This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do you think either a range block for 125.62.... or semi-protect would be in order? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Page protection requested. I chose that way because it's faster than getting someone to calculate and agree to a rangeblock. Such a block would be good if the editor is going after multiple pages, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That makes good sense. Thank you very much! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that it is now done, for 3 days. Thanks for sorting this out. I might be RPPing List of Ezhavas before much longer - driving me nuts, that one! - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Found another pocket of caste-cruft
The article Mers (of which Maher caste appears to be a total fork) has a bunch of ridiculous tone, plentiful synthesis, a total of (1) footnote, etc. Sample of tone includes: "have a rich and diverse history involving many battles, valour and sacrifice to uphold their honour and values." Furhter, the lede comes in with "Rajput Kshatriya" well, totally unsurprisingly, a brief gBooks survery says "Shudra" or possibly "Untouchable". Though in fairness, a few sources say they may be de-listed Rajputs, but that's certainly not addressed in the article. Also the "History" has a suspect gap between 900AD and 1950AD...
In any case, once I catch my breath I'll be venturing forth into this one. I try to stay out of Rajput articles, but from what I've seen the last few months we could have a whole article just on "purported Rajput" clans, if WP:SYNTH could somehow be addressed. Nair is still being ornery, Kurmi is actually getting some reasonable requests in (relatively speaking), etc. Hope all your projects are running smoothly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Next
Thanks so much for your hard work on Owl Woman! I can see that you spent quite a bit of time restructuring the information for better flow, with edits, and ensuring no CR issues. It seemed that the only other CR issue that you came across was related to Bent and Bent's Fort, which you removed because it's covered in their associated articles, which makes sense.
Questions:
Do you think we're good to go for the Owl Woman article?
Because of the number of places where citations needed to be verified, I'd like to take a stab at Anasazi Heritage Center - verifying that the right references are where they need to be, rewording the issue that TK identified, checking for CR issues and any editing that's needed. Make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You can move on to the next. I've got a fair bit more to go through on OW yet. Keep an eye on what I am doing there but feel free to self-check etc on other stuff. Do you understand why the section I removed was close paraphrase? And why mixing it up a bit breaks the slavish following of the structure of a source (moving that quote was a biggie for this, IIRC, but there are several paras where I have shuffled things around, added/removed bits for the same reason). - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't realize that. I thought some of the movement was for the information to flow better (removing the Wm. Bent section and putting him in with Marriage and issue, for instance. I'll go back to that portion of the edits and look more closely. The only place I saw mention of close paraphrasing was with the information that I thought you removed about Wm. and the fort. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Was that what you meant by "forking"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Fork is splitting an article into one or more separate articles. However, it turns out that there were already articles for Bent etc, so if anything it would be a merge rather than a fork. WP:FORK - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, yes, I see. It seems most of the issues were with information I got from Varnell. Ok, I'll go back to the Anasazi. Thanks again!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
When you get a chance, I have a couple of questions to run by you:
Is it necessary to break up 1988 + operated + Bureau of Land Management into different sentences?
Is it always necessary to reword, if the current words are really the best: operated? pilgrimage? I used "owned and managed" for "operated", but operated is clearer. I used "spiritual journey" for pilgrimage, but most people know straight away what is meant by pilgrimage.
When there are a list of things that have no synonyms, such as places - is it necessary to break them up into separate sentences? Example: Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau. It seems confusing when they're not linked together.
(I also posted these on Checklist if you'd rather not clutter your talk page.) Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick update/FYI so you know where things are going... not at all a prod!!! I've made a lot of progress to the Checklist page, including some examples of article and source info from the Anasazi article, rules of thumb, ref info, etc. After touching base with Moonriddengirl and as a means of immersion, I've also started a draft for a revised Close paraphrasing article in my workspace. I have plenty to work on, am heavy into CP immersion, so no worries here, catch up when you have a breather!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Attacks
You've been personally attacked a few times on the Nair talk page and there's one username that means "Sitush's mom". I've obviously blocked this and a couple of others as part of the standard vandalism brigade (although they qualified for the username block), but if you feel offended I think there's an option for having the name redacted by oversight or something; I'm not entirely well-versed with that part of the policy, but you might be able to find out by poking around the UAA board if you're interested. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, even I knew what "Amma" means. It didn't seem worth the effort of reading up on the procedures because it is not actually derogatory etc. Although someone might argue it is "passing off" I think that common sense would make it clear that it is not. I'll leave it for now. I am also inclined to leave the Nair Men section that keeps being added/removed. I have responded and the issue is dead as a consequence of my response. It may indeed be factually correct but without a source it is not going in the article. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The India Star
The India Star
WikiProject India thanks you for your tireless efforts in cleaning up India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If the last 24 hours are anything to go by, my mother seems to have been reading up on some very obscure issues relating to Nair hygiene. <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Support and guidance
The Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for support and guidance in the review of examples on close paraphrasing. Your help increased my understanding where there were specific issues and specifically how to go about fixing them. Thanks for remembering from past experience that guidance helps me then be able to make sense of documentation. Thanks so much!!
Much more to come. There are some SPIs on the go and then, hopefully, things will settle down for me. I can't wait! - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations !!!
I would like to congratulate you for your valuable contributions to the article about Nair caste. Being a foreigner, you are taking so much pain to improve articles related to India. We Indians are really thankful to you. Congrats once again. - KoyilandySultan (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't weigh in on Dina Wadia because I was on the fence. Here is a similar situation. If you have a view either way, please say. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Socks
I don't think the VK page has been checked since the original decline. Also, the new legal threat is pretty similar to the old one, so I believe SK ought to be added to the SPI too. And you probably want to update the SPI clerk on your changes to the SPI for either a new endorse or decline. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Owl Woman
Sitush,
I saw your recent edits and have a couple of things to run by you:
Putting the citations in the same format. I really don't care what the citation format is in, I was just using a format that was used in other articles I've worked on and removing the p's was the least cumbersome approach (there were fewer of those). I see that you added back in "p." and "pp.". I'd like to have the same format throughout - are you saying that it's important for you to have the p. and pp. If so, I'll go ahead and add them to the other citations. Examples:
9.^ Hyde, p. 154.
10.^ a b c Hyde, 160.
11.^ Halaas, Masich, 12.
12.^ a b c Hyde, p. 155
13.^ a b Varnell, 9-10.
As always, your edits are always polished. I think, though, that a couple of rewording attempts have put us back into "close paraphrasing" scenarios. For instance: She died in 1847 and was later inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. I'll go check that one out.
A reference was taken out that I thought was needed: "There were four of these arrows and they were thought to have a sacred or medicinal role, which is why he was also considered to be an influential spiritual leader,<ref name=Halaas290/><ref name=Halaas14>Halaas, Masich, 14.</ref> "
Were you upset that I made some edits?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Update for the 2nd bullet: It looks like the place that I read that quote was not the cited source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Since I have not read anything about the HoF induction process yet, I would be surprised if it was close paraphrasing. And if it was then it would be practically unavoidable.
As far as I am aware, most people use "p" and "pp", as do the cite templates. There are situations where the number might refer to something else, eg: a verse, an act, a section mark in parliamentary papers etc. None of those apply here (yet!). I had not noticed that you had removed those p's and pp's which I previously inserted because I was doing them as I found the things & so was aware that there was a mixture in the Refs section.
There appeared to be two citations from Halaas for the same piece of information, This is redundancy. However, I thought that it occurred as two cites for either medicine man or high priest, instead of one for each. I will check what went on there. In the event that I've got it wrong, then I would prefer to see <ref name=Halaas14>Halaas, Masich, pp. 14, 290.</ref>. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This discussion, by the way, should really be on the article talk page, not here. However, since you have started I will just add that the map & the section containing it etc are not likely to remain for long. They are relevant to the fort but not of much relevance to Owl Woman. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the comments here because I got the impression you were upset. I just referred to the map - and it shows the placement of tribes mentioned many times in the article. I'd like that to stay.
I will go add "p's" to the citations - and your edit for combining the two cites from the same source makes sense. If you would like me to explain why I thought it was good to use both 14 and 290, I'd be happy to.
Really, are you upset?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Not in the slightest upset. Not sure why you should think otherwise. Aside from being pointlessly threatened with various actions under (subcontinental) Indian law, all is ok. Not got to the map bit yet but I did glance over the section about the functioning of the fort. It seemed good, but slightly off-focus for this article. Would be ok in the fort article if there is nothing about that stuff already, but leave it for now. Let me check Halaas - probably blindingly obvious. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well with Dexthorpe
Hi Sitush request for help please.
Have been working with Acabashi on sorting through and improving Lincs Villages. Never heard of a place called Derthorpe which redirects to Well - managed to find link to Thomas Allens book and it does mention Derthorpe. However in my memory Well was linked somehow to nearby Dexthorpe and I believe that its a typo for Dexthorpe. This place is actually just north of Dalby, although it seems that the locals used Well church, not Dalby church. Im finding it hard to cite that bit because it comes from Whites directory and that Historical Directories sites links seem to break every 24 hours. I do have some other references. But I need to be absolutely sure of what Im doing - cos I will have to de-redirect it, move it to the name Dexthorpe, and then re-link it - and I dont know whether to relink it to Well, or relink it to Dalby, Lincolnshire|Dalby, or obviously IF I can find enough, leave it unlinked as a stand alone page. Any help/advice appreciated. Panderoona (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Dexthorpe - pg 142Pastcape -DexthorpeDexthorpe pg 161Dexthorpe pg 156
I made this as a rough idea of what Im thinking of User:Panderoona/DexthorpePanderoona (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Please god it isn't also in some way related to Derrythorpe! Some Derthorpe links:
It looks a bit messy, doesn't it? Sure, place names change and there are issues when using old sources, a notable one being plagiarism (by the sources, not you!). I am not sure right now that you can make a statement that Dexthorpe is Derthorpe, but I will see what I can be sure of. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
OMG now Im really confused....... ho hum. Im sure it is the same place, after all, Well isnt exactly a large area, and generally it seems to come linked with Mawthorpe (which is actually listed today as being in Willoughby with Sloothby parish just to confuse the issue more) so I THINK(!) Derthorpe and Dexthorpe are the same place, BUT that it was known by both names in an either/or way. So... if I did write a page on it Id have to include said variations including links provided. Out for rest of day playing with my grandson, but will be back to try and work this one out further. Thanks so much Panderoona (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not convinced that they are the same. For example, Moule quite clearly calls Derthorpe a hamlet but Pastscape appears to be referring to Dexthorpe as remnants of a medieval village. Now, there is quite a gap between when Moule & Pastscape wrote but if the two places are the same then somewhere betweeen the two there should be some sort of reference to Derthorpe ceasing to be occupied, eg: some sort of parliamentary report on the census. I think that you need to be extremely careful here and not let your local knowledge cloud your judgement. These places may require separate articles (if they have articles at all), and on the basis of what I have seen so far it could well be WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR to state a connection. Since Derthorpe does not even exist now (if Pastscape is to be believed), I am not even sure that it would survive the notability test without several sources being present. As it is presumably not now an inhabited place, it is not inherently notable.
You need to take this to the Lincs project page and have a chinwag, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
yes that might be the best idea. As it stands Derthorpe redirects to Well, which is fine - but it would obviously be worth mentioning whatever I can find on Derthorpe (and or Dexthorpe) in the Well article, if its to remain a redirect. :) Panderoona (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
think you were right. Thomas Allens book names Dexthorpe near Dalby, AND Derthorpe near Well. Panderoona (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal award
The Taj Mahal Award For Extraordinary Efforts In Improving India-Related Articles
Kind Sir, Taj Mahal himself would, no doubt, also be grateful for your going the extra thusumbu in improving India-related articles. With my gratitude, Hon. Tamil Drmies (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess that I'll have to cease my wikigrumbling about the wikilove feature, which has perhaps been based on wikienvy. Cheers, Prof. I will be back on 18C prizefighters and defunct engineering companies of Manchester before too long, and probably pestering you for access to sources again. Have you seen the 1938 Gold Star up for sale on eBay? Starting price of a mere AUS$228,000. Yikes. I am clearly worth more than my bank manager thinks! - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. That's pretty. I think you should withdraw all your pension contributions and bid on it. Wow--it's REAL pretty! Even my daughters think it's great. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
He has dropped the start bid by $30k since I first read it. There are a few issues with that bike, only some of which he has edited the blurb to reflect. One has to wonder why, if it is a special as he makes out, he has chosen eBay over, say, Sothebys or Christies. The short answer is that it does not have great provenance, the numbers do not tie up etc. Anyway, my model is better than that one, so there! As for you, spend what ever you have on your daughters. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Self-review: other articles
Sitush, just to synch up on three things:
I think you may have missed this from my talk page, this would really help if you have the time: "I started the self-review on two other articles - and have some work areas where I have article, source and reworded text that would be great if you could look at tomorrow." The link is: User:CaroleHenson/Working list--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
With you and TK under good steam on Owl Woman, I'm moving on to my third self-review, Frank Weston Benson.
I've seen all of the above. The weather is too nice for serious WP'ing right now, and I have some bricklaying to get done, so I'll be dipping in and out of things this weekend (unless the weather changes). Mix some mortar, lay a few bricks, have a rest to preserve the dicky heart, take a peek here, and back outside. Repeat. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Good! Sounds like fun!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Go ride your bike, Sitush. Laying bricks, there's always time for that, and you're getting too old for manual labor anyway. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I can ride a bike in the rain. I can't lay bricks in the rain. I live in Manchester, a place (rather unfairly, as Malleus would tell you) known for its rain. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, I should have asked you earler: I'd like to ensure that as I'm doing my self-reviews that I'm relatively on the right track. I know you're busy with Owl Woman and other efforts. Do you have a suggestion of how to approach having my examples reviewed?
