your activity was rude
3. Unless and until i get my answers, how can i be sure that my talk will not be removed again? If you can give me answers for the questions that i raised, only in that case i am to add my comments.
4. Not interested in playing any games.

Thanks,
Anilkumar.p.76 21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sitush

Hi Sitush, thank you for your edits on Paramahansa Yogananda...I learned a lot and will make improvements. Please help me understand how to communicate clearly about the colored picture of Yogananda. I thought I did it correctly. What am I missing.? The picture is copyrighted by his organization Self-Realization Fellowship but I thought it was ok to use because he is the subject of the Misplaced Pages page. I have not used this image anywhere else. I also gave complete credit to SRF under the picture. HELP? And again thank you...Red Rose 13Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to File:Paramahansa Yogananda Standard Pose.jpg. Our criteria for non-free use is pretty strict. My thought at the time of tagging the file was that since we have images of the subject there is no need to risk using an image that is copyrighted. I could well be wrong here because I notice that one of the other images on the page is a book cover that incorporates the same portrait as you uploaded and, of course, the cover design will likely be copyrighted. I am not great with image stuff but the deletion review will be done by someone who is competent to determine whether or not the thing should stay or go. I'll see if we can get some input from someone here who knows quite a lot about this area - they may be able to guide us. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two copyrights involved here: the copyright of the original photographer, and the copyright for the people who recolored the photograph (it looks like a recoloring to me). The first copyright has expired - see File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg. The second, as far as I can tell, has not expired (you may correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not very familiar with the photograph and only know that apparently the black and white version fell out of copyright). The rub here comes in that Misplaced Pages, as a policy, does not use copyrighted works where a free version could be used instead (this is partially US law, and partially just our policy). And the black and white one, being free, would be a valid substitute for the above image. So, while Red Rose 13 certainly uploaded the file in good faith, it may have run afoul of the rules we have which s/he wasn't aware of. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog. I doubt that I'll ever get the hang of this image palaver but it's good to know that there are people around with oodles more competence than me! And I do learn from it, honest. Red Rose, do you understand Magog's analysis? If not then feel free to query here & I am sure that you'll get some further response. Me? I must admit that often I am winging it when it comes to borderline stuff: I go off a gut feeling but in this instance it happens that I have completely missed the obvious, ie: the apparent existence of a copyright-free black-and-white version. These things are a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush & Magog for your open discussion and understanding. I have only been on Misplaced Pages for about 5 months and still have a lot to learn. My intention was to update the page with the best quality photograph. It looks as though I am going to need to take the colored picture down and replace it with the not so good resolution black & white is that correct? THank you, Red RoseRed Rose 13 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Is there anyway possible to be able to keep the colored one up?Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• If it's any use, I've found a higher resolution version of the black and white image being used by Amazon - http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WD665EHDL._SS400_.jpg -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Boing - very helpful - that one looks so much better... I will change it before the 5/17 deadline ok?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have another question for you all...I am dealing with a person on a webpage that I edit that lately has continously adding/readding his personal view that is negative. I have had to start to undo his edits saying - "Misplaced Pages is for facts not opinions" correct right? If he keeps doing it I might need your help... any suggestions?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added Autobiography of a Yogi to my watchlist and will keep an eye on things. I notice that others have been reverting the contributor to whom I think you are probably referring. Just remember the three revert rule for now and don't get sucked into a war. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I am also trying to update the page and add new facts to help the readers and now am cleaning up the revision area - it is still not clearly communicated but I am working on it. I also took the title down to just Revision because it was too long as you said in one of the titles in P Yogananda. Trying my best to keep it factual and not about someone's opinions as I think encyclopedias should be. I rarely use my own words but instead quotes from my sources. Thanks for you help. CathyroseRed Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again Sitush - I uploaded the higher resolution B/w picture of Yogananda that is free but it is not changing when I add the new file of Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg - is it because it is the same file name of the color one? Can you delete the color one from my uploads? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:ListFiles/Red_Rose_13 - then does the file work at http://commons.wikimedia.org/Special:ListFiles/Red_Rose_13 ? Thanks for your help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left a reply to your message at File talk:Paramahansa Yogananda Standard Pose.jpg#Deletion discussion. The deletion process in situations such as this usually takes at least 10 days but since we all seem to be in agreement that the colour image is suspect, I'll ask Magog the Ogre whether they can accelerate the process. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Did you want to keep the talk page for historical reference or are you good? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that I should not really presume to speak for someone else, but I think that we're all good. This was a "newbie" issue and Red Rose appears quite content with things. Actually, it makes a change for me to be dealing with a new contributor who is not arguing (thanks for your understanding, Red Rose!). - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - I am not sure why you just wiped out the page Autobiography of a Yogi and the hundres of hours of work I have put into it to make it credible. Other people had put stuff and since it was still there, I thought it was ok. I would have much preferred if you made suggestions on how to improve it than just wipe it out almost completely!!! Do you realize how devastating that is? When one is trying to do their best??? Please explain!!!! Cathyrose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 22:10,Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are itemised in the edit summaries relating to my removals. I do understand that it may be devastating to you but you really must follow our policies and guidelines. Indeed, there is still some content in there that arguably should not be. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand now - previously a number of others had put in alot of items without proper references and i might have put in a couple - to be honest it actually has a much cleaner feel to it now. I'll carefully study the edit summaries to guide me as I add some items back in but I like this streamlined page. Cathyrose It is just shocking and a bit painful...your one comment of "ridiculous" didn't help but your edits brought in fresh air to the page and I thank you for that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing Paramahansa Yogananda and the editing guidelines, I see what I need to do but it is going to take me a little while to bring it up to Misplaced Pages standards. How long do I have? I work as well and do editing in my spare time. Regarding Autobiography of a Yogi - I will work on finding reliable citations before adding more in. Using "my new eye" and looking at the other pages I am editing as well, I see the corrections that need to be made please allow me time. I don't feel experienced or comfortable enough to edit the Swami Kriyananda page and there are many references where the link is broken or not within the guidelines. Thank you. Cathyrose Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Shrike (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

