Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 20 February 2015

It's time to make a stand against the arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia. Their salaries are paid on the back of our unpaid work, therefore in line with some others I've decided to withdraw my labour every Monday until things change. And if they don't, I'll be extending the length of my strike. I encourage everyone to join me.

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.

DYK for Beda people

On 2 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beda people, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Beda people are the smallest officially recognised tribe in Jammu and Kashmir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beda people. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I thought this had been dumped around the time I was in hospital. Thanks to whoever picked up on it. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

admirenepal

Who it was? How he is still editing with a new account? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The range is too awkward to block, so he keeps coming back with new accounts. It creates a mountain of clean up every time unfortunately. The account you refer to is now blocked but there was a delay, apparently because I pinged Ponyo at the SPI case page but there is some sort of blip going on whereby pings there are not always being transmitted. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have the SPI on my watchlist, but was away for a few days while I battled an epic head cold. Hopefully the response time won't be so delayed next time (and you know there will be a next time). --Jezebel's Ponyo 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IAC block evasion?

Given this apparent insider comment, and the same IP's edit to Aam Aadmi Party, I suspected more block evasion by India Against Corruption. Does anyone agree? Does anyone think it worth blocking, or is it an open proxy? - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding List of Rajputs article

Thank you before for left message in my talk page. I think here is what i can provide as citation regarding Isa Khan. Im not included the link before because i think its not necessary because the primary sources which from Akbarnama, tertiary sources from the Chowdhury and tertiary sources from Banglapedia was already included in Isa Khan page:

So do i must include those citations too?Ahendra (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Akbarnama, Volume III, Page 647
2. Chowdhury, Kamal (2005). Banglar Baro Bhuiyan and Maharaj Pratapaditya. p. 163.
3. AA Sheikh Md Asrarul Hoque Chisti. "Isa Khan". Banglapedia: The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka. Retrieved 2012-03-01.
4. Banglapedia Article of Isa Khan written by ABM Shamsuddin; chief Editor Professor Sirajul Islam

@Ahendra: thanks for this note and, as I said earlier, it is appreciated that you attempt to source your statements. The main problem was that there was a large-ish edit war going on at List of Rajputs and it involved a pretty substantial addition of names to the list that in many cases were not as well sourced as might first appear. I don't think you added those originally - that was the work of someone who has already had warnings - but you did reinstate them.

The treatment of caste identity is a particularly awkward issue on Misplaced Pages and I am hoping that you have now read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. While there are people who will say that if the linked article is sourced then you do not need to repeat those sources in the lists, the reality is that there are so many instances of poor sourcing and even misrepresentation that it is in fact much better to make the list entries self-contained rather than reliant on the link, where the information quite likely will change anyway.

I can see some problems in the specific instance that you give above. The first is that the primary source (Akbarnama) is simply not acceptable, as I suspect you already know. I cannot read the Chowdury source but it is well-known that the quality of history writing in India can be pretty poor (not always, obviously) and we do not even have a publisher's name that might give us some confidence. I also cannot read one of the Banglapedia sources, while the other one doesn't seem even mention the word Rajput.

Rather than add a large number of entries in one go, it is probably better to add, say, five at a time and only then when you are absolutely sure. Wait for a while and see if anyone challenges, then add some more. Better still, if there is even a remote chance of doubt, just stick the person's name on the article talk page and list the sources that you have - almost certainly, you will get some responses and it will save a lot of unnecessary back-and-forth on the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay i'll wait for a while, regarding to re edit now. However i want to ask about the Sources. maybe the other secondary source from Michigan university which published by Superintendent government it contain same information about his rajputs origin could convince you:

https://books.google.com/books?ei=IlLXVObgNuXXmgWRtoGABw&id=gBTMAAAAMAAJ&dq=Final+report+of+the+settlement+operation+in+five+thanas+of+the+partially+excluded+area+of+Mymensingh,+1938-42&q=kalidas&redir_esc=yhttps://books.google.com/books?ei=IlLXVObgNuXXmgWRtoGABw&id=gBTMAAAAMAAJ&dq=Final+report+of+the+settlement+operation+in+five+thanas+of+the+partially+excluded+area+of+Mymensingh,+1938-42&q=kalidas&redir_esc=y Ahendra

about the tertiary source Banglapedia i forgot to tell there's english version of it. and here is the List of editors of Banglapedia which consisted from numerous Bangladesh University if you would care http://www.banglapedia.org/english/editors.htm

As for Akbar Nama i honestly dont really know the particular reason it deemed acceptable, Banglapedia themselves has cast some doubt regarding Akbar Nama for place name chronology but not for the historical figure like Isa Khan.