By the way, I actually thought laying bricks might be fun - I know it's hard work from having done it for several of my landscaping projects, but rewarding, too - if you get a pretty path, patio, etc. out of the process. It's fun to see a tangible result of work after writing a lot. Thanks for help with a suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Your self-reviews will not be wrong. There are two reasons for this:
I know that you are willing to learn and you have acknowledged that, with hindsight, there were some issues. The very act of self-reviewing is a massive statement to the community.
Anyone here who has a modicum of sense, as you do, will always be self-critical of what they have written
I think that a part of the problem here may well in fact be drifting into the area of self-doubt. Nothing wrong with that if it can be driven in a positive manner, but you do have to trust your instincts to some extent. Believe me, I do understand why you should now have that notion embedded in your head. Do not panic. Do the best that you are capable of doing. Everything here is under review, always. Continue to pick up on comments made by others (and query/challenge as you feel fit). I am far, far from being perfect and the same applies to pretty much everyone else who contributes. It is true, as TK said, that you are not a newbie any more and, in fact, you probably could award yourself one of those bits of wikiglitter, but we are all learning, all of the time.
There are some really helpful people in this place - C.Fred, Drmies, Qwyrxian, Boing! said Zebedee and Anna Frodesiak are among those that I have turned to recently & regularly for advice/help/comment, while others such as SpacemanSpiff and Moonriddengirl are truly excellent in their chosen specialisms. There are loads of others, so apologies to them for the omissions. By and large, most of the regulars I deal with are also possess a decent sense of humo(u)r - it always helps! And from your perspective please do remember that this entire exercise is supposed to be fun, in the sense that you are not obligated and do it because you love it. Once it stops being fun then, I suppose, you stop for a while. I guess that some of this is about building a network of people who you can turn to. You will not always agree with them but, hey, you probably do not agree always with your family/friends/neighbo(u)rs either.
As for laying bricks, well, my current health situation means that I should not be doing it at all (I am under instructions not to lift more than 4 kg/8 lb in weight, which makes mixing mortar somewhat tedious). But it also means that I cannot work, so "needs must". I'm not in a position to pay someone and, under normal circumstances, I enjoy it anyway. I have a house and it is 120 y.o., so either I fix it or it falls down. No landscaping etc involved & that side of things may never happen in my lifetime. I re-roofed the thing last year, on the basis that I should start at the top and work down; and re-wired, and re-plumbed during the winter, and partially replastered. But this year was supposed to be all about fixing crap brickwork and therefore weatherproofing the thing. It is unlikely to get finished per my plans because of the imminent heart ops, but we will see.
I will get to take a look at your self-reviews. I have to if only because I made a statement that I would. In the interval, just keep plugging away at the things. You will do nothing wrong by doing so. As for events at Owl Woman, well, that has dragged on a bit but it has done so because I am interested and thought it worthwhile building on the article. I really do think that this could be a GA candidate, and it will be because of your laying of the foundations/brickwork. So, there are big, big positives in all of this. Bear those in mind. What you do is integral to improving that which WP has to offer. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sitush - you had me at the first paragraph, but I appreciate your input. I think it's fair to say that it's not tons of fun at the moment because I wrote about 60 articles - but I'm not in a panic - to your credit you've discerned that it's important for me to do a good job, and that's why I asked. (I'm what's called overly-contientious.) MRG and I are getting close on the revised "close paraphrasing" article - and that's fun, hoping that will be helpful to others. I guess I still consider myself a newbie because I don't always understand the short-hand language that transpires between editors - where they immediately understand the issue and concept - and I'm lost. I do get your point, though, thanks! I'll keep working away - but have been pacing myself more lately with real life. I know my mother-henness isn't always helpful, but please do take care of yourself! --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl has only recently done some work on the close paraphrasing article. It is a nightmare of a subject and, IIRC, Truthkeeper88 may have been involved that time round also (not intended as a detrimental comment). I will repeat what I have said to you previously: I would be astonished if I have not transgressed. The entire subject is very awkward in practice, and even more awkward to explain. But you are in good hands with MRG. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you meaning to say that you'd prefer to finish working with me on "close paraphrasing" and I should work with one of the other editors you mentioned above or MRG? If that's the case, I understand, I know you've been busy with the Nair article and are now digging deeper into Owl Woman. (not in a panic, just wondering if I'm reading you right, possible I'm misunderstanding). Yes or no will suffice, if you wish. You've been a great help over many months, so I will understand either way. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No, but I am not always around and, in any case, I am not always right. It is never a bad thing to be part of a wider group. Indeed, the whole Wikipedia thing about consensusrelies on there being a wide group. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I think that Drmies may pop in at some point, in between riding his motorbike, performing his admin duties, discoursing to his students and being adored by his daughters! Not necessarily in that order. See Green children of Woolpit as a recent Featured Article in which he was heavily involved. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, for the time being I'll go along with what you said above: "Your self-reviews will not be wrong. There are two reasons for this:
I know that you are willing to learn and you have acknowledged that, with hindsight, there were some issues. The very act of self-reviewing is a massive statement to the community.
Anyone here who has a modicum of sense, as you do, will always be self-critical of what they have written"
and continue my self-reviews.
I appreciate what you said about being part of a wider commmunity and will look for opportunties to reach out to others, too. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
If you are done with your cleaning up the article Madurai, pls remove the cleanup tag. Also it has been mentioned in teh reason as some important details totally omitted. Please go ahead with adding those details which you found omitted. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't add that tag but it remains valid. It will remain valid even when I have done what I can because there are issues which I cannot resolve due to lack of access to sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine. no issues. Wasifwasif (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Whe will you be able to remove that.? The user who added din't reply when i raised in his talk page. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is a complete mess and the points mentioned in the tag are valid: it contains a lot of trivia and is poorly written. It needs an expert because I can only do so much to fix things. It is not uncommon for articles to be tagged like this for a year or more. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of what you are saying. But tehre should atleast be one user who tries to do work on that article. Its better if that is, the user who added that bug. What will be the solution for this, in your opinion? if nobody cares and the tag continues to stay with no care. I already have informed in the talk page of the user who added the bug. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are possibly trying to talk with someone who "drive by" tagged. This happens. I have done it in the past. It is a valid action, although if someone pretty only does that then their motives might be questioned. There are periodic campaigns to sort out these tags, and there are also people who go round fixing things generally, and so the tag will be addressed at some point by one or more people. In the interval, it really does not matter what you think unless you fix the issues raised yourself. The article is pretty bad both in tone and content. It needs a lot of work. I am doing what I can, when I can. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page. Message added 23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
So, Rajputs are like, the top, "royal" Indian clans, correct? That's what I gather from reading Rajput, anyway. So, would I be correct in assuming that when I start to go aggro on Rajput clans, as I've described on Talk:Rajput clans#More generally..., I should expect serious resistance? As I said in that talk space, I'm going to wait a while before doing anything drastic--the message was kind-of "fair warning" that the day of reckoning is coming. And when I start going through, I'm going to have to go into all of the linked articles to look for "hidden" verification. But is me moving on that article putting me in the crosshairs? Not that that's necessarily going to stop me, but I'm trying to figure out what I'm getting myself into before I do it? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have had minimal involvement in Rajput-related stuff but, yes, I think that they are indeed at or very near to the top. I would presume that this still leaves them below the Brahmins in the varna system. MatthewVanitas appears to have been involved quite a bit and is another, like us, who is merely trying to make WP a fair and reasonable place rather than a cruft-ridden, POV place. However, if you do weigh in there then, of course, I am always willing to assist with sourcing disputes etc as and (more likely) when. I will take a look at your comment and don my flameproof suit! - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
T'ing is, with Rajputs, is they're pretty much the guys with the strongest Kshatriya claims, all things being relative. Bearing in mind that there's a pretty strong Brahmin argument that the Kshatriya were wiped out back in the Vedic days. Rajputs certainly [i]consider[/i] themselves to be Kshatriya, perhaps the only Kshatriya. Back a year and some ago when I first posted on Talk "hey, I'm not finding any really definitive cite for Kshatriya, does it have to be there and/or so definite-sounding?" the basic reply was "let someone dare to remove it from our article, and the floodgates will open!!!". I semi-finessed it into "considered as", which I feel is generally accurate.
I don't have all the details on this since I've been stuck on Deccan articles, and helping Sitush with Kerala a little bit, but some chaps on WP:INDIA said that actual academic history pretty clearly indicates that the Rajput were at one point too far from the Hindu homeland to be Hindus, so just basic out-caste/heathens. Later they were incorporated into Hinduism, at which point I reckon they may have been Shudra as Hindu-ised outcastes. Then at some vague point they signed up en-masse for military campaigns, smacked around enough people to gain some street cred, and then either elbowed their way into Kshatriya, found some helpful Brahmins willing to cut deals and "discover" a mythic past, etc. Bluntly, it looks to be nearly exactly what the Maratha did, except the Maratha apparently didn't do it as convincingly since apparently it's a lot less edgy to doubt Maratha Kshatriya-hood than Rajput.
That's my basic read on the matter. Y'all may have noticed I've been a bit swamped In Real Life and thus not as helpful the past couple weeks, but if it'd help Q. I can try to devote whatever Wiki time I have (aside from just defending/reverting current revised caste articles) to providing some support on Rajput issues. Are you primarily doing Rajput clans? That's going to be a fun one; were you around when I just ended up purging Maratha clan system from 40 screens of names down to one screen of concept? With Rajput clans, the ticklish bit is sorting out which clans are generally agreed to be Rajput, which are allied to the Rajput and considered as members though technically adopted, and which claim to be Rajput but are rejected by all other Rajputs as imposters (see Lodhi, which is predictably vandalised by removing one key sentence from the lede). Alternately, you can do what we did at Maratha clan system, delete any pretense of making a list (since such will invite constant tampering) and just explain in concept what a Rajput clan is, and refer to several off-wiki British chronicles or whatnot which purport to list and categories the Rajputs. Note what I did at 36 royal races, another article where there's an ice-cube's chance in hell that any list of 36 names is going to remain un-mucked with for even days.
Thanks for the input. Yes, the task I am thinking of taking on right now is Rajput clans. Looking back, at the history, it looks like I ended up at that article by accident when I came to answer a Semi-protected edit request back in Novemebr 2010 (one of the random tasks I do from time to time is reduce backlogs at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests). Since then, there's regularly been requests to add or subtract one clan or another from the list. When I was looking at the most recent one, I actually took a closer look at the article, along with a few linked clans, and really realized how badly sourced and, overall, unverified it is. Since I currently lack a "big project", I figured I might as well tackle that one.
As for a "plan", the next step is to wait. While I don't expect there to be a sudden flurry of verification, I'm going to give the article about a week or so (maybe two, since real life might just keep me busy until then) before I do anything. That way, I've made the initial good faith offer by saying "Hey, this is unverified, how about somebody who actually added this stuff verify it?" My next step will be to go through and just scrape out everything that's not linked and not explicitly verified with an in-line citation. After that, I'll start going through the wikilinked stuff, and saying, for example, "Well, it says that Chandela is a Rajput clan, but there's no references...lets see if Chandela has any references to back that up"? If it does, even if I'm not sure about the quality of the references, I'll probably leave it be. But if there's no references, I'm taking it out, and definitely taking out any specific details that aren't referenced. I'll probably assume for the moment that the Tod reference is sufficient to verify the Ancient 36 (their inclusion, not details about them). Then, at some point after all of this is done, it will be time to start looking at the actual sources themselves. However, at that point, I'll probably have to stop or turn over the work to someone else, because the vast majority of sources are offline, which means I have no access to them.
This will clearly take quite some time. Plus, my assumption is that in the middle of this process, there will be numerous objections that need to be answered. Ideally, of course, some of those objections will include reliable sources that can be incorporated into the article. My goal, of course, isn't to remove info as much as it is to be sure that what info there is is verified, so whether that is achieved by removal of unreferenced info or addition of referenced info is perfectly fine.