THANKS Sitush for your guidance...Hope you will always be there..and support new reliable editors..Thanks..any suggestion from you is always Welcome.regards n thanx... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, although I doubt very much that you are a new editor. Athelstane Baines was published a century ago, e served mostly in the judicial departments of the British Raj and, if I remember correctly, was involved with the Royal Statistical Society or something similar. None of these things make him a reliable source for the point that you are currently flooding across several articles. Including your own edits, he has around 10 entries on Misplaced Pages and 27 on Google Scholar (including his own works). - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok....Please always guide us and I will ask if any assistance required from my side..just wanna to CONTRIBUTE reliably n seeks ur guidance..ANY of ur advice is highly welcomed..Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked and he was involved with the RSS (Stats Society, not the political group). He was also one of the many census commissioners, probably because of his statistical background. One or two "big names" cite him, such as Ghurye, but they seem to do so only for minor points. I am no great fan of H. A. Rose and others of that type, but at least they appear quite frequently in the publications of modern academics. Can you not find something more recent than Baines for the point that you wish to make? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir..for ur advice...hope together i can contribute with more reliable sources/books/scholars..thanks..actually wrote n changed d words with.. Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states Gurjars as forefathers of Sisodiyas..as Sir Baines is d particular Scholar..any advice from u is warmly acceptable..thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. Take it to Talk:Chauhan#Rajput.2FGurjar_origins, where the discussion has already begun. It will be of help if you can try to write in more standard English. All this use of "d" for "the", "n" for and etc just makes reading more difficult and it will not win you many friends here. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

hope atleast u will support the reliable books/sources/references..in chauhan and others.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir 4 ur advice once again..in punjabi rajputs u hv reverted the sourced books edit but..it confirms that during british era only rajput word came into existance..Please look... The origin of Rajputs is the subject of debate. According to John Keay, not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular class or tribe. The later rulers during british..(called rajputs)..helped british..dats why british wrote in favour of them.. And if the book/source/references r saying ...Rajas and Kshatriyas,not satisfied with their married wives,had frequently children by their female slaves,who although not legitimate successors to the throne,these illegitimate children were styled Rajpoots,or the children of Rajas"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdars" The conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen......then HOW COULD Chauhans be rajput...it is well written in books/people knows/references says...