Please tell me if there's more doubt regarding Akbar Nama. as for the List of Rajputs page i think i will leave it for while, the Edit war seems cant be helped for now unless administrator step in http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/B_0531.htm

(talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ahendra:, we do not use the Raj era sources (which is what the Michigan University digitisation happens to be). I'm not aware of any problems relating to Banglapedia, although it is often inaccessible and I think was in fact taken down for a while. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the discussion about caste list of India which u mention it. that doesnt correlate with the general topic of Rajputs as historical identity, thats meaning talking Rajputs as a caste, not treating Rajputs as historical ethnicity like some historians linked in this page or Joshua project which also treat Rajputs in general treatment: as an ethnicity, not caste. very well if you feel that seems correlated with the topic of Historical racial identity regarding Rajputs i'd like to know.

I am sorry but I do not see the relevance of your remarks: the article concerns the broad caste group, as it defines. Please note also that the Joshua Project is not considered to be a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstanding the point here by forcing the point of Reliability and definition of Rajputs as caste instead of Ethnical groupAhendra (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Samba

It was unclear to me why the text was removed. The article had many good references. --Redtigerxyz 11:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Global Vision is a mirror. Some of the sources were primary. Others were obscure Raj sources that tend not to be reliable. The spelling of the name was changed throughout. There were other reasons, too, but I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Only 1 ref is Global Vision. I see many solid references: e.g. Vettam Mani (1975). Puranic Encyclopaedia; Tourism Department, Government of Orissa; Baij Nath Puri. References like are not considered primary, as they have commentaries. There are Raj sources from prominent Indologists like Lionel Barnett and Alexander Cunningham, which I will regard RS. --Redtigerxyz 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, put it back. You're better at Hindu religious articles than I, although generally speaking we also try to avoid stuff from the Govt of Orissa because they're wacko pov-pushers also. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Caste edits review

Sitush, can you review my reverts (( and )) to Sisodia and Paramara pages ? The IP who made the original edits appears to be a typical caste-glorifier, and he changed some information that seemed to be sourced. On the other hand, the source he was citing by Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi may be acceptable (or may turn out to be another untrustworthy caste history). Your expertise would help! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw you do those reverts and I agree with them. It is quite common to see Gurjars trying to muscle in on Rajput articles - there doesn't seem to be much love lost between the two groups. Munshi was something of an all-rounder rather than a specialist: I'd rather see support from someone who has a relevant academic background and is unconnected to the subject matter. Ideally, someone whose work has been cited by other academics also, which (unsurprisingly) doesn't really seem to be the case for Munshi.

All of the above said, the two articles are currently sourced to this, which is at least as bad and probably even worse! I'll see what I can dig up in the way of decent sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check. The problem, as usual, with the caste articles is choosing between no sources, poor sources, and worse source. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi Sitush, do you know this user? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall any dealings with them. Their notion that the District Gazetteers are reliable is not a good start, if only because of sanskritisation. Furthermore, in most cases the caste of a person simply is not relevant to their notability or even their life: it is almost always a form of fan-cruft and tittle-tattle. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it might be a caste war. The Category:Chitpavan Brahmin seems to have been almost entirely populated today! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Brahmins and Rajputs are the worse for doing this. Perhaps not surprisingly, the "lower" castes tend not to advertise the fact unless there is some extreme glorification to be gained from it. Are you aware that the number of castes more than doubled over a period of 40 or so years (roughly 1900-1940) and has increased further since? That's sanskritisation for you. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, see User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. The entire sequence needs to be reversed. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

how dare you call KM Munshi to be unreliable and all slanderous names?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.77.227 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush sir

Hi Sitush sir i am saryupareen brahmin from a village of name matiyara in Basti district of uttarpradesh. My village is nearer to bastion city just south east of city and 3 miles away from city. In basti district saryupareen brahmins and bhumihar brahmins marriage still happens from ancient time. and also their is mention about bhumihar or bhuinhar brahmins of kaashyap gotra in kanyakubj vanshavali , and those bhuinhar brahmins are kanyakubj brahmins this all is true god promise. if you don't believe see the matiyara village of basti and also their are 12 more villages: and also see kanyakubj vanshavali this don't destroy our bhumihar brahmin brothers we want to save them by telling the real truth. for god save them. they are unaware of these fact please sir donot delete it please sir please. you have to save the truth for god and for our bhumihar brahmin brothers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas tiwari (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The campaign for recognition of the Bhumihar community as Brahmins has been conducted on Misplaced Pages for years. The problem is that we need reliable independent sources and in fact all we seem to get is repeated references to the work of Sahajanand Saraswati, who was the primary campaigner for being recognised as such and was himself a Bhumihar. Sanskritisation is the underlying problem here, sorry, and there is no point in trying to turn Misplaced Pages into another soapbox for that cause. We exist to reflect the sources, not to make history. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sisodia Rajputs

Hello Sitush donot delete facts from sisodia rajputs article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamburningdesire (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Suryavansha

Hello Sitush i want to say that you have edit Suryavansha article and thier also you deleted do not change Suryavansha article also