It may well be that, at the end of the day, the best solution is the removal of the list (save the Tod list) like you did at Maratha clan system, but we'll have to see what turns up at the end of the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
While you're looking at that, I'd also glance at Category:Chhatis Rajkul ("royal races"). I have concerns that this cat will be ripe for abuse. The Col. Todd list of "36 royal races" is, as I understand it, not necessarily definitive, as it wasn't his original concept and he was just taking down whatever folks told him. I've already had some trouble with, for example Ahir, where they found some RS cite stating that Tod's list includes the Ahir, and yet when I actually look at the list they're not on there. I might take that to WP:INDIA as a "an RS says X, but X appears to be demonstrably not the case". I'm not even totally clear if the "36 royal races" is completely by definition Rajput, mostly Rajput, or what. Similar problems with Category:Ruling Hindu clans, Category:Ruling Kurmi Clans, Category:Ruling Jain clans; need to figure out if those cats have any legitimacy, or if it's more "the Fooians once produced a king/dynasty, so the whole ethnic group is royal." MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Madurai and Coimbatore
This is what you're looking for. The GO for city expansion was issued (which was the Tamil doc with the new sub-regions of the cities and their population), but there's confusion as to when that comes to effect and probably more flux now because of a change in govt. Sodabottle will probably know more about this as he'd have edited some content on ta.wiki about it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am particularly concerned about context. Eg: are they estimates and, if so, who calculated them; has the contributor here synthesised the numbers etc. Stats are so easy to abuse. I'll check it out. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The nos themselves are not estimates, they are from the 2001 census. A couple of years back, the govt decided to expand the boundaries of a few of the cities. So the population just includes those parts from the '01 census. However, I don't know if anyone knows if that's been done, this is a rather cumbersome process and they had set a target of 2011 to complete. But with the change in govt, I don't know if it's happening or not (agsin, I'm not saying it is or isn't happening, just that I don't know). Sodabottle and Ravichandar84 have an interest in these matters, so they'll probably know. —SpacemanSpiff 20:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Sodabottle. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The numbers are 2001 census numbers and not estimates. The tamil document is the govt order for expansion of city limits. However, this order hasnt come into effect yet. It ought to come into effect from the 2011 local body polls, provided the new govt doesnt cancel the order (in TN canceling the previous govt's schemes and orders is the norm). So the current status is a govt order has been issued but not implemented. Thus we should be using the pre-expansion nos and not the post-expansion ones. (A mention could be made in the article body though. I have mentioned this in coimbatore article as . Such a merger will increase Coimbatore's population to 1.26 million (2001 census figures) and its area will be more than doubled to 265.36 km, )--Sodabottle (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should certainly be mentioned somewhere. It may also be one of the "important" things mysteriously referred to in the maintenance hat tag at Madurai. I would much prefer some sort of English language source or a translation but will do my best based on what Geico2000 wrote. Not now, though, as my dog is getting itchy paws & needs his walkies. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. But the centering is not. Should be using css not html. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I cannot see where the guidelines you link to mention that the colour is ok. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
See the sample fleet table mentioned under the Fleet section. Besides this format is followed across all airline articles in wikipedia (even for centering). If you have any objections, raise it at WT:AIRLINE. — Abhishek Talk 10:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I will. Not the colour issue, but the mark up issue. If only because of WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="3" style="border-collapse:collapse"
|+ '''Foo Fleet'''
|- bgcolor=#ccccff
!Aircraft
!Total
!Orders
!Passengers
!Routes
!Notes
|-
|[[Boeing 737|Boeing 737-300]]
|3
|0
|148
|Europe
|Out of service in 2099
|-
|[[Boeing 777|Boeing 777-200ER]]
|2
|1
|220
|North America
|
|}
— Abhishek Talk 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have now asked the question. Projects cannot over-rule the wider community and the issues surrounding using html for alignment of block elements can be considerable. I accept that different browsers also implement css in different ways, however! I am really not that fussed about the colour issue: it seems wrong that we should subliminally promote carriers in this way, but I have far more important things to worry about. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Whether colors are allowed or not, you'll also have to take into account WP:COLOR, especially the point about accessibility to our color-blind readers. Sometimes even the simplest of stuff may cause problems, as I found at one of my featured list reviews. —SpacemanSpiff 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Taking from R.V. Russell directly?
Greetings, I'm really digging R.V. Russell (1916) now that I'm reading more of his stuff, and he covers a plethora of precisely the sort of castes we're weak on covering: "low", "criminal", etc. castes. Jugglers, thieves, magicians, musicians, etc.
His work seems pretty professional, more early-20th academic and not too terribly much Raj-apologist. He does clearly cite other works, seems to have a lot of direct observation and results of field interviews, etc. In the interests of expanding coverage, and in-line with the precedent of, as a starting measure, chunking the 1911 Britannica into WP semi-directly, I'd like to start grabbing whole sections of Russel and using them to start articles like Mang (caste). I could take the section covering the Mang, clean up the tone/style, remove any undue ramblings, apply WP formatting, etc. and then put the "taken from a work in the public domain" tab at the bottom. I'm pretty sure it's PD by now, and it's on Gutenberg, though since it's Brit I'm not totally sure how I need to mark it so it doesn't trip the Copyvio 'bots. If this idea is a go, maybe we could submit a new template equivalent to the "taken from 1911 Britannica, a work in the public domain" spiel?
Let me know if this sounds like a course of action to you. I would of course tag them "one source" in the interim, and newer data would of course be a good addition, but personally I would feel comfortable using Russel directly without fear that it'd be pure Victorian clap-trap.
On a complete side-note, do you mind if I steal you "keep calm and carry on" image for my Talk as well? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
See Keep Calm and Carry On for the backstory. I'll take a look at Russell & let you know. I've been having a bit of a slash and burn 24 hours! - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Human Sex Ratio, 2011 Land Acquisition Protests
Hello, Sitush. You have new message on my talk page. Thank you.
ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush for your comments on my contributions to the Human Sex Ratio wiki page. I am fine with the way you now left my contribution.
On Land Acquisition article, I will seek direct citations, instead of relying on synthesis of data within the article or report; I will also not rely on links to Wiki articles that you feel may be suspect. As for rest of my citation and comments, see my talk page.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you clean out the copyvio on this one? I see you've edited it so don't want to spend time looking at it if you've already done so. I'm coming from a CCI that includes this article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I cleared some out of it. I doubt that I got it all because it was my intention to return. I'll go through it top-to-toe tomorrow if you want to move on, although you're probably more experienced with the CCI tools than I am. Can ping you when completed. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The case is here and it lists all the diffs of text addition, so if there;s anything that's left over, you can check that out. It's better to look at the diffs rather than existing text because even if the existing text doesn't look like a copyvio, it could be derivative. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Edits on Kashmiri Pandits
Hi,
This is regarding this edit, reverting content with contents mentioned as unsourced.
Please check the page for 'Jagti' to get the mentioned content. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The jkmigrantrelief page seemed to be mostly irrelevant: different month, no indication that the project was completed etc. I had already checked it. If you could prove that the thing was actually finished then it might be worth a line, citing the source that supports the completion. Otherwise, all we can say is that "it was begun in 2007", which leaves things dangling a little, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This section Ahirs#Abhira_jatis appears to be another Abhira bit shoehorned in to prove that Ahirs can be of other varnas. Again, as mentioned on Talk, I'm still vague on the Abhira/Ahir connexion, and one of our blocked editors was the one that brought in this section as a hedge against the Shudra designation. If you're taking a peek at refs, this might be any area to check on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that. Will get round to it eventually. I'm not keen to get massively involved in Ahirs right now but pruning is pretty straightforward stuff in situations like they were earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a huge amount of gobbledygook on Talk:Kashmiri Pandit, can we pick a hack (mid-2010?) and archive any discussions pre-dating those? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to archive @ 6 months. The bot will not kick in for a few hours. It can be tweaked if things go wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Also found Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel; as history it's ludicrous, but as historiography it's fascinating. I'll try and get it some real refs, and then steal the 1880s missionary map outlining the theory to pretty up the page.
This is a fun change of pace from the Deccan and the South, but I do see we keep running across the same kind of people wherever we go... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Nair talk page
In my experience, any time a relatively new editor rants/worries about being blocked in multiple posts, its an indication (though not a guarantee) that they're either a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. I only recently started following that talk page; does the writing style of Vivwiki seem particularly identifiable? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is a sock alright. I am leading him/her on a little in order to develop the point. I've come across this "cardiologist" before, and he even cited that same occupation IIRC. But for the life of me I cannot put a name to it right now. Looks like a bit of a sleeper account to me, as it has dabbled a little over a long time.
Now, on a different subject, take a look at what I've just done at James Tod#Reputation if you have a moment. Would you trust that guy as a source in caste articles?! - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Well, I'll keep that in mind when I edit Rajput clans in a few weeks. I'll probably leave him in, but I may consider removing the list...MatthewVanitas is probably right, that the best thing to do is transform it from an article listing the Rajput clans into an article discussing the Rajput clans. Of course, then part of me wonders why it's distinct from Rajput...or maybe there's a way to make it about arguments and disputes about what constitutes a clan, or not. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, for starters, bear in mind that Tod kinda plagiarised his list of the 36 royal clans. The list is in his book but it is not his list, if you see what I mean. I am hoping to have cleared some of the backlog of "near done" stuff before too long (was that a pig I just saw, at 500 feet?). I'll join you on that venture if my heart op is done by then. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
400$ an hour!!. Where do i sign up?--Sodabottle (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In Liverpool, apparently. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If they open up an office in France, this might be useful. I've just found put from the AN/I report just above this one that "POV-pushing" in French is "le POV-pushing".--Shirt58 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
RE: Jats #2 < User talk:Abstruce >
Hello Sitush,
I am really sorry that I was not able to reply instantly after You posted a message of My talk page! Well, I have reverted that text, till we can resolve it; if I won't be able to convince You, then I won't add that again. But atleast, I would like to try and convince You :)
First, I would like to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War with You. The Hindu people believe that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, and a number of historians suggests the date mentioned by Me, in the added text to the 'Origins and genetic studies' section of the article 'Jat people'. We do have an article here on Wikipedia regarding that, its: Gita Jayanti. In this article it has been stated very clearly that The Mahabharata War took place over 5000 years ago, so I thought that it might be safe to mention a date alongside.
[Check-out the stuff here: http://www.google.co.in/search?q=mahabharata+war+5000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a].
And believe me, if You would try to google the dates of The Mahabharata War, then You will encounter both of the dates; isn't it frustrating?
But, since the celebrations in India are done as per the older date, so I believe it's preferable.
The two different dates could be due to the controvercies between these two theories: Indo-Aryans or simply Indo-Aryan migration vs. Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory
One of the dates seems to have been invented to suit a particular interest, theory and propaganda. But, I believe I should avoid discussing that at the moment.
So YES, I used it as a date to refer to The Mahabharata War (as per the celebrations of Gita Jayanti done every year in India).
Also, in case You allow Me to add that text to the article, then i would like to refer to The Mahabharata War rathar then any such date, that's for sure.
So, I hope it was not unreasonable to prefer that date over 1500 BC.
And Dear Sitush,
The author C. V. Vaidya has been highly focused, trying to discover the history of ancient Hindu India, so I though maybe I should use his reference in the section which is dedicated to the Origin of the Jats. Like in his book History of Medieval Hindu India, he suggests that Jats are further mentioned in a 5th century grammar treatise by Chandra, in the phrase अजय जर्टो हुणान ajaya jarto huṇān”, which refers to the defeat of Huns by two Jat rulers under the leadership of Yasodharman. This gentleman seems to have been really interested to highlight the Jat History in ancient period. And as Jats are one of the 36 Ancient Royal Races of The Indian Subcontinent <http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_marque_royalraces.htm>, so I believe that their ancient history desverves some attention! Thought, let's not get involved into another topic, I personally do not believes in racism but I used this reference just to highlight that when people say that Jats power rose to prominance during the Mughal invasion, they forget that the Jats are a part of the Ancient 36 Royal Races, and have had kingdoms before as well. Maybe sometime in future I will raise this topic on teh talk page of article 'Jat people'.
Since the connection between Jats and Yadavas has been accepted on the page; so I thought that maybe it would be safe to add more text regarding the connection between origin of Jat ethnic group and The Mahabharata War, as a number of Jat people believes that they have originated sometime around the Mahabharata War, and have an ancestral connection with the Mahabharata War. I hope You are getting what I mean to say. As per the Indigenous Aryans or simply Out of India Theory, Jats are those warriors who were able to win The Mahabharata War, but had to migrate 'Out of India' due to political unstability of the region due to the war.
So, I thought maybe I should highlight the other side of the history suggested by some scholars. that's why I added that text. But, I have revereted it; and maybe it might be not reasonable to add the text as it is question as well, that shall be fine. But if You feel that the text can be added to the section, then please do let me know.
Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You cited one source. I asked a very simply question: what is the title of the chapter in that source? I asked this because I can see the original version of that source but the page numbers do not appear to match those that you cited. This seems to be because you were using a reprint. I am not quite sure why the above wall of text has appeared in response to a simple query but let's start from the beginning here since it appears that most of what you say above is unrelated to what you added to the article.
I did not ask that you remove the content from the article, by the way. I just wanted to check out the details because I could not make much sense of them. We'll work through stuff, don't worry. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, Thanks You once again for being so polite. I guess I am just messed up with My own added stuff! I want to drop the idea of adding that content to the article, since I don't have enough grip over the subject. I am dropping the idea to add that content to the article. I think I would like to study the subject deeply and get to aware of the views of some more authors about the subject. I am sorry to reply a bit late. I discussed it with some of My friends who are students of history, to discuss the date of The Mahabharata War, but interstingly some suggests it around 1500-1400 BC, while some suggets roughly about 5000-4500 BC. If You ever come to know the very exact date, please do shate that with Me! P{lease pardon me, but I think I would like to go in more details of the subject and the earliest mention of Jats in any Sanskrit Literatute overall. Right now I am not in a position to discuss the subject, in case any user wants Me to. I believe it's best if I shall drop the idea of adding thay content at the moment, and do some more research. Pleas let it go for the moment. I am sorry for Your consumed time. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A cup of Tea for You!