PLZ READ FULL::According to a number of scholars, the Chauhans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars)

lots of many Chauhans claim them 2 be Gujjar only in north india...These Rajputs are writing crap, they are including all the Gujjars (Deepe, Dawre and Kalsyane chauhans) villages as Rajput villages in d talk page.. They must realise that there are more than 1200 villages of Gujjar Chauhans with the banks of Yamuna (delhi, Up and MP).....everybody knows Chauhans r gurjars.. PLEASE reinstate d ref/sources in Chauhan article..becoz it is definite Prithiviraj Chauhan was a gujjar of chohan clan of Gurjars..at dat time..d word rajput was not even known Sir.Thanks Please do d needful.Thankyou

No. I have explained what you need to do on your talk page. The fact that you keep deleting those explanations is your problem, not mine. All of the changes that you are making are of issues that have been discussed extensively in the past and you really must start talking on the talk pages of the appropriate articles, not just reinstating content and copying without attribution. I realise that you are a newly registered user but the degree of unwillingness to co-operate here is already becoming a concern. Misplaced Pages works on consensus. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir 4 unblocking..i will introduce sum more genuine sources/books/references/please guide always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to be learning. I have just removed an 11,000 character message that you posted here. Firstly, that is far too long for most people to be bothered reading; secondly, it should not have been here anyway, as per my numerous previous explanations of etiquette. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the notification. Actually, I had renewed the link since Iranica has changed its webhost. The correct link is this one: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din --Lysozym (talk)

Ram Prasad Bismil

Hi Sitush, perhaps you might have already noticed that the User:Krantmlverma has again added unnecessary external Google books links to this article on books by a single author. I've reverted them for the time-being. Thought should alert you! Cheers, Lovy Singhal (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your revert. That user is becoming a real problem, both here and at Commons. I have a vague memory that there have also been difficulties at Hindi Misplaced Pages but I may have got the wrong person for that one. Keep doing what you do: Krant will end up being either bored or blocked. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My dear Sitush Ji! When I started editing this article in the begining I was really not aware of the[REDACTED] rules. The people from time to time had improved it by providing help to me. Keeping good faith I did not bother what others are doing, I simply went on editing and uploading the available rare photographs on this subject. They were deleted so many times I uploaded them again. It was not my ill intention at all, every thing was done in good faith by me. So far as the contribution of Awadhesh Pandey is concerned he has created an article on me from the help of my blog and user page content. Suppose if you come to me and ask something about me I will naturally tell you in good faith. After all I am a person of 65 years old do you think will I tell a lie. So far as my contributions are concerned I tried my lable best to whatever I could. But now I think I should stop this job and devote rest of my life in writing articles/books for my publishers only who at least pay something to me. Here in[REDACTED] what I am getting? Only blames, harassments, personal attacks and nothing else. Although I had been a banker but I dont know typing, its a bitter reality. And one thing more, which I would like to share with you is that, I am a man of clear heart. I believe in VASUDHAIV KUTUMKAM (en: whole universe a family). I do not conceal my identity. What I am, I am. I never indulge myself in the edit-wars. This is not my nature. One thing that I would like to request you to please do it on my behalf. I have given here some external links on the bottomline of this article. Please spare some time and improve this article for those who are really in need of good aricles. If something has been uttered here wrong by me I would request you to forgive me for god's sake. With good wishes, I remain, Your's semper fidelis 13:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma

Quote Farm

Please respond Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

JK Page

I have explained my position on the talk page. The article should not be dumbed down in the interest of brevity. The gutted version that you are promoting represents a diminishment in quality rather than the streamlining of it that you are hoping to achieve. Furthermore no one from your group has made an edit in quite some time, so I do think I am justified in being bold by editing the article to what I feel is a better version which includes substantive critical information for the general reader. My question to you is: are you now overseeing this article in an authoritative capacity, and if so what are your credentials for judging its critical content? Sach.b (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your group"? Nonsense. I'll most likely not be able to respond properly until next week, but it will take most people that long to read the talk page anyway. You were bold, I reverted, and now we will discuss. Please note that being bold against consensus is not really A Good Thing, and it is what you did. You may also want to spend some time reading up on our approach to criticism sections in articles. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no one from your "consensus group" has worked on the criticism section (or on anything else for almost a month, for that matter), I was bold and reverted to a more workable version. Now why not follow your own advice, relax and have a cup of tea? Sach.b (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me. You appear to be a fairly new contributor and so I understand that you may not be entirely familiar with things. However, if an article is stable in content after a long period of talk page discussion that resulted in consensus then it will not usually see much activity. Why should it, given that it reflects the consensus arrived at via discussion?

If you want to say anything more about this then do so at the appropriate talk page, not here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you patronised me in the past with the very same advice about the tea. I find you very difficult to work with, and you still have not addressed the specific content of what was reinstated. I suggest a cooling off period. I will not write anymore on this page per your request. Please don't write on my page either. Thanks. Sach.b (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked you not to comment further about this here because it is not the appropriate venue. I didn't say that you are unwelcome on my talk page. Any concerns that you have regarding the content of an article should usually be addressed at the talk page for that article. It is only by doing thus that other contributors are likely to see your concerns.