Aam Aadmi Party

Hello Sitush Sir, I am glad to know that you have given lot of relevant information to Misplaced Pages from over 7 years but please don't alter the regional name of Aam Aadmi Party i have edited in the mentioned article. The reasons behind that are Hindi is the common language among all Indians and Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, the founder of this party has addressed to the Delhi People in Hindi, All his manifestos and promises are almost in Hindi language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hindi is not "the common language among all Indians". Plenty of them cannot read, write or speak it. In any event, please see WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mertia Rathore

Candidate for AFD? --NeilN 13:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another mess: Satha Chaurasi --NeilN 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will have a dig around my books etc but things do not look hopeful on the face of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I can find only this in relation to the Mertia, and it really only refers to one person in passing. The exact same text appears in another book from the same publisher. There are plenty of passing mentions of the Ghanerao that it refers to but nothing that seems directly to discuss the clan. I suppose the article could be redirected to Rathore for now, since the clan clearly does exist. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tidied up Satha Chaurasi as best I can but I cannot do much about the Hindi sources and I suspect that the Indian rebellion section is really just local glorification. I think it is notable as a name for a region but it would be good if someone could specify the villages that are referred to by the term, thus turning the thing into a list with a short explanation of significance. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil environment

You asked me to define a civil environment. I'll define what it isn't. A civil environment doesn't have people disrespecting each other, nor does it have people who intend to harm others or their work. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition begs more questions than it answers. And that really was my point when I asked: people have different interpretations of civility, of what is or is not disrespectful and/or harmful, of what constitutes work that is valid for this project, etc. No-one disagrees with the gist but drawing the lines is nigh-on impossible.

So why bother? Instead, get back to doing something more useful, more likely to succeed and, yes, less disruptive than the constant clamour, stalking and so on that some aggressively authoritarian people seem mostly to live for here. In particular, the tendency of otherwise obviously intelligent people to favour what amounts in some respects to cultural imperialism is something that I find difficult to understand, especially when those people usually also quite obviously have thick skins when it suits them. If Misplaced Pages was intended to be first and foremost a social experiment, that should have been stated at the outset and should be prominent in welcome notices etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you view the complete rejection of civility as "cultural imperialism"? Aren't you trying to force your standard on everybody else? Misplaced Pages is by definition a social experiment, it need not be explicitly stated; i.e., all collaborations are social, and all new and developing communities are experimental. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't advocate a "complete rejection" of civility, so I have no need to answer that. Mine is not a standard as such but rather a laissez-faire approach. I don't need or want a book of increasingly specious rules for so-called civility and, by and large, this place functions perfectly well without one, so live and let live. If anyone here is aiming for a Utopia then I'll give them the names of a few psychiatrists because that is where they need to look; if they want to sing Kum Ba Ya then I can direct them to a few churches.

I didn't see anyone taking a pop at HJ Mitchell for recently using words such as "fuck", "bollocks" etc but if, say, Eric Corbett uses such words then the vultures would descend. You need to recognise that the real issue is personalities, not civility, and that calling people misogynists (as I and others have been called) when the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise is at least as potentially offensive as using some word that some arguably prudish sub-culture has deemed unacceptable. Some of the most "toxic personalities" on this project have never written anything here that would ever appear in a list of proscribed words.