Dear Sitush, Thank You for always being so polite, practical, and understanding towards the less experienced Users, like Me :) Abstruce (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop berating others
Hi,
The behavior edit1, edit2 is repelling. Please avoid it in the first place, and more even taking it to userpages to give unsolicited demeaning advices to third party against users. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Ooh, er ... - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want this trinket, just holler and I'll switch it off. SalvioLet's talk about it! 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Might as well leave it there. I use Twinkle quite a lot but will read up on this. As I understand it, one advantage of this (sometimes) cf Twinkle is it auto-fills the edit summary with a "revert B to A", so if used judiciously it could save me some keystrokes. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What do you think of Kurmi kshtriya, created by our new editor User:Prashantv79 (now indef blocked for personal attacks)? It looks like it's just copied from Kurmi, so do you reckon it's just a CSD:A10 speedy deletion candidate? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a clear selective copypaste with no new content, so qualifies for an A10 and handled as such. —SpacemanSpiff 18:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
How did s/he do that? Use an IP? Thanks, both of you, for jumping in. The attacks were not too bad but were likely to escalate, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I reckon we need to stomp on these people/socks as soon as they start their attacks, even if they haven't quite got round to calling people sons of whores yet. A two-strike policy - one attack and they get a warning, a second attack and they're out -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I am actually quite intrigued by all of this but doubtless the novelty will wear off, so fine by me. I would imagine that the probation suggestion at ANI carries some weight to actions such as that ... and don't dare you call my family dog of a son, or whatever it was :) - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Some nice ice cream in case you're feeling upset about the stupid jerk who vandalized your page. :)
Cool, literally. However, I am not sure that $12k/month is sufficient recompense for enduring all these attacks. :-S Sitush (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Comments in this section relate to actions of TomPaul67, soon after blocked as a sock of Prashantv79 - I've decided not to remove, purely for the record. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sitush,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The user has been continually reporting me for being a socket puppet. I am getting tired of these false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPaul67 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
IRC and Anna
Sitush, I would appreciate if you would not be involved in such a petty thing, see here the stuff I accept her to do on my talk page. As per policy a user talk page does not belong to someone and comments may be written and they should only be reverted by the user once they have accepted the comments and in the case that they do not wish to respond or if it is vandalism. I am to revert the edit that you made only once after that it may be considered edit warring. Thank you and good day. :-) -- PoliMastertalk/spy 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush: Thank you very, very much for being involved. I hope you got my email. Best wishes, and hang tough. You're not the only one who is getting bugged. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I got your mail last night/early this morning. Your current situatino with Thepoliticalmaster seems to me to be a form of harassment and as such I think that user perhaps needs to revisit the guidelines about who does what on whose page. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
My adopter Steven Zhang has been notified about this, any corrospondence or anything you want me to do should be forwarded through him. Thanks. ;-) -- PoliMastertalk/spy 11:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Per this it would seem that you should not even have been on Anna's page. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal with Humour?
(yes, I realise he can read this, but my opinion is no secret)
I can't tell if he's just being sloppy, having trouble digesting the material, or being wilfully obtuse either just to hassle us, or in hopes that we'll get tired of checking on his refs and just let him make changes based on incorrect cites.
Again, I don't want to get so paranoid I'm seeing socks everywhere, and if he were a troll he'd be the cleverest one we've seen yet, in terms of showing some willingness to work but also gumming everything up considerably. So I'll AGF and think he's a well-meaning but clumsy and vocal editor. Your thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Obtuse. I have said it before and others seem to be of the same opinion. Similar behaviour across a shed-load of articles. It is rather tiresome and, yes, sometimes pretty disruptive. I really am trying to avoid getting involved with him/her any more than I have to because the neighbours start to wonder what I am screaming about. Not a lot that can be done except hope that eventually something sinks in there. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, just went to look at his Talk. Pretty sure now he's not a sock of our other buddies, but more of just a bull-in-a-china-shop. Again, kind of sad because he's got some solid ideas and enthusiasm, but sheesh, how many times do I have to say see refs at top of Talk page. For that matter, calling things "unsubstantiated" despite the little blue number next to them... Will see how it goes.
That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page? Maybe make some of those banners for the top that say "if you're here to kvetch about "Shudra", see the following", "If you're here to cite Tyagi, see the following..." ? We can probably get the page down to 3 screens of useful data vice 40 screens of "Dearest sirs i must writ to say you are in gravest error..." MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No, s/he is not a sock. I was wondering about some sort of banner, preferably visible in the edit window so that there is less chance of it being skimmed over. Not sure how they are done or even if the scenario I describe is possible but someone will know (any stalkers out there?) - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Like one of those things I've got on my Talk page, which you see when you edit it? Anyone can make them for their own Talk, and admins can make them for article Talks - if they can remember how they do them, and what they're called, and, um, yes, it must be hidden in my grey cells somewhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, checked Talk:2011 Libyan civil war. They have constant debates, and a non-stop parade of noobs coming in with clever ideas that have been extensively covered at Archive pages 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 23, etc... Here's what they use:
STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.
We could do something like this, for "Shudra vs. Kshatriya" (and include the for/against refs list and rebuttals), and for "Martial Races and Tyagi". Honestly like 95% of the page is about literally just including the word "Shudra". I wouldn't say I regreat adding and citing the term in, but man did it kick a hornet's nest! Is there some way we can archive everything and then copy-paste back in the few things we want to keep? Can we manually archive, or should we just "archive everything over 1 day old" and then copy-paste back that which we want to keep? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs simple, auto archiving. It gets messy otherwise. Perhaps create a page in userspace (and get it protected), then create links to it as per the Civil War article notice. It can go in my userspace if you want. If things settle down then it really ought to be a subpage of the India project because a lot of the things cross over from one caste article to another etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That being the case, can we just auto-archive everything, and then set the Archiver for whatever the standard period is (30 days?) subsequently? The page is just massive and useless now, so it'd be great to auto-arch the whole lot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That is it now, MV. Just do not respond to him. I will do the same. It is completely pointless. Let him take it to RfC if he wants to do so. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I left him a message explaining how I'm not going to get into this further. Is there a WP term for closing off communication, but for legitimate reasons because someone is just fillibustering, talking in circles, etc? I don't want to look non-collegial, it's just that nothing sinks in for this guy. If he tries to get some "consensus" at Talk:Kurmi I'll continue to ignore, and if he makes article edits based on the kind of misreading he's been doing, I'll simply revert with a clear analysis of simply that edit. If he keeps this up, would ANI be the place to file a complaint about a serial troublemaker? Not malicious, but simply blunders into everything, refuses to listen, and fills up entire pages with that garish yellow sig... MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If the person is simply repeating the same arguments over and over again, and not responding or practically ignoring your responses, the usual term is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If the person is doing it so regularly that it's hurting the ability to actually edit the article, it's WP:Tendentious editing, which is a form of disruption, and can sometimes lead to a block. I personally wouldn't recommend trying to get one though, until after you've done some form of DR that gets a resounding response against xyr position; if the person continues tendentious editing after that, you can take it to ANI. The problem is that, depending on the exact mood of ANI and the exact evidence presented, they may ask you to take it to an WP:RfC/U, which is a huge pain and rarely accomplishes anything productive. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please dont take ownership of articles
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Kurmi. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You and MatthewVanitas have assumed the ownership of the article as per the evidence above.
Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing.
::That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page?
Wiki is an open community. You are not following guidelines by doing what is evident by your comments above. I will place the same warning on
Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV
By reverting I meant your un-redirecting Kurmi Kshatriya. Sorry, I could have been more precise; dealing with a few problems simultaneously. And I didn't admit any wrong "POV"--I admitted that I misread a fact, and I corrected that, and provided a link to other references supporting the underlying point. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Our POV is based on how we interpret the facts. You are one of the nicest persons I have met today, both offline and online. So anything you say I will accept it without any issues. To me, above two posts look like an attempt of ownership. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is regards to inclusion of word Shudra as also insistence on keeping it so, on pages such as Yadav ( edit example 1, 2, 3, more can be seen on the history section of the page here).
Please desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not understan your point here. What has hcsingh.com got to do with anything? - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The substance of the article explains in details the significance of word 'Shudra', its discontinued use in India, and so on along with punishment if insulted thereof, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should I believe him? Why are you even pointing it out to me? You are indirectly threatening me with legal action. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The point of the site is the substance. I am not threatening anyone. Reverting edits should be good enough. The legal situation in India should be understood, too.
For the record, I will not take any legal action. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well shut up about it then. I am reverting nothing, and asking me to do so after pointing me to that site is indeed a prima facie threat, regardless of your "for the record". You can go take a running jump.
I do not give a toss what a random website says about this issue. I am working off reliable sources and putting the issues into context. You are just being an obnoxious idiot. Reliable sources say that caste X is/are/were shudra - what are you gonna do about it? Do you really think I care what the law in India says about using the term? The only way I would care about it would be if I was writing an article directly related to that law. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I actually thought that laws in India carry weight on Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well they do not, but thanks for confirming what your intention was. I hope that an admin passes by and blocks you for this. You have been little but a nuisance ever since you appeared - threats, copyvios sufficient to warrant a CCI , numerous warnings for warring and tendentiousness etc. Incorrigible, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
My intention? Lets see, I don't understand how someone can threaten legal action on Wikipedia when laws don't extend to Wikipedia at all.
About tendentiousness - it is about edits, not talk pages.
threats - where have I given threats to anyone please point out because otherwise it is incorrect.
warring - giving secondary sources(as in Kurmi page) and requiring secondary sources can not be called warring. I would rather not read much into what you mention. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Just go away. You appear to be unbalanced, other people have noticed it, and while I am sorry that you have these issues I want nothing to do with you here. I do not want to end up being blocked etc because of dealing with someone who is just out to pick a fight. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've lost count: has he actually brought up the same "HC Singh" blog post as a "totally not a legal threat" about a half-dozen times now? If the guy is a troll, he's an awfully good one. A blog post as a legal warning? Really? Six times? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire situation is chaotic and there is no doubt that there is an element of piling on. I could live with that if only things didn't start getting dragged across umpteen forums. I have lost track of the number of times I have tried to get it back into one place. And I gave up trying to bring some order to that place. We seem to switch between people who cannot focus discussion matter into a relevant section and people who think that every post needs its own section. However, in this instance, TT's flipping from one stance to another, his forum shopping and general scattergun approach became beyond my ability to deal with in a polite manner, so the best solution was to ask him to desist from adding this page as yet another one of those forums. I regret some of the language I used above and have apologised for that.
I am usually willing to work with anyone who is prepared to accept the community's position (policies etc) and, I think, have never before asked someone to desist from posting here. He is fairly new in terms of period of activity but his contribution count would qualify him as something other than new, I feel. People are not always aware that although I signed up here years ago, I have only really edited since January of this year. I think that I posted more edits in the first week of January than I had done in the previous four years or so. So, in terms of time TT is about half as experienced as me. Around half his edits have been to talk pages, which ramble on and on, and of his article edits there are many, many copyvios etc as well as the issues which you have experienced recently. Yogesh seems to be trying to get the various messages through to him but I am not sure that it is really having much effect. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you see my post at Talk:Dougweller? I seriously think "good-hearted but obtuse" editors should be redirected into topics where they aren't POV risks, at least temporarily. Though maybe TT would be equally obnoxious editing articles about the red-crested Newfoundland swallow or the 1895 Chilean naval ship S.S. Budibudu, but I'd say it'd be at least one method to get him to work on an NPOV environment. I will admit, I've seen a few articles on issues tied to my personal identities that got me annoyed, but I had to admit in those cases I was unlikely to be able to address things neutrally, so I desisted. Despite all this insistence that "we need Indian admins to sort out Indian issues", I'd like to see more Indians covering non-Indian topics, and vice versa. Personally, I think it would be fascinatig to have some Indian editors factor in academic secondary resources by Chinese, South African, etc. scholars critiquing American interactions with Native Americans, for example, get some reputable subaltern studies academic material into the debate, written by people with no dog in the fight. Heck, I'd like to see more Indian history written by Argentine academics and added to the articles by Korean editors.
I don't know, in the grand Wikipedia scheme, if there's any practical way for admins to start smacking folks and saying "you clearly can't write about Turkish politics without getting upset, so take six months and go work on Australian history until you learn how to edit." MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Topic bans can be used. Indeed Zuggernaut is under the proscription of one relating to Indian history, among other things. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, I'm familiar with them in generality (partially because of seeing what happened to Zuggernaut), but just pondering whether some blanket, more immediate/redline "you've been a pain for the last week, go write about birds" vice having a big solemn council to cover months of malfeasance. I suppose I'm just pondering whether some much stronger COI proscriptions should be coming into play as we expand to the Global South. Again, I think it's overall a good thing, though I do have grave concerns that we're expanding Wikipedia to the GS before we have the RS/academic resources to address the issues/grievances/concerns/interests of the GS. That has been one of my sympathies with some of the vexing posters: it is incredibly likely that the Brahmins went mucking with a bunch of records, and then mislead the British to exploit caste/varna. However, lacking good research on that, and having good research on the shallower view, WP portrays the shallower view. There are probably a metric butt-ton of important things to bring up about Uganda that are either oral history, mouldering in some archive, etc. but when a bunch of Ugandans get the internet en masse in 2018, it's going to be tough having to explain to them that they need RSs, even when RSs are going to be honestly inadequate.
In an ideal world, Wiki would stimulate academics into realising what issues are controversial, interest people, have harmful modern-day effects that might partially be assuaged by finally getting the "real story" out, etc., and then Wiki could portray their new findings once they publish. In a way, that's sort of what's been going on in the West for a few (and just a few) decades. Imagine if we had Wikipedia in 1950, articles on forced resettlement of Native Americans would probably be completely unlike what they are today, and whatever Native editors, progressives/liberals, etc pushing for a more inclusive view of Native perspectives would be told "well, Dr. Smith writing in 1923 said you Sioux are a bunch of savages who had it coming, so that's what we have for RSs".