Plenty of people find me difficult to work with. I'd wager that most of those people also do not understand policies etc. Certainly, that is the case here and, as I said above, it is understandable because of your relatively new status. I was not aware that I had dealt with you anywhere prior to today: I make thousands of edits each month and I cannot recall every person or every article with which I have had an involvement. That's just the way things are, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Rajus

If you see the people's wiki pages, it says that they are Rajus. Dav subrajathan.357 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We need verification that they self-identify, which is not present in those articles. In any event, we do not rely on other articles and the content was unsourced. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide explanation for your removal of my edits?

My edit had just one change: I added name of 2 singers who have last name DHILLON. Why did u remove those? Clearly you have something against this page. If a well known singer uses DHILLON on his CDs I don't think I need to provide any evidence for that.

You don't own this page. You have removed a lot of facts. Which I will be reverting back. My last edit is a proof that you are removing any edits any one is making without any check. Please provide me an explanation on why did u remove those changes? on What basis? What term was violated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdhillon007 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bearing the last name of Dhillon is not verification that the listed people are of the named Jat clan, Dhillon. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest you

See the bottom of WP:VPP. I'm sure you have plenty of examples. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It sometimes has the appearance of being infinity + 1. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kaul surname!

First post: User_talk:Titodutta#Kaul_Article_in_my_Sandbox
Reply: User_talk:Ambar_wiki#Kaul_article.21
Article draft: User:Ambar wiki/sandbox
If you have some time you can add your suggestions there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robin klein (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I need to tell you that I got very frustrated with no response from anyone after the self revert that I did. I felt cheated because all this problem began after the self evert that I did at your request. In my frustration I put a notice at the administrators noticeboard which I would like to withdraw as I think it is better to solve with discussion. I apologize if you felt that I am harsh at you. But please try to understand me also and how I feel when I do not get any positive help in rewording as promised when I made the self revert at your request, Once again I apologize for so much edit conflicts. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been loads of responses, on the article talk, this page, WP:DRN and other venues. You have also canvassed several people who, when I last looked, had chosen to ignore you. The problem is that you refuse to accept the consensus and continued to instate the same and similar content. When someone continues to edit tendentiously it often will eventually result in them either being ignored or having some sort of administrative action imposed, but you certainly cannot claim that you have been ignored. Perhaps read WP:IDHT. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A new gift

Sovan Sarkar. A post-doc with an impressive record! —SpacemanSpiff 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted. Fast. Spiff, why don't you nominate it for AFD? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would normally, but I'll be offline for a bit this week and therefore can't handle comments at an AfD. I don't know how this one has managed to stay up so long though. —SpacemanSpiff 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

reply

i put many info on talk:lohana for responce and to avoid conflict with other user, now i have add it in the article and creat new also.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd like to discuss Kashmiri Pandit reverts

I saw your message on the reverts done on Kashmiri Pandit Page. Can you clarify which inclusions do you find poorly written. I had already indicated the draft version in my Sandbox. My adoptee (Tito) already reviewed the content before its inclusion. Kindly let me know your specific concerns. -Ambar (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not here. I have previously explained all of this to you. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kaul Article in my Sandbox

I've updated the Kaul Article in my Sandbox, which has been further worked upon by Tito. Can you also take a look and make adjustments &/or provide your comments on my talk page. -Ambar (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been making comments at the sandbox talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help needed

Could you please also take a look at this as well as the Hazara people article? Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I did take a quick look when you posted your note but I then became sidetracked. I think that the issues are now resolved, although perhaps only temporarily? - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging Mannadiyar and Mannadiar

Hi Sitush,

Hope you remember about the proposal of merging 2 mannadiyar article (both are same) to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.246.80 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I had forgotten, sorry. I'll try to take a look at it before I disappear for four days. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your problem is sorted

at least for a while. That wasn't nice but better the way it turned out. Sorry I didn't respond, busy busy busy. Loads of vandalism and blocks today, one really troublesome editor, and a long term vandal who has just driven away a good editor/Admin. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that editor was more troublesome that the one whom I referred to then this place really is reaching some sort of nadir. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhai Rupa or Bhai Roop Chand

I found this interesting link on this charachter, that someone inserted into the Ramgarhia article. What do you think? ThanksSH 16:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the website is a dubious source. It is clearly not independent, appears not to be peer reviewed etc. It is reliable for an article about itself but nothing more, just as applies to caste associations etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only reason why I asked was that the contributor was probably correct, but didn't cite a WP:Reliable source. The reason why I know this is I have visited ancestors of the so called Bhai Rupa, and they tend to be prominenet members amongst the Ramgarhia community. I'll search for a reliable source when I get time. Thanks SH 07:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:GS/Caste

FYI. I've informed the four other admins who are active in these sanctions, feel free to log them there. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed and have it watchlisted just in case I come across one that already exists but is not logged. It is a very good idea - thanks for doing it. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bismil Azimabadi

Dear Sitush! Somebody has written this article. Kindly see it whenever you get time. This is for your kind information. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lala Hardayal!