Get over it and get back to improving the content, I say. You've got to see the big picture, and in that the occasional twat (use of, person who sometimes act like one) can be tolerated. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But you are advocating a complete rejection of the civility policy, which is really what I meant above, not that you are never civil to anyone, just that you don't want a policy to dictate behavioral standards. When you suggested that I was part of a secret off-Wiki cabal, I said it was bullshit, and you asked me to not call you a liar. While I wasn't really calling you a liar, I was calling the claim a lie, you did indicate that it was unacceptable, which implied you do expect a certain level of civility, at least when it comes to you and your friends. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, it's not "secret", I saw that you're referred to by name on a certain off-wiki mailing list. EChastain (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, if I referred to you on an off-Wiki message board would you then be part of a conspiracy? I have had zero involvement in off-Wiki message boards, so I don't know what to tell you. I have communicated with three Wikipedians via email, but EC was not a subject of discussion. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, Rationalobserver, regarding accusations about you. However, I have not and never would advocate a complete rejection of the civility policy. You are wrong, plain and simple, and I've said as much. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, but don't you remember our interaction at AE? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember many interactions. I would imagine that I said what I intended to say, although you may not have read it that way if this thread is anything to go by. Nonetheless, as a rule, I've got a pretty short memory for interactions and a fairly long one for articles. That helps to keep the personality issues in check (most of the time) and also explains why I am often so poor at digging out diffs. Unlike some people, and with one notable exception, I've never kept lists of diffs for future use. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; I think I understand what you're trying to teach me, but even if I don't I appreciate your effort, so thanks! I could better explain why I thought you rejected WP:CIVILITY, but that's not important, and I would just be dragging stale diffs into it, which I agree is a distasteful time-sink. If I've misjudged you I sincerely apologize. I'll be more careful about that in the future. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I chose those words carefully, not in anger. For example, in my conversation with Giano I was well aware that Giano wouldn't take offence at my use of the word "fuck", and some people respond better to brutal frankness than to verbose explanation. And if "bollocks" is even mildly offensive these days I'll apologise to anyone genuinely offended, but euphemisms would not have been sufficient to convey the stupidity of the remark I was responding to (not linking because it would be unfair to the person who made the remark; observers, please take my word for it). I'm not disagreeing wiht your point, but noting that Eric's reputation is not entirely unfair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that you did choose them carefully, Harry. But one of the problems is that people get upset by proxy, ie: you might have known that Giano wouldn't mind but someone else could jump on that bandwagon. The day that someone blocks Jimbo for his repeated attacks etc is the day that I might consider criticisms of Eric to be at least in part justified. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But that sounds like your issue is more with parity, not civility in general. After all, how can you criticize Jimbo for making personal attacks with one breath while condoning EC's attacks with another? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Really, I don't have an issue: the status quo regarding civility enforcement seems about right to me, ie: we know it exists but we accept that often it is subjective and/or not worth getting in a tizz. De facto, it is those campaigning for a more strict enforcement of civility who have the issue, and I'm really just pointing out the inconsistencies and illogicalities of it all. Like I said, most of the civility-related stuff here is really about personalities (and it is often long-held grudges etc). Hit the articles, forget the crap. Oh, and ask Jimbo to close down his talk page and/or redirect it to Meta, which for reasons of his role and systemic bias is probably where it should always have been. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The "status quo" is rarely "right" about anything in my experience, so I must assume we are coming at the perception of reality using different paradigms. For example, you earlier referred to the laissez-faire approach, which seems par for the course when dealing with a disproportionate demographic of digital utopians and techno-libertarians. But that term refers to an economic system, not a social system, so I must object. If we had a social policy of nonintervention built from the ground up, then everyone would have access to admin tools or nobody would. If there was truly no interference, we wouldn't have noticeboards (and I remember when we didn't) and we wouldn't have block logs. We would have the strong ruling over the weak, dominating and harassing them with incivlity. Oh wait, that's exactly what we have now. I'm pretty skeptical when I hear someone say "laissez-faire" in a social context. It usually means, watch out, hold on to your wallet. Or in this case, "keep your head down and take the abuse, we have every right to treat you like the peon that you are". Sorry, but no. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding laissez-faire, well, you may well be doing the same thing that people do with "fascist", I guess: the thing has a much wider, much less rigid context. However, twist my words however you wish. I didn't for example, say that the present system is "right", I said it was "about right": there were no absolutes.

I would rather live in a society that tolerated differences provided that the actions themselves are not persistently disrupting the raison d'être of that society. This stems perhaps in part because I am really quite different myself in many ways; most obviously, my freaky communication abilities for someone who was born profoundly deaf - I would have got nowhere in the UK education system etc had the prevailing dogma regarding that, erm, prevailed. But it turned out that the real-world policies actually had some flexibility when it came to practical usage, in the interests of the greater good. So too does WP's civility policy.

Your world, in so far as it applies to civility enforcement, seems distinctly overpowering and rigid, and likely to lead to even more rows than the present state of affairs as people would continue to refine it to cover every possible case. There are over four million trees in this wood and there is no need for anyone to go play hide-and-seek near to the trees frequented by Eric Corbett or me or whoever else might be perceived by some as occasionally troublesome. You can play there - no-one is stopping it - but if it all seems a bit dark and you find your playmates are a bit frightening and horrible then just go to an area that is less upsetting for you and let someone else try playing near those trees. You don't indeed have to play hide-and-seek at all. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not twisting your words, I'm telling you how I interpret them. And how is it inflexible and rigid to expect discourse based on mutual respect without any intent to harm the other party? I shouldn't have to tolerate disrespect or harmful speech because someone has a personality quirk. Nobody should. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You do seem to be twisting my words. And you seem still to be unable to appreciate that your perception of respect, harm etc is not necessarily the only one, just as mine is not. We do not operate in a black-and-white world and in most cases there is no absolute right or wrong to a situation. At best, things are "about right" etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