There is a fundamental issue of WP being beholden to established academia/media, but arguably the solution to that is to fix academia/media, not abandon the concept of authoritative academic research. The great annoyance Kurmi is this week would be an absolutely impossible nightmare if we allowed oral history and personal belief. In any case, long ramble, but hopefully you catch the overall vibe. I'm not depressed or distressed about this (the big picture, I'm plenty vexed about Kurmi), but it is pretty interesting stuff, and Wiki is a real petri dish for these issues. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Dougweller
I have mentioned you on Dogw's user page, FYI please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thepoliticalmaster
Thank you for all your help with the matter. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Moi? Glad it is sorted to your satisfaction, although my involvement was minimal. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Kurmi
I have nothing to add for some time, no offence meant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh hoh! Another cute little place for IPs to play chutes-and-ladders with varna. I've hacked out the list, moved the unref tag to the top (May 2007!). Fascinating topic, really some room to get into theory here, but an editable list is just a honeypot. I suggest we try to find some original list from some older publication (to be clearly labeled as one interpretation, not authoritative), as experience has shown it is simply impossible to expect IPs not to tamper with varna listings, or for lists of membership in any prestitgious entity (Royal Races, Rajputs, Ruling Clans, etc). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Also doing some cleanup at Varna (Hinduism). I think that, for the moment while folks are laying low, it might be a good time to tackle some of the big, overarching caste articles. I think those are general enough that we can avoid ticking off any given Orkut cabal, and get some real progress made on some fundamental pages. Varna has some really bad copyediting, lots of redundancy, etc., really unsightly for a mid-high importance article. EDIT: "Varna" is class=start? Man, folks really dropped the ball on that one... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
And who exactly are the "Rajanya"? Another word for Kshatriya, or something different? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Raj = king; anya = inexhaustible ... apparently. This may be an opportune moment for me to start using my free Credo facility, which for various reasons I have not really delved into since being granted it in May. As far as the general caste etc issues go, there is a limit to what I can handle, if only for my own sanity. I am also desperately keen to revisit some areas (including Nair) in a more in-depth manner than has happened over the last couple of weeks, and others that I have neglected for much longer. I also have a draft well on the way to being moved into mainspace and which has been spun out of a vague comment in the Kashmiri Pandit article, relating to the Lohana dynasty. It isn't great, but it fills a hole. So, sure I will get involved but I really want to get a lot of existing issues pinned down. This can be done, as Paravar has demonstrated, and I think that both that and Nair really do have the potential for GA. Sometimes it is about concentrating your fire, as the nuclar option people have said recently. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one more of my "half-done" list is Malabar Marriage Act, 1896. I have the sources but have not had the time to completely integrate them. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You raise good points, and actually I think I've got a pretty good handle on those two articles, and don't really expect much opposition. After even a few minutes of searching I'm finding some great articles on struggles over varna changes. Check this link for just a quick paragraph or two on the local reaction once the Brits started trying to assign varna labels during the census: cue the (not surprising at all to you and me) attempts to add "Kshatriya" to jati names, as well as several cases where a community applied for several different varnas in hopes one would stick. Also Dalits applying to be recognised as Brahmins, which is pretty optimistic. Great material, and really goes to show how complex the issue is.
In whatever case, indeed probably best that you shore up your specialties rather than spread to thin. I greatly appreciate your weighing in at my Deccan articles (primarily Kurmi at this stage). I have almost no real support on those except for some helpful watchlisters who do reverts and admins for occasional blocks. I have one Maratha editor who is extremely quirky and difficult to deal with, though through patience over three years I've at least gotten him to footnote things, use sections and templates, and stop bolding all the time. To his credit he has created a large number of quasi-semi-suitable articles on Maratha clans (actually, he created almost every article on Maratha clans), so if he can just keep cleaning up his act that area might eventually work out.
I'm still baffled (well, I guess I understand why, but it's annoying that people could be so shameless) by how editors will attempt every rationale under the sun to avoid Shudra. I particularly am amused by folks who demand "Kshatriya" be in the second sentence of the lede, but once that finally becomes a losing case argue "you know, varna is such an obsolete concept, why are we even mentioning it?" The entire reason that I got on this kick was that I was seeing Kshatriya claims in a bunch of farmer caste articles, and while fact-checking on some totally unrelated puffery issue in the article (I think either Kunbi or Kurmi) came across the whole "how they attempted to re-define themselves" issue. At this point, any mention of "Kshatriya" outside of a Rajput article sets my little antennae quivering. Not that the Rajputs are immune to examination, just that such is a whole 'nother big sore spot I'm not yet ready to jam my finger into. Plus with Rajputs you have a related but distinct issue of dozens upon dozens of jatis who claim to be Rajput but are not recognised as such... and 75% of the time their articles make zero mention of this contested state, and just say "... a Rajput clan". I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Library Act article
Hey Sitush, this is a somewhat belated reply. I looked at that article and thought about it (which is why I didn't reply right away)... but I really don't have much idea at all what the structure should be like for something like that... it's really outside the realm I know anything about. If you want to start adding some information to the article, I can maybe help organize it so that it makes sense, but I can't do it the other way around. LadyofShalott 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Finding the info may be a problem but I'll see what I can do. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, we had recent discussions regarding my use of the templates; some users were a bit offended despite that I only used the level 4im template as a test. Is that the reason why you believe my edits were a bit disruptive? Please see the discussion at my talk page. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahirs
sir, i did not deleted shudra word only mention cowherders seperately and some ancient kingdoms of tirbe.i dont think i have done any wrong thing by editing through cited sources.if you not allow some flexibility than how a good article evolve.i think i have right and duty as a contributer to edit from cited information.i have provided sources before editing at discussion page.i hope you will consider my point.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for considering my point.i have alredy cited some useful references of Cowherders and ancient kingdoms.so may i make my point in article?Bill clinton history (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Koontz House
I noticed you said on Koontz House that the date of construction was uncertain. The construction was in 1838, by Edward Forniquet, and was bought in 1849 by George W. Koontz. That needs to go in the article
Atterion(Talk|Contribs) 20:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
We cannot do that without a source. The article currently lists the various options. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I have skimmed through your recent edits and there are a couple of glaring issues. One of these is very minor: WP:MOSHEAD is a part of the Manual of Style used to govern the format and other issues relating to Wikipedia articles. In part, it is an attempt to ensure consistency within an article and, where possible, across articles. Newspapers etc usually have a similar thing. MOSHEAD says that titles to sections generally should be in lower case, except obviously for the first word and any proper nouns (such as the word "India"). Some of the sections that you have introduced need fixing for this.
Of more serious concern is the "commentary" which you have added and which really should be cited. Examples are:
At current population growth rate, India adds about 15 million people per year. India needs homes to house its growing population, schools to educate them, industries to offer them productive jobs. Homes, schools and industries require land.
and
Since its independence in 1947 and through 1991, India’s economic progress was slow. With market reforms and economic liberalization in India starting in 1991, India has emerged as a rapidly growing economy. This economic growth demands infrastructure to bring supplies and more efficient production tools to all of India’s economic sectors, from agriculture to automobiles
There are other bits similar to these.
Having said the above, the general idea of providing background information is excellent and it may even deserve its own article if one does not already exist. I will look into that and let you know. In the interval, if you could perhaps polish the issues I have mentioned then I'll wander through it in more detail, just to check the citations etc. Overall, I am impressed: it is evident that you have paid some attention to the various policies and that is very welcome. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush for the specific comments. I will fix all of those shortly, one by one. I also appreciate the words of support and encouragement - it is always good to know what to improve and what to sustain. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The move proposal was closed as there were more !votes, in this edit[1] you so lucidly explain how numbers do not determine consensus, could you help on the Ganga move?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:Consensus. I have never looked at the article you refer to, nor commented wherever the move discussion was. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Forget it, it was an wp:OSE trap that I fell for, the offer was in sarcasm, I'm sorry you missed it. You see I wanted to convey that "everybody knows that consensus is not about counting heads, but in Ganga's case it wasn't practised", not your fault.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
RS
I was told by a wikipedian that these following three sources are unreliable [2]. Is that true? Pass a Methodtalk 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have my doubts that the BBC would qualify in this instance, and the NHS one is a bit "glossed over", but I do not have sufficient experience of sourcing in that particular subject area. The first of your statements, by the way, is an extremely close paraphrase of the NHS source. This in itself will be an issue, for which there is an essay at Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing.
Sorry that I cannot be of more assistance. And, for some reason, I now find myself crossing my legs, tightly! - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol, I'm not really willing to post in that link you pointed me to, because the most active current admin there is the person i'm in a dispute with. I'm gonna wait it out for a little while to see if he responds himself, if not, i'll just post at WP:RSN instead. Pass a Methodtalk 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks & ...
Indeed when I reported the IP user's disruptive edits the first time at Sudhamoy Pramanick I had avoided the V word at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection on 12th July and also at User talk:220.225.6.45. Appreciating that the V word is strong , the User:220.225.6.45 seems to be repeating such activity at a regular frequency - his/her edits are not productive. Plz suggest whether it's worth semi-protecting the page. Anyway if someone is so interested in editing, it does not take a long time registering oneself. Tinkswiki (talk) Tinkswiki (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the IP has already exceeded the point where semi-protection functions, it is a pointless move. I will add the page to my watchlist & see what develops. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, see WP:SILVERLOCK--IPs never reach a point beyond which they can edit semi-protected articles; even those few static IPs we have that have thousands of edits and are clearly a single person still can't edit semis. Only registered users with the 4 days and 10 edits can edit silverlocked articles. Note that I haven't looked at this article and have no opinion on whether or not a semi would be appropriate--just clarifying how it works. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You are right, of course. I was getting registered users mixed up with IPs. If anything, this appears to be a very slow edit war, so I am inclined to let it run and just see what develops for now. It is easy to keep on top of the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess by Silverlock you mean Semi-protection - that's what I'd asked for initially - such that unregd users can't tamper with. Tinkswiki (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Moved comment
This picture of Jayalalithaa which you have put back from the commons site is consisting of people along with her which does not serve the purpose of depicting herKumarrajendran 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont know why you are interested in putting the picture of Jayalalithaa to which i had a valid objection. she is shown with other people, which does not depict her office nor are they important people worth mentioning. I am sorry to say that you are being adamant and you have something personal against jayalalithaa, If you have a picture of Jayalalithaa you are welcome to put it but it should be an induvidual photograph. If you cannot do anything about it just remove all pictures depicting her, till we find an appropriate pic. I accuse you abt being biased and instead of helping build wikipedia site which is depicting Jayalalithaa. I am condeming your actions. I wish that action should be taken against you. Kumarrajendran 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It was removed due to various concerns: copyright, licensing and non-free use. This has been explained to you by various people in connection with other images which you have uploaded over quite a period of time. In this particular instance, you muddied the waters by changing the image attached to the filename on four occasions over roughly three days, ending up with one which can be found on a website but which you claim is "from my collection" and "I hold the copyright". It is true that you may indeed own the copyright of that one etc, although it seems unlikely. There were three others "behind" it which you definitely did not own the copyright for and which failed the non-free use criteria.
I can assure you that I have no interest at all in Indian politics; I do have an interest in ensuring that the Wikipedia policies etc are followed. I can also assure you that I queried the situation with other contributors. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
article: Jat people <about the removal of content>
Hello Sitush,
Sikh-History has reverted some of My contributions to the article: Jat people. I have some reasonable doubts and believes that the information should be on the page. I have also shared My views for this. The explaination for the reverts, does not seems to be fair enough. You are quite an experienced One. Could You please put some light on the issue under discussion there. So, I respectfully ask You to please join the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people#Experts.27_Assistance_deeply_Requested.2C_about_the_Guidelines_of_Wikipedia. Section: Experts' Assistance deeply Requested, about the Guidelines of Wikipedia. at Talk:Jat people. For whichI would be grateful to You!
Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Agnieszka Fijol
...is a 'herself' so far as I'm aware. Agnieszka is a Polish girl's name. (This is in connection with your remark to User:Bampublore.) Peridon (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Bugger! I am afraid that I fall into the category of people who continually get confused about the gender of others. It has been worse: I recently called Woohookitty a bot. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. No indication other than the -kitty whether m or f (or other...). This is one reason (apart from the mickey-take on userboxes) why I describe myself in the third person on my userpage. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I try to use them, their etc but fail far too often. It is of course a big deal if in article space; outside it, well, there is an ideal world of gender neutrality and there is the real world. Just chip away at it where I can and when I remember. I make no claim to be perfect and am not going to lose any sleep over it, although I do understand why some people might. Nonetheless, the Agnieszka error was daft: Agnes, Agnetha and umpteen others follow the same root (although that itself is dodgy ground, eg: Hilary can be male or female; Simon and Simone share the same root but are different gender). Minefield. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Another plate...
Well, although I will make changes to my talk page soon, please do accept my apologies for the earlier incident at my talk page (now archived). Your reward is below...