Most probably you were the uploader of this image, I have requested undeletion Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:.E0.A4.B2.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2.E0.A4.BE_.E0.A4.B9.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.A6.E0.A4.AF.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B21299.gif --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

or try this link --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that I was most probably the uploader. Not me, guv. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Rajputs

Hi Sitush! Recently you reverted my edits in List of Rajputs. I think the intro of that article was definitely misleading. It said :"This is a list of notable people who self-identify as members of the Rajput community of India and Pakistan." This was definitely a misleading introduction as the list contains names of historical figures, who haven't self-identified.

If you refer other similar articles like List of Gurjars, List of Jats, List of Maratha people, you will not find anything like 'self-identification'. Freak'n (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct with regard to that sentence. Sorry about that. I will fix it now. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as self-identification in case of caste is concerned, it was proposed here by some members but it was never included in the policy page: So self-identification remained mandatory for religious belief or sexuality, but not for caste, as far as I understand. Freak'n (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

VK Singh : Rajput (source)

Here are references that VK Singh is a Rajput :

1. NDTV article : Cite :"MPs who are Rajputs, like General VK Singh, had approached the PM and urged that the age dispute be settled in his favour. The intervention was heavily criticized as an attempt to use religion or community to bolster the case of an individual officer of the forces. Critics had accused General VK Singh of showing preferential treatment to Rajput officers and overstepping the line with his regimental affinitie."

2. Tehelka Magazine article : Cite: "Tejinder — who is believed to have a Bhiwani connection with VK Singh, a Rajput who hails from that small town in Haryana — is also supposed to be close to Kapoor."

3. Rediff article :Page no.3 Cite: "A group of Rajput parliamentarians was dispatched to the prime minister to plead on his behalf. When a proxy was needed to file a Supreme Court writ petition on the general's date of birth, the "Rohtak Grenadiers' Association", packed with the general's fellow-Rajputs, was conveniently at hand." Freak'n (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen them. You have added them at least twice. They are not acceptable. We need verification that he self-identifies as a Rajput and, frankly, there are increasing concerns being expressed regarding most India news sources in any event. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush! Here is the policy page:. What I can't find is the 'self-identification' in case of caste/ethnicity. Freak'n (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed time and again in the India context. For example, see here and here. It is also the spirit of WP:BLPCAT and has been adopted on numerous other lists of alleged caste members. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya it has been discussed multiple times. But self-identification is too much for caste. Policy page still doesn't make it mandatory. Freak'n (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not necessary for a policy page to make something mandatory - a consensus in support of it is sufficient. If you wish to overturn the current consensus, you need to start a new discussion and get a new consensus supporting you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that any kind of consensus was achieved. Here is a poll on the same question : A majority opposed the proposal of making self-identification mandatory for caste.

Religion and caste are two different things. If my full name is XYZ Bhardwaj, then its obvious that I am Brahmin. Still I can be a non-Hindu (atheist or a convert). My surname definitely symbolises my caste, but not religion. So it can be understood why self-identification is mandatory for religious belief. But mandatory self-identification for caste seems completely illogical. Freak'n (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So we should assign a caste identity to Amitabh Bachchan because news sources do so, even though he has denied such an identity himself?. Look, this is the wrong place for this discussion and you are in any event conflating various things. The discussion at WT:INB to which you link is primarily concerned with photo montages, a recent proposal at WP:EGRS was hopelessly phrased, and there is absolutely no way that we are going to allow verification by last name. Honestly, the issues have been picked over for some considerable time now and the chances of you changing consensus are minimal in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush! You can't make any policy of your own. It seems that you are taking it as a policy, despite of its absence on policy page. If any consensus was achieved, then please show it to me. That poll completely opposed the proposal of mandatory self-identification as one can't choose his caste like religion. Caste is by birth, which remains unchanged. Until it doesn't become a policy (I am quite confident that it will never become policy), users should be allowed to use credible news articles as source for caste. Freak'n (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, which is itself a policy. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush! I know the meaning of consensus. But if I am not blind, then I can clearly see that no such consensus was attained that self-identification is to be made mandatory for caste. Here is the policy page again for you: Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Read it as many times you want. There is neither such policy or consensus.