An interpretation is the exact opposite of twisting words and a singular perception. It implies, in its usage, more than one way of seeing. I don't see the world in black and white, nor have I advocated anything having to do with right and wrong. What I've said, and what I'll continue to say, is that nobody should deserve, put up with, or accept being treated with disrespect or any intent to harm. That means that civility isn't an option, it's a requirement. One can argue, therefore, that effective communication necessitates civility as a medium for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this. You keep banging on about civility but you cannot define it in a rational non-subjective manner. That was my point at the outset, it has been my point for years and no-one, absolutely no-one, has ever come up with a proposal that would resolve it. If you cannot accept that then this has been a waste of pixels. You are going to have to be very much more specific because all I am getting here is hot air and it is tendentious, tiresome and pointless. Feel free to hold on to your belief but do not expect it to amount to anything practical beyond that which we already have. I've got a stack of books and papers to read here and my time would be better spent doing that than continuing to discuss something that will never amount to anything useful. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've given you a negative definition of civility based on objective limits: civility is the absence of disrespect and harmful intent. This is neither irrational nor subjective. I suspect most people would agree with this specific, limited negative definition. A more general and expanded version would consist of a positive definition: respect, kindness, compassion, benevolence, understanding, and tolerance. Again, I think most people would agree with this positive definition. But I've already discussed my conception of civility in depth on the talk page of OrangesRyellow. At the end of the day, I concluded that civility depends on inner peace. Although we can try to enforce it externally, the current limitations of the Internet as a communication medium tend to exacerbate incivility in those who are not at peace with themselves and others. That doesn't mean we should stop enforcement, it just means that the responsibility for civil communication begins and ends with us. Nobody can make us act uncivil or rude. That's our choice. And in the same way, nobody can force us to act civil or polite. But we can still enforce civility like we do any other behavior. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is utterly pointless and not remotely objective. You still haven't managed to define disrespect, harm, rudeness etc, nor explained how we could better enforce "civility". I suggest that you drop this because you are making no sense where it matters and you are not going to convince me by repeatedly ignoring the crux of the problem. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe common words that most people understand and acknowledge require new definitions. I want to thank you, however, for not bringing Charlie Hebdo or the Pope into this. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean Viriditas, with this vision of yours that Misplaced Pages has what you call the "strong ruling over the weak"? Who are these "strong" rulers? Sandstein? Is it not more that some people come here obsessed, desperate to become admins so they can get what will probably be the only apparent power over others that will ever be their lot. People like that can cause a lot of grief to others, but they are certainly not strong people. Just inadequate people who have discovered they are supported by matching inadequacies in the system on Misplaced Pages, controlled at base by people like themselves. Misplaced Pages is largely built by genuine and dedicated content builders, users who are rarely admins and get little recognition or support for what they do, but just get on with the job because it seems like the right thing to do. Some other users, such as self-righteous civility networkers who want everyone who doesn't agree with them punished and banned, and those that are here because they want to personally appear important, are damaging and irrelevant to the positive development of Misplaced Pages. Anyway, the possibility of decent governance on Misplaced Pages has long since passed, and given the indifference displayed by the founder himself to the problems faced by genuine content builders, there is no longer any point in attempting to engage on such issues. Some of the people who put themselves forward and claim the credit for Misplaced Pages are anything but noble. But Misplaced Pages is still alive and is still a noble cause. And will remain so unless the ever-diminishing and endangered group of dedicated and genuine content builders are finally fully purged by "moral" campaigners. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I seriously hope this is satire. Did you just compare my concern with the lack of civility in interpersonal communication on Misplaced Pages with the goals of the PMRC? Really? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not satire... just a faithful reflection of the reality --Epipelagic (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop reverting other's work

You have right to revert your own work but please do not punish us for whatever problem you have with WikiMedia

Facebook and FOSDEM

I would imagine that the attendees of FOSDEM are far, far from being a representative group. Nonetheless, a report from there seems to use opinions received to further promote the vague morphing into a Facebook-like environment, with all of the fluff that might entail - see this. I find it interesting that the comments ("Based on these and other conversations" - what other conversations? do they mean the cross-wiki shouting matches?) directly contradict the empirical experience of at least some people who have regularly been involved in edit-a-thons, who have said that they make no difference to recruitment/retention of women: they turn up, they edit on the day, they don't edit thereafter (there is a thread somewhere, either at GGTF or on the gendergap mailing list).

It strikes me that we need less anecdote and more hard fact, obtained through a series of well-defined surveys. Then, if anything needs to be done on the software side, we need to assign the task to competent developers. My fear is that the agenda is being driven in reverse: the desire for Facebook-isation exists as some sort of weird power-play at the highest levels or simply as a means of retaining and recruiting yet more software developers within the incestuous corporate structure. To meet their own desire, they need to find external reasons in support of it. If VisualEditor is anything to go by, any attempt at Facebook-isation will be a disaster but, happily (sic), will keep the WMF employment numbers rising. Too much money, too much vested interest; too little meaningful consultation, too little clue. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sumedh_Tayade_and_WP:INDICSCRIPT --NeilN 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

About Native Name

Dear Sitush, I am a new wikipedian but also i support the local language indication, i know that its english wikipedia but i assure you that i would never make any offensive name indication in the infoboxes which would be violating wikipedian rules, I will just add the native names which are truly recognised by the state government and Republic of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