Hello! CHAK 001 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Not having a great day, so this is a pleasant surprise. Thank you! - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Thank you for helping to clear up Akrura. Its very much appreciated Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No probs. There is a bit to add around the Kamsa and gem/jewel issues. You might want to have a go yourself. this has probably got some info to keep things moving but there are still gaps because it seems to assume some prior knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I will copy edit whats left of it and then see what I can add from the source you gave me. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
what to do
Hello, Yadur was once a place in India with an article, then it was moved to Yadur, Shimoga leaving Yadur as a redirect page. Unnecessary, but links can be fixed or it can be moved back. Then it becomes a WP:SIA page, so the links from the redirect, which are the responsibility (by courtesy) of the page-mover are a shambles. I suspect the mover of the page has no great interest in sorting out these little things as he appears to have greater ambitions so what do we do?? Multiply this for the others and we have a mess. I would go for WP:Afd on all the set index pages created as I fail to understand any need for them, be abused a bit, and sort this out quickly. Comments? Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).
PS The pages that link to Yadur, a set index page, just about destroy my browser! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).
I sort of understand why it has been done this way, although I notice that the template for ambiguous populated places which is inserted on the page doesn't in fact mention Yadur.
Populated places are inherently notable, and I assume that the two redlinks at the SIA do in fact exist in the real world. If they do exist then Yadur should definitely be in the template; if they do not then life becomes a lot easier. SO, let's break it down into small chunks. Firstly, is there any chance at all of creating even stubs for the two redlinked places?
As for your PS - I think that is because of the huge templates listing all placenames in a district etc. We may have to take that issue to the India project talk page, which I am trying to avoid at the moment because I will just get told off for being a colonial throwback again ! - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Small chunks, if more than one have articles we have dab pages; if only one we do not; Next chunk- move an article, leaving a redirect page behind, with links to be fixed in due course, OK. Next chunk- convert that redirect page into an article with a nav. template, creating a bunch of new links to a wp:sia article then the links are stuffed. So once when you clicked on a link to Yadur in an article you were directed to the article (or via a redirect after a move, which can be fixed); now you are directed to a set index page and there is no way it can be fixed because none of us know which of the links were to the original page or to the new set index article via its template. Creating permanent stubs is seldom a solution (if it was a dab page it should go straight to speedy delete, as a set index page it is a monumental stuffup). I feel the perpetrator of this shambles will not be quick to help, even though he/she started with a reasonable argument,Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).
Yes, I understand the principle and the problems. I am not sure of some of the specifics, though. Eg: Doncram has in the past somehow swayed the community that it is legitimate to have redlinks in dabs etc. More pointedly, I am not sure if an SIA can be taken to AfD - it may have to go to MfD. Can this mess be reverted by restoring the status quo ante on the various pages? I will appeal to the stalkers. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I went to go work on Dhangar, though I was vaguely under the impression that there were things wrong I'd fixed before, but there was nothing on Talk. I did a huge chop, and only after that thought to look at History: turns out you did a lot of chop on it in June, but then some 2009 account that has barely touched Wiki in 2 years swooped in and reverted it all with a simple "undid vandalism". I'd already added some refs and made some tweaks in mine (yours was mostly chop, yes, not adding too much?), so rather than undo mine and go back to yours I left it at mine, and I'll keep an extra-close eye on it, and send a note to the reverter about tossing around "vandalism" and not communicating over huge changes.
The article is still pretty bad, though in pretty standard caste-cruft ways, but since Deccan is unfortunately kind of my thing I'll take charge and keep chipping on it. It was 4.4k hits last month, so not as heavy-traffic as Nair or Rajput, but still worth cleaning. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It should have appeared in my watchlist. I must have clicked the mouse twice or something. All articles are worth cleaning, whether they get a few hits or gazillions. Right now I am pretty much at a loss with how to deal with the current goings-on and would be happier if there was any light to be seen at the end of this tunnel. Thanks for taking Dhangar on. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
For Kurmi, and to a lesser degree Ahir, probably best bet is to just hold the fort and prevent any significant changes made in haste. That should free us both up to work on less contentious articles for a bit, which (should it come to a conflict) helps to keep clear that we're serious editors doing major cleanups, not SPAs or POV pushers. It is unfortunate, but I have had plenty of caste articles that didn't stir up major contention, or resolved faster. Though Kurmi was awfully quiet for months, and then just suddenly exploded. I do agree with you that something a little untoward is going on, but I can't pin it down, and don't want to tar a whole group of disagreeing editors with the same brush. For Dhangar I think we'll be okay for a bit, as the main interferer who reverted you barely uses Wiki. I did, however, add Shudra cites, and that's pretty much the red flag before the bull. I have momentarily considered whether I should just do caste cleanups and just avoid varna issues since that brings in simply scads of protest, but the ornery side of me doesn't want to self-censor just to save time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if an article says X when in reality it is Y, the least you should do is remove the incorrect statement. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi - you left a message on my talk page regarding my tagging this article for deletion. Ouch - you are right - it was a very bad tag on my part. Thank you for taking the time to point it out to me. MarkDask 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it. I did it in part for reasons which do not really matter from your perspective, and I'm pretty sure that you do not make a habit of this. Plus, I have messed things up at least ten times today already, although I always blame it on my computer :) - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sitush, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Education ! The WikiProject Indian Education is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Education System(Schools,Colleges and Universities).
As you have shown an interest in article related to Education in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.
Working further on Dhangar, and it reminds me that, though far secondary to Kshatriya claims, Rajput claims are also quite popular, particularly in the Deccan area where I do cleanup. They have cites, but they sound awfully patchy (and one "cite" was just a comment that "Rajputs and Dhangars have the same gotras"), so I need to dig into those. Also having the same SYTH problem where Krishna's stepfather was (per the source) a Bharawad, but since the Bharawads are linked to the Dhangar somehow the lede claimed "Krishna's stepfather was of this caste." Pretty usual stuff.
If I do an article on gotra-cruft, someone a serious tool, somewhat a pressure-relieving unofficial essay on the practice, would you be interested in following the progress of that? Not asking you to write, just asking whether you'd like to be kept abreast, or kept separated from it so as not to be associated with my blunt critique of caste-warrior silliness? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it, certainly. Start it in your userspace, let me know the details and I'll add to my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Reported for 3RR
Please note that you have been reported for a violation of 3RR at the Kurmi article by me. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No probs. Where have you reported me? Not that I am too fussed because it will fail. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think I should have mentioned that the report is at WP:ANI. Thanks for the morale boost.-MangoWong (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Odd place to put it when there is a noticeboard for the purpose. Not sure what you mean by a morale boost? It certainly seems that you are taking things personally. Anyway, I'll take a look but might not bother responding because it should fail without my involvement. Be wary of WP:BOOMERANG when you report things to ANI, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Diving into Kodava
Not at all to drag you in with me, but just for FYI I'm tackling Kodava. For starters, the lede says "Kshatriya" with three cites. One mentions them in absolute passing, another specifically says "other groups say they're jungle people and deride their Kshatriya pretensions" and the last (which I left) says it explicitly, but it's an Encylclopedia of Stateless Peoples, so not at all an authoritative work on varna. I'll dig more into it. Maybe it's just that fixing Dhangar has been too easy? ;) I did dig into Menoky (a Nair sub-caste) just a little too; their K. claim had zero gBooks backing, but did find some good data saying they were historically temple accountants (seems kind of danced around in the prior version). I would put Category:Kshatriya up for CFD, except it happens to be a great place to find articles full of un/poorly-cited K. claims. Fascinating place, India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
See diffs [3] and [4], your reverts happened so fast that I didnot understand that you are reverting, if you don't want explanations from me you are welcome to have your way, was providing diff for what I said on AN/I. Don't want to bug you on your talk page. Bye. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I reverted because that diff is already at ANI in connection with your comment, and you should know this because you have responded. Furthermore, the poster was warned by BsZ and then the content was deleted because it is clear trolling/attack content. It is meaningless and you know that. Feel free to keep winding me up with your inane, repetitive rubbish and feel free to recruit people off-wiki to step in here on your behalf. You have argued ridiculously with LadyofShallot, Boing! said Zebedee, Salvio and several others recently. Sooner or later, patience will run out. In fact, I rather think that it has in one instance.
Furthermore, since you now claim on your talk page that you need to learn (and it is regarding a trivial point where you won't accept the advice given even when it is in response to your own question & comes from an admin), it may be best if you do not advise other new contributors as I believe you have been doing. You have been extremely misguided in your recent interpretations of policy and it would be a shame if you pass that poor guidance on. Yes, we all make mistakes and we are all learning but the sheer scale of it is staggering. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kongu vellala Gounder Related article
you removeing base lessly everythink related to kongu vellala gounder article,i can't understand your intention, you does not allow any one edit,banning every one,even with citation
every one in tamil nadu knows the person was belongs to kongu vellala gounder but you say not belongs to kongu vellala gounder,and also allowing article with citations also
i can't understand what is goal of wikipedia by not any editors , or citations every think else
say to us what is u r intention?
every one knows kongu vellala gounder clan oriented people even journal of tamil studyies say ,partically we following u does allow put clan names over there
u deleting every thing , say to us what is your intention?
in the earth no people like kongu vellala gounder present
Hi, Wikipedia requires that content is verifiable using reliable sources. I think that I know which person you are referring to. If I am correct then the issue is that in lists of people such as this it is necessary to "prove" that they are indeed relevant and worthy of inclusion. This is usually done by linking to an article about them that already exists (a biographical article, almost always), but in this instance there is no such article. The alternative is to provide a source as a citation.
I am happy to help you with either of these options if you can come up with some information based on reliable sources, or to generally advise you regarding what makes for a reliable source etc. However, until one of those options is available then the name should not be in the list. Unfortunately, it does not matter to Wikipedia whether someone is well-known locally etc: they need to be notable and this needs to be established as I have indicated. Those are the rules, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sitush - I read wiki pages on original research and synthesis. I then went back to my edits, and reflected on what I wrote. I can sense what might have confused you, but I am not sure because your comments were broad and generic. If you have specific comments, please share them with me. I will incorporate them and then attempt to rewrite the section. I can see from your discussion page you are a busy person. So, if you prefer, I can rewrite the sections paying attention to NOR/NS issues, post them on your discussion page or on the Posco India page, and then you can take another look. Let me know your preference. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent news. My comments were indeed broad-based but that was because the problems were also - just one of those things. Sorry if it confused you.
Just do what you want to do on the article and drop me a line afterwards. I can't promise an immediate response but I will review the edits for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sitush - Left a reply in the talk page of 2011 Land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. On Posco India, a quick update: it has taken me time to find more reliable literature and verifiable citations. Now I have 100s of pages, from NGOs in Orissa, government of Orissa, interviews of the villagers affected, as well as the office of Indian Ministry of Finance. I am reading through them to get a balanced, NPOV view of all sides. Posco India issue is very complicated, one side within India criticizing or partially supporting the other side within India. Before I summarize I want to read all of these reports. I would rather wait, read and do this right, than rush and do this wrong. Allow me some more time. Your understanding is appreciated. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
KURMIS, AHIRS/YADAV
Here are some refs which may interest you: [5], [6], [7]... Your opponents are right when they say that the word Shudra is not commenly used (i will give you more explanations later if I find time) but this is not at all a reason to add the word Kshatriya instead of Shudra... You were right to remove the classification eventhough I think it should be kept but instead of mentionning Kshatriya/Shudra stuffs, it should mention their traditionnal occupations that is: cultivators, cowherds... Varna classification should be explained in the article itself...Rajkris (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, those refs have already been examined and (I think) are all among the batch of 15 quotes I have listed. I've got another 100+ lined up. I am sure that it is correct that the term is not commonly used now in India but that alters nothing: the article already says that it is a deprecated term in that country. The issue of the classification line in the box is part of a wider issue that I have raised in several places: the infoboxes for these articles are more trouble than they are worth. Using your alternate suggestion, some people would say (extreme example) "but my father is an accountant" and start warring over that instead of varna or OBC/ST/SC/FC etc. Since the population size fields are also hopeless, the associated groups are frequently warred over, the areas of significant population cannot usually be cited, and so on ... it makes sense simply not to use the boxes at all. 97% of WP articles do not have an infobox. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't...
Please don't walk away from India-related work - there are so few people working on them, and we need as many skilled researchers and competent writers as we can get. I understand the frustration, but these things do take time to get addressed, and it is a slow and painful process - but awareness of the problems is slowly being raised, and we do have the most egregious abuse averted (at least for now). Maybe take a break for a few days (as I do), and ignore the people making accusations? It's only when they actually affect article content that it really matters, and that seems to be reasonably well under control at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
They are affecting article content, if only because I am spending most of my time unable to develop content. I have managed to fettle Didda & Kalhana this week, plus do a massive overnight rewrite of what was hopelessly incorrect (and potentially libellous) content at Cash-for-votes scandal, plus have created Lohara dynasty over the last couple of weeks. I should be doing a lot more of that sort of stuff but am getting bogged down defending stuff that really should not need defending. My plans for further updates to the Malabar Marriage Act and to assist LadyofShallot + AN Other with the Madras Public Library Act are simply not happening, nor is the polishing that is needed at Nair. If I go there, I am sure these people will follow.