That topic was unnecessarily started in that discussion page and ended in nothing.

If self-identification really becomes mandatory, then it becomes almost impossible to mention the caste/ethnicity of a notable person as neither any news reporter will ask about his caste in an interview, nor he will try to self-glorify himself by telling that I am from XYZ caste. Freak'n (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at, say, this recent edit by an experienced admin. I am not arguing with you any further - you are quite simply wrong and if you cannot accept that then it is just your bad luck. If you add such information again then you may well face the consequences of the general sanctions that are in force for such articles as per this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Saini

This is not intended to be a full list, and the Saini issue has been troublesome for a long time.

Sitush! If this is not intended to be a full list, then who will decide which caste is to be included and which not? As fas Saini is concerned, then this list is about those castes which claim their Kshatriya status. If Sainis claim so and the source is credible, then what is the problem in including it? Freak'n (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Kshatriya and we have a lot of problems with varna issues. There is no point in spreading those problems any further than they need to be. No more regarding this on my talk page, please - comment at Talk:Kshatriya, where there is a greater likelihood that others may have an interest. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Vaishya

You reverted my edit to Vaishya, asking that I "read the source." According to inclusion in the source, my edit, which I haev reinstated, states that the Vaishya's were traditionally farmers, soldiers, zamindars, and chieftains (note that I rephrased the text from that of the ref). However, if the current ref is unclear, I'll try and find a better one.Kutupwe (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not on page 46, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't unless something is going dreadfully wrong with my eyesight. And if the source is unclear then you should not have reinstated it. I have reverted you once more. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brain fart. However, I'll try to find a better source. Oh, yes, your eyesight may be failing, but that was my mistake.Kutupwe (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as brain malfunctions go: been there, done that ;) I am really in trouble if my eyesight goes: being deaf is bad enough but deaf/blind is a hell of a life, & I'm a bit too old to be learning Makaton or something similar. I have enough problems transcending Gibberish, after all. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Although this is not as bad, I have constant ups and downs of delirium on a daily basis, and this is a hell of a life for me (understanding how bad your situation is). I also have trimonthly seizures that hit me unexpectedly, but that's a whole different story. Anyways, either you or someone else interrupted me while I was asking you about List of Ror. But here we go: I am considering nominating List of ROr for deletion per AFD, as it has become entirely redundant and useless (referring to the previous BLP violations, failed attempts to harbor sources, vandalism, etc). But I'd like you to tell me your opinion, as you seem experienced in these areas, and I'm not so convinced that this is a good move (As the list is notable).Kutupwe (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I am sorry to read that. Regarding the list, I wouldn't bother with AfD. Experience tells me that it would fail, and that it would do so even though there is a Category:Ror.

What we tend to do is redirect the list to the main article if the list has little or no content. Any content that does exist should be merged into the main article beforehand, and any link from the main article to the list would need to be deleted. You might prefer to make a proposal per the (somewhat tedious) process described at WP:MERGE rather than do it unilaterally. Twinkle makes the process slightly easier, but seems only to do half of the job: you still have to join the two pieces together. If ever the list in the main article should grow in a valid manner, it can always be forked once more. As far as vandalism, BLP issues etc go, well, they will happen whether the list exists separately or not: all that we can do is be vigilant. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected the list in April. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bikram Singh