STOP

Your recent editing history at Grewal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Oh, go away. You are a caste warrior and you know it. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You may not know me, but I've seen your work for years. Whether it's a view on a topic, or your defending those who are deserving; your thoughts and integrity often inspire me. I've also enjoyed your work on historical Indian culture, such as Paravar and Nair - but that's a different barnstar. Thanks for being here, and being you Sitush. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: thank you very much for your thoughts. I am not perfect, of course, and I often seem to be in the minority of late. Since I've pinged you and am about to go to bed yet again (I am unwell), perhaps you might take a look at Grewal? The edit summaries alone, with multiple references to "sabotage", make it obvious that something odd is afoot. You most likely will not understand the subject matter but various warnings have been issued to various users and I've also raised the sourcing issues and prior AfD outcome on the article talk page. My patience is at a low ebb but I'd stack a lot of money on this being a meat or sock case. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. I'm just now getting online, and the "ping" never showed in my browser - I'm not sure why. I'm sorry I missed the bulk of the problems, although it seems to be better now. I've had a quick look, and it looks like this is finding a resolution. I'll watchlist both the editor and the dab for a bit, and if there's anything I can contribute I will. I do hope you're feeling better. At my age, I can relate more often than not. — Ched :  ?  21:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ched, I think there were quite a few ping problems over the last day or so - I may have missed some myself but time will tell. No biggie.

Thanks for watchlisting the thing: RegentsPark clearly spotted what was going on and that removes the immediate disruption on the article itself. The rest, alas, is going to be yet another re-hash of the same arguments regarding reliable sources for this subject area. It is not a scenario that has ever gone against me but I really must write that essay one day because, frankly, it is extremely tedious having to deal with something like this pretty much every week. Since RP is, I think, still not as active as once they were, the extra set of admin eyes cannot be a bad thing. And the fact that you probably know nothing about the subject cements the uninvolved aspect.

I am 52: I should not be feeling like (sometimes worse than) my mother does! Right now I am managing only a couple of hours' sleep at a time and that issue alone hurts. Still, there are plenty in a worse predicament and "small mercies" applies :) - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

need your help please on cleaning up vanniyar article

Referenced lines have been removed. some users are trying to push false information.

https://books.google.com/books?id=OcEM2IsnA1AC&pg=PA278&dq=palli+claim+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oXHlVLyKJMXvoASDk4GICA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=palli%20claim%20kshatriya&f=false

Ritual, Caste, and Religion in Colonial South India

edited by Michael Bergunder, Heiko Frese

https://books.google.com/books?id=g5dHEQ6nWAcC&pg=PT8&dq=palli+claim+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oXHlVLyKJMXvoASDk4GICA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=palli%20claim%20kshatriya&f=false

Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Volume VI of VII

By Edgar Thurston

Kindly revert the article to the earlier version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nambudiri 1961 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thurston is not reliable but Bergunder/Frese is ok if it is being accurately cited. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided more references. Please take a look at the talk page in Vanniyar

Nambudiri 1961 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Nambudiri 1961

Dated Feb19 Please accept my apology if I am not following Misplaced Pages policy.

I would like to respectfully make the following points.

1. The palli caste changed their name to Vanniyar only in the 19th century. There is no historical proof to link palli with vanniyar. Burton Stein just mentions about vanniyar. There is no mention that ancient vanniyars are Pallis.

In Peasant state and society in medieval South India Written by Burton Stein Oxford University Press, 1980 - History - 533 pages. Clearly mentions that Palli are peasants and also makes special reference as vanniyar of later times.

https://books.google.com/books?id=F-HSAAAAMAAJ&q=palli+vanniyar&dq=palli+vanniyar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=akTmVPraFInYoAS3w4LYDg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADhu

More educational reference. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India By Lloyd I. Rudolph. University of Chicago.

Please read from page 49

https://books.google.com/books?id=7guY1ut-0lwC&pg=PA51&dq=palli+social+status&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vkXmVID3B4HwoASlkoHQDg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=palli%20social%20status&f=false

Lloyd I. Rudolph. University of Chicago clearly mentions that Palli are just trying to connect themselves to ancient vanniyars. Malayaman and Kadavas should be moved to article below. https://en.wikipedia.org/Vanniar_(Chieftain)

Also there is no page or link to Nooboru karashimas article. There is no referece which can be seen any where which clearly states that Pallis are the ancient vanniyars.

I kindly request senior editors and Sitush to move the malaiyaman and Kadava to below article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Vanniar_(Chieftain).

Nambudiri 1961 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Nambudiri 1961

Urgent help needed on the article Kumhar

Respected Sir, A huge traffic of i.p. users is continuously tempering with the sourced contents of the page. Their intention is merely caste promotion to which they actually belong, and it can be well verified by their conversation on the talk page of this article. They are continuously adding the self opinion based, unsourced contents removing the sourced contents. The article is continuously being de-shaped. Immediate attention and needful action is needed to protect the page. Who can understand better than you that it takes a lot of efforts to build a fully sourced article and it is not good when it becomes victim of disruptive editing just for the sake of advertising or promoting caste based ideas. Please interfere, i humbly request.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that someone semi-protected it before I got to the thing. I have tidied it up. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sir kindly check all this thing and update in pasi(caste) and also if you know hindi language so kindly visit ##www.pasi.in,you will get all real evidence and proof.