I appreciate all that you do but this feels often like me + MV vs the world. If I do not participate then MV is likely to be in big trouble on the basis of consensus and articles will be changed in a manner detrimental to the project's aims. Sure, consensus has to be supported by V and RS etc but it would be difficult for him to do all that alone, especially since admins cannot evaluate sources and remain uninvolved. Right now, that is the only reason why I am hanging on & getting involved with all the vexatious crassness, which I am convinced is being co-ordinated off-wiki. Myself and MV do not always agree and I have less interest in many of those areas he is involved in, but I do know when something is blatantly right or wrong and I do appreciate the huge effort he has been putting into these areas. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's holding you back from other work you want to do, that's true - and it's doing the same to me. But these ethnic disputes crop up all the time, and they are amongst the hardest to solve and they do take time. I'm thinking about how to progress this, and will probably seek some advice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I also would hate to see you leave the field, but, at the same time, if doing this is making Wikipedia unpleasant, then you shouldn't feel obligated. As I think I suggested elsewhere, how about we try a simpler approach: the first time someone expresses a concern (e.g., "They're not Shudra!!!!") we cite policy/guidelines. The first time someone brings in a bad source, we tell them it doesn't meet RS. When the person repeats the problem, we simply explain to them calmly how to pursue DR--point them to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, whatever. We respond to their concerns there, of course, but we just stop explaining the same things over and over again. We place the burden where it should be: on those who want to argue that a given source is valid, that their analysis is not original research, etc. If they want to declare that they're being abused, we direct them to ANI or wherever. Meanwhile, we keep evaluating sources, keep figuring out ideal article content. When someone is edit warring, we report them. When someone adds OR and gets a gang to try to keep it in, we take it to WP:NORN ourselves, and when NORN nearly inevitably backs up our position, we take it out again. If that ends up with the article fully protected; so be it; a that point, we should be able to legitimately run an {{edit request}} and say "See this discussion over at that noticeboard--every uninvolved editor said that X is the right way to write the article, not Y." In other words, we use the DR process just like we should. Sometimes, of course, DR will decide that a source we think is unreliable is, in fact, reliable; great, that's evidence of the process working. But every time we raise this, or get POV pushers to raise this, at a noticeboard, more and more people see it. Some of them watchlist the article in question. Others start to see a pattern build up. Eventually, enough people see the problem for what it is, and the community as a whole says, "Hey, we're sick of hearing this, time for some sanctions" (or time for ArbCom). Plus, over time, we will find good, helpful editors. I just found one today; the Shudra issue came up at Kamma (caste), where basically only one source was supporting Shudra status, while the rest of the article supported Warrior status (not with great sources mind you, but the Shudra was only in the lead). So I removed it. Then User:Foodie 377 came in with 3 sources, at least one of which appeared to be very high quality, which all agreed that Kanma count as Upper Shudra. Take a look at Talk: Kamma (caste)#Shudra, and see that xe even seems interested in improving the overall quality of varna issues on this and other articles. I know at this point I'm rambling (it's late here), but I do think that head way will eventually be made, and I also think that it can be done without completely overwhelming you or MV. Of course, please reach out when you have specific problems; to Boing as an admin and me as an editor, and anyone else you think can help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Foodie is a great (albeit rare) example of a caste editor who can do good things when handled cordially. We started butting heads at some point (Reddy?), but we talked through it, and he basically came to the conclusion "I'm not upset about telling both sides of the Reddy story, I'm upset that Reddies look bad in comparison to the still-biased articles", so he's been really great sourcing Reddy (while telling both sides) and also smacking some neighboring castes who've been getting away with cruft. Not saying he's attacking other castes, just trying to even the playing field amongst quarelling factions. I dunno, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing. Some days I'll have more time, some days less, and some slow days I might just bail from India for a few days to catch up on my massive to-do list. I just really, really, really don't want to help establish a precedent of "you can always fix Wiki by calling your boys on Orkut, closing your eyes to every reply, and screaming racism when all else fails." MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen that website, yes. I doubt very much that it qualifies as a reliable source. We have no idea of his expertise and his footnotes tend to be on the thin side. Of course, those footnotes that he does provide might be of use independent from a cite of the site (!) Take it to WP:RSN if you fancy a run out with it, although I suspect the problem there will be lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject area. There is an equivalent for the UK that is quite widely used - Leigh Radiment's guide to the peerage, or something like that. However, that one has more sourcing & the compiler(s) have a track record.
Saw Jimbo's page yesterday and then again today just Jimbo replied to Yogesh's reinstated query. It will go nowhere, although I have now said my piece & it may get one or two other editors interested (mostly likely not ones that would suit the POV agenda, so it could be a huge own goal for Yogesh). - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to keep an eye on the page. Sorry I can't be more helpful with edits like this. I can't tell who's who. If it's simple, I'll fix it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you had stepped in, and thanks for that. Basic rule: ignore the names and just work using WP:V & WP:NLIST - if an item is redlinked and unsourced then bin it because it fails to meet V and NLIST. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Will do, my friend. Will do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. More importantly, thank you for your support across a range of articles, and ultimately, for your crazy hard work in the face of ridiculous accusations and sometimes very problematic opponents. I hope to continue working with you indefinitely, and hope that, one day, we can wrestle at least some of those articles into control. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you and I have had to deal with the Govind Kumar Singh more than anyone, so I thought I'd ask for your input before acting on this. Vermapriya1986 seems to be resuming his edits at Govind Kumar Singh, which made me take a look at what redirected to that article. Among the pages is a redirect, Texture King, which redirects to Govind Kumar Singh. I can't figure out why, because the Govind Kumar Singh article doesn't address this in any way. However, you can't prod redirects, and I'm honestly not sure if G11 applies to it (although I think it does, I'm not sure). Thought I'd ask for a second opinion and see if G11 applies, or if I should take it to RFD, or just leave it alone. - SudoGhost 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
C.Fred turned it into a redirect way back when s/he was using the Wnfck sock. It had a little content because Texture King was alleged to be Kumar's nickname. Best bet is to have a word with C.Fred but my gut feeling is to leave it alone because it does no harm & I don't think we actually need to comply with WP:V etc for a redirect. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kshatriya
Sir,i have explained about exclusion of jats with sources on disscussion page but inspite this you reverted my correction.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did. You gave no explanation in the edit summary and you have not given people enough time to respond on the talk page. You removed a substantial amount of cited information and need to allow more than the two days that you did. Give it a couple of weeks at least, especially since I for one did respond and need more time. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK sir,i have already provided the other side of topic with sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
For your careful and helpful work on Fanny Crosby. Ockham would be proud of you, and I think Ms. Crosby herself looks on your work and approves. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks indeedy, although of course there are three involved in this exercise. It is great that we're at the point now where an edit doesn't throw an error on the servers, which is what was happening on every occasion a couple of days back & made things b. awkward. The edits went through ok then, but the error was consistent and did not happen on other articles I was working on, so I presume it was a size issue.
BTW, I am not sure that Ms. Crosby is capable of "looking" down, but I know what you mean ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
An error due to a size issue...hmmm...nudge nudge? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Construction date
I am curious where you got the info about all those possible construction dates to Green Leaves.
AtterionTalk•Contribs 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
From the cited sources that you removed. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No no no. I mean before I removed them. AtterionTalk•Contribs 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Look in those sources - the info is there. I was the person who found them. If you cannot see the sources then, sure, I'll provide quotes for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I can recall, they were all interviews with various members of your family. Unless your family has a history of misinforming the wider community, their views should be noted. Even NRHP say that something was there at an earlier time. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Good. Watch out for the boomerang. You are being ridiculously bumptious and it would assist if you slowed down a little & read the comments on the talk page. That's the article talk page, where you tried to close down discussion with a template. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Figured I'd reply here since I didn't know if you'd see the reply in the middle of my page. On the Tod will, the solution is "easy"--write your own, solid research paper on the will, get it published, and then let us know and we can consider it for citation in the article. That should only take a few years, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been thinking about it! Seriously, there is a way round this that would still provide info for the dedicated. At Isaac Perrins I added available archive information to the External links section, just so people would know that it existed. The same could be done at Tod (or in this case it could also go under Further reading). There are a few things scattered among the archives. It all goes to show that where there's a will, there's a way <g> Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Once more out of YK and I'm taking him to ANI
Stellar day: YK yet again brings up that blog, and implies that Jimbo is doing an investigation that will take you and me out in a month or two: Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months. Also, class act, compares me to the Oslo bomber. I wrote him back, told him one more comment like any of that and I'm taking him to ANI, as this is just freakin' ridiculous. If you catch him dragging that silly blog again (again, not that I care about the blog, I care about him PAing), or throwing around more ridiculous insults, please let me know, and if you want in the ANI too that'd be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have just been reading his comment on your page, after seeing your on his. The guy is extremely bad news, IMO. He'll be chewing my leg again before too long, I guarantee it. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I must say, however, that he doesn't say Jimbo will sort it all out in 2 months. YK has that peculiar way of numbering his points and the (2) is his second point in the message. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean the (2) was the months, I was just referring to his "matter of months" as a silly "you'll get yours, MV and Sitush, it's all just coming down the pike in good time." He keeps jabbing at this on my Talk page, showing zero signs of "okay, I phrased that poorly, but I'm still concerned". Any reason I shouldn't just take it to ANI now? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No reason not to if you have the diffs etc. The problem is, he is slippery with his language and may fall back on the "I didn't it that way but, you know, Indian English is different". I keep meaning to dig up the diffs for his general rabble-rousing but for some reason seem never to have sufficient time. I wonder why that is? Have you mentioned the latest reference to BsZ? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't want to pull BsZ in again, because I guaran-dang-tee the reaction will be "wellity well! Look who dragged in his pet POV attack editor to prevent me from telling the truth... (and exposing your $400/hr scheme...)" I'll pull it up at ANI when I get a moment. He keeps falling back on "not saying the blog is actually true, just saying it's a WP credibility issue", but then in the same breath he'll talk about "actions needed against certain editors", imply I'm trying to cover up the blog, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen his wording etc. It is an example of his slipperiness. He knows full well that he is getting his POV across and then backing out of it after the target has been reached (ie: another mention). Note that he never backs out of it at the venue where he posts the comment, thus not affecting the impression he has given to a new bunch of viewers. He has also just bolded the "I'm only saying, not believing" comment in a msg he posted on his talk page a few days ago - a peculiar bit of refactoring to do at this stage, but clearly done for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much at all about the badlinks thing, but maybe you can get that URL added so that it can not be added again. LadyofShalott 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you may have hit on something there, LoS: edit filters. It has been agreed at ANI to be an attack site, I might have a word with Reaper Eternal and see if filtering is possible. Although, of course, there is more than one simple way round a filter. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, an edit filter might just be the thing. LadyofShalott 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Varna infoboxes
So...there's a variety of ways to proceed on those. If you think you can get consensus, probably the "easiest" is to propose Template:Infobox caste for deletion at TfD. The main problem is, I'd say you stand no more than a 50% chance of succeeding, given that we're talking about a Template that is transcluded on over 50 pages, and the argument you're making is one based in logic more than any specific policy. One could argue that WP:BLPCAT applies, and that these infoboxes, by definition, will always violate BLPCAT, but that requires stretching the definition of BLP to cover a group of people, which is sometimes done but always questionable.
An alternative would be to simply start a discussion on the talk page of the template itself about removing the parameters which will always be disputed and thus impossible to cover in a single line in an infobox (even sourced). Publicize that discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Then, if there's consensus, we can just remove it from all of them as a deprecated parameter (allegedly easy to do with AWB, I just never got the hang of the tool). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am going to try to do something about it but am unsure of the best method. Your suggestions above are welcomed. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the users at Talk:Kamma (caste) seem pretty willing to pursue it; I've just directed them to the template talk and the noticeboard to get a discussion going...it looks like...looks like something good and positive and collaborative is happening! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Based strictly on the conversation above (I have not looked at the infobox in question) - if it's a BLP-related issue, you could also publish the link to discussion at WP:BLP/N and ask for input there. LadyofShalott 13:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A point to note
Please avoid making casual remarks about freedom movements just to make colonial rules appear as civilized as today's laws, regardless of your personal indifference, as you mentioned in this edit; while making point against "Rebellion against british aint an offense" as mentioned by IP.
Such casual attitude against freedom movements, according to me, is a thing of the past in all countries officially. No need to flog a dead horse for anything. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware that I have made any remark about freedom movements recently, anywhere. I recall that you did but I did not respond to that part of your point because it was irrelevant and tangential to the matter at hand, as so much of that which you write seems to be at present. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
May be this edit could clarify it further. Anyway, all I am pointing out is that colonial period is over long time back. No one has to keep dragging anything if he doesn't like it, world has moved on. Though one should not insist that the colonial times were as civilized as post-colonial times, and differ with anyone on these lines, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not getting involved in another long, pointless thread with you about some imagined wrong. Do not puts words into my mouth by use of your overly vivid imagination and heightened sense of post-colonialism. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess there is no point to ask for any clarification about 'Rebellion against any governing power is, technically, an offence. But if the rebels succeed then obviously they will not punish themselves :)', as it may be termed as no more than out of heightened sense of post-colonialism. Thank you. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It means what is says. If you choose to read something into it that is not said, then that is your vivid imagination etc. Believe me, when I write something I write what I intend to say and I expect people to read it with that in mind. I could not do subtlety to save my life, as you should well know by now. So, drop the bone please. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Sitush. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I mentioned your talk page in a diff, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention, just to cover all my bases.. - SudoGhost 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidence: The above is a perfect display of the friendship between User:Sitush and User:SudoGhost, a perfect explanation as to why I am being personally attacked by both users. --QUICK EDITOR 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm not seeing how the above comment (which is a pretty standard notice template) is evidence of anything, kindness and collaboration between editors is a good thing at Wikipedia, not evidence of some dark conspiracy. - SudoGhost 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011 (a recent edit that you made on User_Talk:QuickEditor)
A recent edit that you made on User_Talk:QuickEditor was removed or reverted because it was a misuse of a Wikipedia template. Thank you. --QUICK EDITOR 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it appeared to be a very valid use of a Wikipedia template. - SudoGhost 15:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Columbia University
Hi Sitush. As a Columbia alumnus, I can access certain electronic databases (such as JSTOR). When I tried to access the dissertation through the link you provided using my ID and password, I got the message "File missing: docs/logup.htm". I guess that means I can't get it. Sorry.