Hi, I did not try to fake a reference, I had added the reference from a newssource and named it ibnknow, 1 but someone has changed the link keeping the same name which I did not notice. sarvajna (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, although I am still mystified as to why you did not check. In any event, your edit is still wrong since the correct source does not call him the spokesman but rather notes that he briefed people. The spokesman implies that he was the only one (which is far more than the source says), and I am not even sure that "briefing" is necessarily the same as being a "spokesman". - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You can check the other source, the NDTV otherlink I guess calls him the spokesman (I am on a restricted network now so cannot verify it). If spokesperson is a wrong word, the word can be changed. Do not put it as a Completely wrong edit.sarvajna (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this google (cannot open the links for the reason mentioned above) sarvajna (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NDTV says the same thing. It was "Completely wrong edit": it does not agree with either of the two sources that you now name. In addition, it was ungrammatical and in breach of WP:REFPUNCT. Furthermore, to select that one point from the list of roles presented by the sources smacks of being undue weight. It is concerns me greatly and I may have to check some of your other contributions, especially since you seem not to be understanding & so perhaps should not be relied upon to check them yourself. I am also slightly concerned that we are using two sources that appear largely to be identical, which suggests yet another spate of poor reporting by the Indian media, although probably it is because they were both using an unacknowledged military press release. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your search results, the problem is that they could be using stuff that we have written. In any event, the inconsistencies clearly demonstrate why sources such as NDTV should not be trusted. This is not the first time such issues have arisen, not by a long way. Most of the experienced contributors who haunt WT:INB seem to consider The Hindu to be just about the only reliable Indian news source, so perhaps we should find out what that newspaper says? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can search for what thehindu says also I did not put a fake link, it was a mistake as explained above, few of the media houses called him spokesperson . If you are greatly concerned about my edits please do review them(I don't edit much so it will not be a big task for you) I would be free from the trouble of asking others to review my work.sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting your review of Kaul in my Sandbox

Can you review the Kaul article in my sandbox. Perhaps you could also leave your comments on the Kashmiri Pandit article there. -Ambar (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I had made some initial comments but you have not acted on them or responded. We had this same conversation about a week ago, IIRC. OR do you have two different articles sandboxed? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your comments & have further edited the draft for Kashmiri pandit. (Yes, I have two articles running simultaneously in the sandbox, one is on Kaul & the other on Kashmiri Pandits.)
In the Kashmiri Pandit article, Have also added one lede in the history section. Let me know if it passes the policy guidelines. The author 'Gill' has been the Director General of Police (Punjab) & is a renowed author & a Padma Shri award winner. Even though his 'hand is not always considered to be doing the right thing', his articles generally are. Await your comments. -Ambar wiki (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Knanaya

If you have any time, could you direct your attention to Knanaya? I plan on doing some work over there when I get a chance; it's yet another area where the notions of Jewish origin have been allowed to take over the article.--Cúchullain /c 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, although I am not massively knowledgeable re: the subject matter. Good work on the STC music rewrite, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've Started...

....Jassa Singh Ramgarhia so please take a look at what I've done so far. Will add more when I get a chance.Thanks SH 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanjiv Bhatt

Hi Sitush,
An anon IP 122.169.25.117 (talk · contribs) started reverting all your recent edits here without any summaries to explain. I warned them about 3RR and they stopped. I then reverted back to, I hope, the last 'clean' version by AnomieBOT. Regards --220 of 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have now put in a request at WP:RFPP also. Hopefully, I'll get the thing sorted today but it is a real mess. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 month and watched, so take your time with the rework if you need to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

are you Indian or interested in Indian history? Ive seen you editing articles relating to India. if you dont mind me asking, can you help me with the article on Jawaharlal Nehru (if you are interested that is..) I did some work over it although in some cases I have straight up lifted some passages from enc britannica. I plan on rewriting them but I am not that good in English. are you interested? I think Mr Nehru deserves a top article on wikipedia.. Cliniic (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit overwhelmed with other stuff right now but will certainly take a look. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

TB

A kitten for you!

okay my friend. I just gave you some suggessions.I have actually not aware of the talk page.Its your wish to put it or not.Have a nice day...

Anurag Chakraborty 10:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mayasutra's behaviour in the Iyengar:talk page

Sitush, let me first deal with the other user's behaviour, and then i'll go for formal mediation. I guess i've been too patient. First of all, users editing in the "Iyengar page", who repeatedly fail to adhere to any expected standards of behavior are likely to be imposed with sanctions. The general sanctions template is placed on top of the Iyengar talk page by admin:Qwyrxian. Inspite of that, "user:Mayasutra" has been repeatedly using names in talk page discussions, and that too in a way that maligns the other user(s), which is considered very offensive in wiki'. I'm wondering as to why this user is still allowed to edit as he has crossed the line long back and is still continuing to do so. Although i've used his name, i did so, only while replying to his messages so that other users might not take it on themselves. But i've always maintained a civil tone unlike user:mayasutra. Let me list out his behaviour here:

• First of all, he's posting diff of the edits i made 3 years ago, and is pointing out the mistakes, thereby maligning me. At that time(3 yrs back), I was new to wiki' and made some obvious errors. Posting the diff' of those edits, and trying to convince the administrators reg' his stand is extremely cheap on his part. He also posted a link to my editlog here. Diff of his edit:
  
• Attack on communities - Mayasutra said "there are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists. Diff:." Having seen the general sanctions template, placed on top of that talk page, posting such comments should attract a considerably higher penalty than usual.
  