Paswan (pasi) are indian civilian and belong to majestic ancestors, Its very clear with live evidence in modern history they are primitive caste.

they lived in Faizabad, Barababki, Bahraich, Lucknow, Raibareli, Sita, Hardoi, Lakhimpurkhiri, Shahjahapur, Varanasi, Gazipur, Allahabad, Mirjapur, Kanpur, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur, Pratapgargh, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Deoria Fatehpur, Azamgargh, Unnao like Dalera, Kajand, Nut, Mahre, Chamar and Pasi.

In validation in world famous book Gazetteer of the province of Oudh.VOL. 2, till H to N, year 1877, Imperial Gazetteer of india vol. ii 1908, District Gazetteer Khiri-1979, Unnao District Gazetteer, UP District Gazetteer Volume 10101053.

It wrote on page 4 in Gazetteer Rampur 1974 k, Pasi are posterity of Ahar, Ahir, Barmar, Beria, Bhuihar, Chauhan(except rajput who is not rajput) Dalera, Khaujar, Nut, They cleaned forest and naked useful for human.

In 1996, famous English scholar " R.V. Russell " wrote in his book, "The tribes and cast of the central princes of the India " Pasi is a dravid cast.

they ruled large part of awadh/Oudh, after some time rajput they had destroyed to their dominate and they establish to rajput dominate.

R.V. Russell Belived, "Pasi are brave kaum" all details of R.V. Russell in book "Tribes and cast of the north western provinces and awadh/Oudh". wriiten by William Crooke.

Mr.William Crooke wrote they were Price or King and praised to their social, political, and economical power. they ruled in District Hardoi and Unnao, Khiri, Lucknow.

Their fort were in Ramkot Near (Bagarmau Kasba). last pasi king of ramgargh maharaja santhar (King of SatanKot) did not present any brush aside that's why they had finished relationship with contemporary king jaychand. After some time King Jaychand and alha udal combined force had finished to satan state.

In validation, in present available is "Satan Kot k kile"

U.P Govt reserved land for fort of Satan Kot Kila.

U.P Govt & Indian Central Govt has assigned three acre land for King Satan Pasi.

Sandila tehsil is located just near of Satan kote, earlier it was state which has been established by king Sandila and his another brother he has established to malihabad.

King Sandila state was around Sai River to Gomati River, last of 18th Century king of Delhi sultan Nasiruddin shah, he had attacked on Sandila and in this war sadila was filer.

Maharaja Bijli pasi he was one of the greatest king of biggest part of Awadh/Oudh.

famous English connoisseur Sir C Iliyat and R.V. Russell agreed with evidence ancient ruin, fortress, fort, primitive coin and primitive uninstalls, vestige after study to another thing Its clear that distric lakhimpur and arround it on all state till 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th pasies they had established so many state, In 12th & 13th century,pasi king they had faced some critical situation with their contemporary king. he had burnt to pasi sankriti and historical legacy.

"" may not be a fo far fetched theory to identify this period with the times in which pasis and other aboriginal tribes are said to have held this part of the country.No sign of pasi dominion have however survived which need not surprised us their possession have long been held by the descendants of rajput and muslim invaders.""

It has been describe on page of 20 in Gazetteer in year of 1979.

North east of dharhara lakhimpur khiri headquarter, pasi strength is higher in dhaurhara.

It was fort of vintage pasi king, In present you will get fort and so many thing which is saved by gov.

It wrote in District Gazetteer khiri publication 1979 on page 258 that dharhaura was capital of pasi.--Sachin8p (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this mess. --NeilN 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the second article where they've done that sort of thing, IIRC. I'm getting hit from all sorts of different directions re: caste stuff today. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Like most Westerners, I thought there were only four or five castes in India. Sometimes I wish I didn't know better now. --NeilN 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Officially, there are a tad over 4600 now, which is well over twice the number that were recorded in 1901 or thereabouts. I am increasingly of the opinion that caste is essentially like a series of fractal images: the more you zoom in, the more the same patterns emerge. But, yeah, that Western perception is where the likes of H. H. Risley went wrong. At least, unlike him, you are not a scientific racist! - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush sir which evidence and proof you have given its not correct its showing

kindly remove untouchable word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin8p (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pandui raj

It is right.check history Singh Pranav Kumar 18:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavtat09 (talk • contribs)

If it is in "history" then provide a reliable source that verifies it, please. You cannot just insert your own stuff into the middle of a sentence that has a citation. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pandui Raj