After reading the Tamil Kshtriya topic i have presented my views on discussion page of Kshtriya in support of merger many days ago.Bill clinton history (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that. My point was that the discussion on the merger has been ongoing for two months or so now - there is no rush, there or anywhere else, unless the article is a WP:BLP with problems, or there are copyright violations etc. For basic content issues, Wikipedia is timeless. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please put message on proper discussion page
Hi,
Why have you put remark "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)" on my user page and not my talk page.
Please do the needful. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I am obliged to inform you. You have been informed. Period.- Sitush (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thisthat, the AN/I page says at the top that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." Any message on your page with that notification is simply a user following the rules required at AN/I. - SudoGhost 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that I have been notified, though incorrectly. Notifying User can be considered as straightforward action of posting message on User's talk page instead of otherwise. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
... or it can be done as suggested by WP:AN. Look, you are tendentious enough elsewhere - please do not bring it here as you have already once this week. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The message was placed on his user page, not his talk page, which is presumably what Thisthat is complaining about. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah. That's my mistake - trying to get the message out to everyone before I get accused of not getting the message out to everyone. Sorry. I couldn't understand "Please do the needful". Still do not, for that matter. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It only means that it leaves unwanted lines on my user page, which are already reverted without wait. Never mind about anything else too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not fully understand that ^ either. I notice that MangoWong has also had some difficulty understanding you today, although usually you are fairly clear. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude it means those lines on my userpage took me by surprise. It could be put on talk page that is all. Nevermind. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I have apologised for that. It was a mistake, caused by the reasons given. But, seriously, you are pretty hard to understand today & usually it isn't difficult. Hope you are ok. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, You should still post a {{subst:ANI-notice}} message on the talk pages of all users who might be involved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't need to apologies. I am ok with anything really, the Undo tool is great. ..ईती ईती नॆति नॆति.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for letting me know. I will excuse myself from the ANI. I took your advice and I do feel that it's best to keep out of such places. I wanted to add a photo of Indian PM with President Obama on the India page, but it seems there is a strong opposition to that from a few editors who seem to 'own' that Page.
I have been to UK several times, and I love it. Reading, Southall, Wimbley, London , etc. were my favorite places. Let's stay in touch. I may not come to WP as there are more pressing things that have filled my space. Take care. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
India-related articles tend to be one of the somewhat contentious areas here, But there is much to be done on Wikipedia that does not involve India and in which your input would be appreciated, I am sure. It is often actually easier to concentrate on areas where you do not have a possible conflict of interest because you can view the subjects dispassionately. You appear to be keen on finding sources and so perhaps that might be something that would interest you? I know that you have doubts about the usefulness of Google's various search options but there are also resources such as www.archive.org and www.hathitrust.org that contain large libraries of texts ... and there are tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands!) of articles here that are in need of citations. I could point you in the right direction for that if you would like me to, since there at lists of these things and you can pick at them either randomly or sequentially as you prefer. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Crooke volumes 2, 3, 4
Unfortunately, I can't search for "Kurmi" in the archiv.org versions of volumes II, III, and IV. Volume III, especially contains the bulk of the description of the Kurmi. The Google books version, by the way, do contain the complete books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't tried the archive links for Kurmi - will have a go. I only today realised that archive had the things at all. GBooks here is no preview/no snippet etc. Nada. As a rule, archive.org is better for several reasons: aside from being able to see the full book (if it is hosted at all), it also works pretty much globally whereas GBooks does not. Further, you can view the book in different formats etc. If I cannot find Kurmi the easy way then I would just go to the text version, search that & note the page number if I wanted to view the "real thing". Works every time. So far! I will try it on volume 3. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Gbooks has snippets. Just click on "view all." Besides the Google search algorithm is the fastest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I missed this interruption, sorry. Snippets are useless. There is no context. If you are using snippets to support statements then you are in trouble, somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if the ref contains the page number then the reader does not need to search anyway. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
But in a book with many references to a certain topic, they need to search. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
No they do not. That is what a citation is for. We need to search but the reader does not. Tell me, why is GBooks better when it cannot be seen at all, whereas archive.org can be seen and there are various options for those who might want to search for their own purposes? - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
On which continent can a "full view" Gbook not be seen? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work by continent. Here in the UK I cannot see any of Crooke bar the basic detail page for the book; often we can only see snippet views of things that in the US can be seen in full view. On at least a couple of occasions, there was someone in France who could not see that which I could see. In China, they can see even less. This is basic stuff: GBook views are known to differ around the world. There is an article/essay on it somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, GBooks has a counter - view a book enough times and you get thrown out. I am not sure if this applies to full views but it does apply to previews etc. There are plenty of books at archive.org & hathitrust.org that can be seen in unrestricted full view but only in restricted view on GBooks. Obviously, in the ideal world we use ISBNS but that is useless for old stuff and, indeed, for a lot of fairly new output from India (who seem to have adopted the isbn system rather later than the US/UK etc). - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Given that Wikipedia gives Google books pride of place in its BookSources, and given that Gbooks are now favored at FAC, I'm surprised. This is the first time in my five years that someone has objected to Gbooks. I'll grant you that the digital page quality is better on archiv.org (I've used in the past for images). Fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Doubtless some talk page stalkers will be along in due course. I am not objecting to GBooks but rather saying that if archive or hathitrust have the same content then better to use them. Perhaps you have been mixing mostly with people who don't care, or perhaps you have been working with sources that are not available at archive etc. The phrases "five years" and "FAC" carry no weight with me, I am afraid, but if you are telling me that FAC allow snippet views then I'll be tempted to have a word there. I am trying to find the essay. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, TK. Feel free to weigh in. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the thread and just logged in but it kept popping up, so I peeked. I do use gbooks for research with the understanding that the pages will disappear and that they're very unreliable. If I get access to a page I need, I take notes immediately because in most cases I can't get back to that page, and then have to order the book from a library - which is my preferred method anyway. I don't use snippet views (useless!) and never link to gbooks in an article for the reasons spelled out in Uncle G's essay - the links aren't stable. We can get to the book via the ISBN so I think the links are redundant, but I know a lot of editors do use them and do like them. Not sure this is any help, but that's my opinion on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I must admit that I do link but I am often working with sources from pre-ISBN days anyway. I am aware of the limitations but "owt is better than nowt", as they say around my area. Archive is as good as a hardcopy, as is a lot of stuff at Hathitrust but I, too, like to have a book in my hand & have about 5000-6000 here at home. One really common mistake when people search GBooks is to forget that it distinguishes the singular from the plural: if you search for "cat" you won't get any hits for "cats", for example, & so multiple searches are often needed. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
To Truthkeeper88: It's true of course that for "limited preview books," Google keeps a tab and you might easily overstay your welcome with them. (A few hours later or the next day, they can apparently relent. And it is not really Google, it is the author and publisher who want it so.) But we are talking about the "full view" books, whose copyright has long expired, whose scans Google has received as a result of the generosity of many American universities (UMichigan, Harvard, Berkeley, etc.). It is hard for me to believe, as Sitush claims, that "full view" Google books are not available in the UK or are only available as bare "book information" form. But, unfortunately, I find Sitush to be thin-skinned and argumentative, so I won't belabor the point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
AGF is the phrase you are looking for <g> - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ Sitush- For some articles I find gbooks extremely useful - my most current expansion is almost soley based on gbooks augmented with a few journal articles and library books, but I have to say that it's an exception - in fact it's the first time I've found what I need on gbooks. I don't like archives because I have trouble with the reader for some reason, but that might just be a browser rendering issue. Anyway, sorry for butting in, as I said I peeked and knew where the essay was so linked it for you.
@Fowler&fowler - as I said I butted in & didn't know the context. I don't know much about out-of-copyright volumes - I tend to go to recent scholarship. Butting out now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, I've just taken a screenshot of the GBooks result for volume 3 using the link that you had placed at William Crooke. Let me know where you want it. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
... and there, in TK's last message, is the point I & others have made about the validity of numerous 19C sources. Basically, they aren't valid if there is a newer source available, and often not valid regardless. Sourcing is trickier than some people think. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:) No one is saying that Crooke is the last word on the subject. We are talking about the Wikipedia William Crooke page and the books listed under "Works!" Users don't need page numbers there they need to browse and search the book as and when they want. Please post the screen shot right here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot post it here. Basic copyright issues, unless you think it qualifies under free use rationale. On the Crooke page we have no responsibility to provide a link at all, but it we do then it does not have to be a searchable link ... although, of course, it is searchable & I have explained a way to do this if all else fails. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure you can. What copyright? Google doesn't have any copyright on the book. The author's expired long ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
They have copyright on the website, surely? I would be astonished if not. - Sitush (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, use "Fair use." We are not using it for commercial purposes. If there is a problem, they'll delete it in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother to past it here. I just saw the jpeg you uploaded. Btw, what happens, when you click on this link? Are you able to read the book? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly the same happens. This is common & does not merely affect the UK. The old Gazetteers & Manuals etc almost always have the same outcome. I wasn't lying about this. - Sitush (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I learned something. (I didn't think you were lying, but rather that you hadn't clicked on the preview button or hadn't logged into Google, although I just checked here and that doesn't make a difference.) That's amazing. Thanks, btw, for taking the time to upload the image. So, obviously yours is a superior choice of link. What about modern books with limited "Google preview?" Are you able to preview them? I'll post a link in a minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
No. Same page as before (well, you know what I mean: different book cover, details etc but the same "No preview available" message at top right). - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. So that means that editors outside the US have a definite disadvantage when it comes to looking for sources on-line, because even access to academic resources, doesn't give them access to current books as Google books partially does. I suppose Amazon.com often gives more access than Google does, and that is an option. I'm guessing though that Amazon also has a limit (and it might be related to the number of books you buy from them). But still ... this is not exactly fair. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment. I have to go now. Google books unfortunately won't feed the cats. And they are pacing ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The last time I tried Amazon.com for viewing contents it threw me out to the UK site (geolocated the IP, I guess) & I was told there that it could not be viewed. Of course, I can see book content on Amazon.co.uk but presumably not always the same books as can be viewed at Amazon.com etc. As far as I am aware, the US is one of the more liberal places in this regard but I think also that Google runs a bit scared of copyright issues outside the US and slaps metadata on the page without really evaluating the source in terms of which countries might be ok for full view etc & which might not. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Great sum-up of caste flexibility and claims:
Even back in 1883 folks noticed this going on. Not that it's really RS, but just more perspective on the issue.
“
A point here brought under discussion and of considerable scientific interest to the ethnological student is the position in the scale of Hindu caste of the royal family of Travancore, as well as of the other Rajahs and chieftains of Malabar. It is unfortunate that this curious historical question is not only somewhat obscure from the absence of reliable records, and from the existence of puzzling anomalies in their domestic usages; but it is also unavoidably encumbered with various personal and political considerations which tend to take it out of the region of abstract discussion. The Rajahs of Malabar are undoubtedly kings of very ancient lineage, and were formerly, of course, to a greater or less degree, warriors; but the question discussed by Mr. Shungoonny Menon is, whether they are descended by birth from the ancient Aryan Kshatriyas, who are reckoned as the royal or military caste of India. Much delicacy must naturally be felt in discussing the genealogy of distinguished families; but certainly an official, dependent, as was Mr. S. Menon, solely on personal favour for promotion and honours, could not approach the subject with an unbiassed mind, nor feel at liberty, if unbiassed, to express his views without reserve. I have heard a distinguished Brahman acknowledge that he felt restrained by delicacy and prudence from carrying out his own convictions as to individuals really lower in the scale of caste than himself, but higher in authority and social influence. Happily the Rajahs of Travancore have, in a most dignified manner, refrained from interposing in the discussion of this question; but while, up till somewhat recently, it was almost universally admitted that the dynasty was of Nayar lineage, attempts have of late been made by partisans to claim for them Kshatriya rank and birth as respects Hindu caste, and to becloud the right apprehension of various considerations on which the decision of this purely historical question depends. Our historian, for instance, says "We wonder how, and upon what authority, the authors of 'The Land of the Perumals,' and ' The Land of Charity,* and other learned writers, state that the Rajah of Travancore is a Sudra. If these authors will but search the Sanscrit works they will be obliged to acknowledge that they are in the wrong, as no mention is made therein as regards the caste of the Travancore sovereigns, except that they are Soma Vamsa Kshatrias."
Well, that is around the time that the various groups started canvassing, so it makes perfect sense that it was recorded. Off the top of my head, weren't the Ezhavas the first to form a community association for the purpose? I think the Nairs based theirs on the Ezhava model. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The user has been continually reporting me for being a socket puppet. I am getting tired of these false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPaul67 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Kurmi. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You and MatthewVanitas have assumed the ownership of the article as per the evidence above.