Attacks on other users(attacks on me in this case): Here are some of his(Mayasutra's) comments on me, in the Iyengar talk page:

• He said "...Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him." Diff of edits:
• In another post, Mayasutra said "This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok". Diff:
  
• Again, he insults me by saying - "You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here." Diff of edits:
  
• And finally he made these coments on me - "People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478...". Diff of edits:
  
• Above all, as you can see from the talk page discussions, he has been repeatedly posting the same message under various sections/topics, which is indeed spamming, and has been a prolonged troll.

Inspite of the bashing on me, i've been too patient, trying to concentrate on the contents and not on the other user. But i can't be a saint anymore. Despite knowing about the "general sancitons", and inspite of me requesting him to abstain from such behaviour in talk pages, he has been too offensive. I wonder why no action has been taken. I'll go for formal mediation, once this user gets the deserved judgement for what he did. This has been long due.Hari7478 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin and have no ability to enforce sanctions. Some of the language that you highlight is certainly testing the limits of WP:TPG, WP:CIV, WP:NPA etc. Unfortunately, the both of you are engaging in very long walls of text that are often awkwardly formatted. These make it difficult to judge whether things really are as one-sided, as you claim. TLDR stuff also quite often upsets people because it can be seen as being tendentious editing. However, I'll drop Mayasutra a brief note and I ask you here to accept that you too will ensure that you stay within the bounds of civility etc, regardless of whether or not you have done so in the past. I am, of course, involved in the dispute myself and so I need to tread lightly. Some uninvolved admins stalk my talk page and may decide to take things further, whether in your favour or otherwise, or you could take the matter to WP:WQA.

Requesting some sort of sanction as a condition of becoming involved in mediation seems a little perverse to me, since the entire point of mediation is that people collaborate and agree to its conclusions. Certainly, any incivility etc in the mediation process is likely to result in admin action. I am not in fact sure that mediation is necessary here: if both of you calmed down a bit then it could probably be sorted out on the talk page. There does seem to be a consensus that the article is a mess and needs a lot of work, and there are at least two other contributors involved. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thanks for notifying him on my behalf. However, this is not the first time that someone is bashing me. "Bashing hari7478" has been going on for long, in the iyengar talk page, and i'm losing my patience here. But i've never crossed the bounds of civility and i wont. Thank You.Hari7478 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari and Sitush, not sure if Hari wants to distract from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar If Hari wants me to apologize for lack of civility yes Hari you can have it. I apologise. However, i expect you to sign the party agreement for the Formal Mediation filed against your misquoting. Please agree to Formal Mediation and resolve the problems with your sources and content, as indicated against you here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Iyengar#For_Dispute_Mediation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(edit conflict) While I would not condone "bashing", if you find yourself frequently in a minority of one etc regarding the issues discussed at Iyengar then perhaps it is time to consider whether or not you really are still on safe ground regarding WP:CONSENSUS. Remember, consensus is based on policy and statements in articles are based on what is verifiable, which is not necessarily the same as what you consider to be true. As I said earlier, that article is a mess and it probably needs a complete rewrite, involving people who are not closely connected to the subject matter.

Mayasutra, I have already explained to you that you cannot oblige Hari to sign up for mediation, and that your proposal is malformed. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i have been very civil with Hari7478. There is no need for me to apologize. I did because i know he wanst to distract the issue and somehow get away without signing the Formal Mediation filed against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar . Btw, there is no need for WP:CONSENSUS. Its a case of continuously misquoting sources to push certain content. I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

1. Keay, John (12 April 2011). India: A History. Revised and Updated. Grove Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-8021-4558-1. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
2. Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Astarābādī Firishtah (1829). History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India: till the year A.D. 1612. Printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green. pp. 64–. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
3. Cite error: The named reference Jamanadas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines (1912). Ethnography: castes and tribes, Volume 2,Part 5. K.J. Trübner. p. 31. sun and fire worshiping huna or Gurjara was converted into the blue blood of rajputana, and became the forefathers of the Sisodia, Chahaun, Parmar, Parihar or calukya,..
5. Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf (October 1904). "Some Problems of Ancient Indian History". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. XXIII. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland: 651. Retrieved 2011-12-16. By that marriage Haarsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the Chohans were a prominent clan.
6. Sharma, Dasharatha (1975). Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-8426-0618-9. According to a number of scholars, the Agnikula class were originally Gurjaras.