Pandui is a Village in Jehanabad Block in Jehanabad District of Bihar State, India. It belongs to Magadh Division . It is located 6 KM towards South from District head quarters Jehanabad. 5 KM from Jehanabad. 61 KM from State capital Patna %0A%0APandui Pin code is 804433 and postal head office is Pandooi . %0A%0AShahpur ( 2 KM ) , Amain ( 3 KM ) , Mandil ( 4 KM ) , Nerthua ( 5 KM ) , Kaswan ( 5 KM ) are the nearby Villages to Pandui. Pandui is surrounded by Kurtha Block towards South , Ratni Faridpur Block towards west , Makhdumpur Block towards South , Kako Block towards East . %0A%0AJehanabad , Makhdumpur , Masaurhi , Islampur are the nearby Cities to Pandui.%09%0A%0AThis Place is in the border of the Jehanabad District and Arwal District. Arwal District Kurtha is South towards this place . Also it is in the Border of other district Patna .%0A%0ADemographics of Pandui%0A%0AMagdhi is the Local Language here. %0AHOW TO REACH Pandui%0A%0ABy Rail%0A%0AJahanbad Court Rail Way Station , Mai Halt Rail Way Station are the very nearby railway stations to Pandui. How ever%09Gaya Jn Rail Way Station is major railway station 45 KM near to Pandui %0A%0A%0A%0ASchools in Pandui%0A%0AP.s.jamanbigha%0AAddress : pandui , jehanabad , jehanabad , Bihar . PIN- 804433 , Post - Pandooi%0A%0A%0AM.s.pandui%0AAddress : pandui , jehanabad , jehanabad , Bihar . PIN- 804433 , Post - Pandooi Singh Pranav Kumar 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavtat09 (talk • contribs)

Reboot

Seriously. I just politely pointed out that 26 edits were reverted and asked matter-of-factly for people to specify what is or isn't a problem.

You're not being helpful here at all.

Peter 14:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is not being helpful. You are rebooting the same discussion that is already going on and which has already deteriorated. Why do you think the outcome will be any different this time round? Even admins cannot agree where the BRD cycle started on this one.

Look, I've had a lot of experience of dealing with big content disputes that involve lots of edits and reverts. Breaking the issues down into individual items invariably works better than lumping them all together and expecting people to pick them apart. Focus. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, then you do the breaking apart. I'm not going to start addressing phantom arguments. I was specifically asking those who reverted to explain themselves regarding stuff that isn't coatracking and removal of pics. I mean, you did notice that there was more to it than that, right?

Peter 14:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am doing some of the breaking apart: there is a section immediately above the one that you just opened at Talk:Cleavage (breasts). Honestly, all you are demonstrating is a battleground mentality: instead of trying to call people to account, just try to move forward. If that means you have to address "phantom arguments" (I have no idea what you mean by that but it seems to be your subjective opinion given that you have no reply as yet) then so be it: address those arguments one at a time. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no arguments to address. Period. The blanket reverts have been motivated as "removal of valuable material" or "status quo". That's it. No details. At the same time there were removals of WP:RS violations and misrepresentations of sources, all clearly stated in the edit summaries. Have you actually looked at the edits or are you actually expecting someone else to walk you through them?

Peter 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the reverts. You are arriving at the discussion with a preconceived opinion. It isn't the way forward. I'm not sure what is going on right now but I think you need to take a break: you've tried deleting stuff here and you have twice tried to do so in the article talk thread. When an experienced contributor like you starts behaving in a bizarre procedural manner, it doesn't bode well for the quality of their participation in any actual discussion. Go cool down. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying attention, Sitush. I'm talking about the reverted edits themselves and their content. You know, actual article content. If someone reverts so much, I assume they'll be interested in motivating it. But your take on this is to get annoyed at me and imply that it's up to me to explain why I disagree with the unmotivated mass-reverts.

You're giving equal weight to arguments regardless of detail, cogency or attention to detail. It's an extremely frustrating approach to arbitration, or whatever it is you're doing. If you want to be a constructive force in this, mind that smugness instead of telling others not to get upset over it.

Peter 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, not only are you mind-reading the reverter but you are also mind-reading me now? Are you familiar with WP:CONSENSUS as well as BRD? You made some changes, you were reverted, next you discuss. You have to explain your changes just as much as they have to explain their reasons for rejecting them, then we see how the land lies. It is pretty simple, really. You'll likely get your way simply because you've got the force of the outraged GGTF behind you but you've got to play the game. And, yes, often it is a game. I am certainly supportive of some of the changes but you'll note that I didn't just jump in there and make those changes in what are obviously circumstances where there is disagreement. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing more frustrating than jaded comments about the inevitability of The Game is when those comments are coming from someone who is actively playing The Game for all its worth.

If you're serious about this, you'd be discussing content instead of letting out stuff about the "force of the outraged GGTF". It makes you seem like you're more concerned about acting like a political counterbalance than you are about getting articles up to snuff.

Peter 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, go away Peter. Come back when you're in a more rational mood. I've been discussing content all over that page. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your opinion does not entitle you to remove Sitush's post. --NeilN 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, yes! Now you are edit warring with me! Go grab a coffee and take a break. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, judging by your talk page, you are warring all over the shop at the moment. Dare I mention that in the current ANI thread? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Common Sense

] Was a well written and thoughtful posting. Good commonsense advice in my book. I'd dig you up a barnstar but I'm feeling lazy lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)