User talk:Sitush/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Veerapandiya Kattabomman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Veerapandiya Kattabomma Karuthayya Nayakudu''' (also known as Kattabomman was an 18th-century [[Palayakarrar]] ('Polygar') chieftain from

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Paramara

Please look at my comments on the Paramara talk page, consider my changes (each one listed) and please revert to my version dated 09.11 26th August. Otherwise, your earlier reverted version is also a good benchmark, so happy for you to revert to that but please remove the link reference to 'Ror'. --Parmark (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Sitush, please, while the image is under discussion & the consideration at WP:NFCR has not been formally closed, please don't take it upon yourself to remove it.

Also, for the record, there really isn't a legal issue here, it's clear fair use -- what is at issue here is which side it falls in regard of WP's own internal policies on non-free content.

So please revert your edit, and restore the image, until somebody formally closes the discussion. Jheald (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. It is your belief that there is no issue. However, it is someone else's belief that there *is* an issue regarding NFCC and since there is doubt it is necessary that we err on the side of caution. I've already tried to explain this to you once but got nowhere. On this occasion, it seems likely that more than one person thinks that NFCC #1 applies. In any event, the elections for which this logo is applicable are not until December, official campaigning has not started and even the AAP are not pushing the logo at present. There is time to resolve the discussion before it becomes electorally significant. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to you before, the convention is to leave images in place while they are being discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD, so (1) people can easily see the image being discussed and its use in situ, and (2) so that the image doesn't get auto-deleted as orphaned content while the discussion is still ongoing.

Secondly, I don't dispute that people have taken different views on the informative significance of the image (NFCC #8) and the extent to which the textlogo is a replacement for it (NFCC #1). That's why there's a discussion. But note that these are not questions about the legality of the image.

For an actual legal case, compare eg Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.; and then consider that our position under each of the four factors of fair use law is stronger than DK's was. In legal terms this is completely unremarkable fair use -- our purpose is nonprofit educational; the work is publicly created, to facilitiate public discussion/recognition, which is entirely in line with our use (our use actually supports it); the amount we are using is sufficient to convey the image, no more; and the work has no potential market or commercial value to be harmed. So in pure legal terms, this is clear fair use.

The question is where it falls with respect to WP's internal policy, which seeks to minimise non-free content use still further; and not to use non-free content if it is replaceable by free content -- if the alternative free content performs the same encyclopedic function (NFCC #1).

That's a reasonable thing to discuss. But while the discussion is ongoing, please allow the image that is the subject of the discussion to be seen and assessed in situ, the standard procedure; something which also prevents it being auto-deleted while the discussion is ongoing, which helps nobody. So therefore, please revert yourself and restore this image while the discussion is ongoing, until it has been formally closed. Jheald (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(multiple ec) No, sorry. Someone else might but I'm not prepared to do it. I'm not convinced, albeit with my limited understanding of image-related stuff, and it certainly does not seem to be a critical image given the points that I have raised above and at the NFR discussion. The image can still be seen and if people cannot visualise it in situ or use the history to see it thus then, frankly, they are probably not fit to contribute here: give your colleagues at least some credit for intelligence. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: it's not for you to remove the image, as an active participant in the discussion. It's for the uninvolved admin who formally closes the discussion (if the image needs to be removed at all). Jheald (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: it was not for you to reinstate something that had been removed several times even before the discussion commenced. I'm not a great fan of officiousness and would rather that you did not push this issue any further. Perhaps I am wrong but I am certainly acting in good faith on this issue. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_an_image_under_discussion, for a wider community view. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, Enjoy your moment in the heat sun and watch for the boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR

WP:3RRNO excludes "Removal of content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" (emphasis original).

An image which continues to be the subject of reasoned active good-faith debate cannot be said to "unquestionably" violate the non-free content policy.

Your edits therefore are subject to WP:3RR -- and you have now had your three. Jheald (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

D'uh? As you have been told, the image is indubitably a copyvio and has been deleted at Commons for that reason. Yes, there may be a decision to ignore that copyright but it is "unquestionably" a violation. Wikilawyer your way out of that one. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of "Fair use is not a copyright violation" do you fail to understand?

What part of 17 USC 107 (quoted here), that explicitly sets that out in black and white, do you fail to comprehend? "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright."

Commons decides whether or not an image is free. Commons does not decide whether or not an image is a copyright violation -- i.e. whether a non-free image is or is not being used fairly -- because non-free images fall outside its charter.

As far as I can see, nobody apart from you remotely imagines that legally the use of this image is anything other than completely legitimate fair use.

The question being debated at WP:NFCR is whether this image falls within WP's own policy -- which draws a tighter line than the law.

The WP:3RRNO is quite deliberately limited to clear copyright violations and content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Neither of those is the case here. Please understand what the rules mean if you are going to rely on them. Jheald (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons deleted because it was a copyvio, not because it was non-free. I hate working with image-related stuff precisely because it brings out the pedants amongst us. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Commons discussion. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, since everyone currently involved in the NFR discussion is arguing that the image should go, I'm not sure how you think it is only me who thinks that it fails the test. Although, actually, you should also note that I've queried on several occasions there & at Commons whether there might be a work-round. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The Commons discussion found that the image was copyrighted, and therefore non-free.

The discussion did not consider whether or not the use of the copyrighted non-free image was or was not legitimate, because copyright non-free images are out of scope for Commons.

Copyright non-free images can be used legitimately, if the way they are used qualifies as "fair use" under 17 USC 107 as quoted above. Such use is not a copyright violation, as 17 USC 107 specifically states in black and white.

Commons did not assess whether or not the way the image was being used on WP was fair use -- because non-free images (and WP) are out of scope for Commons. Commons made no assessment of whether the way the image was being used was a "copyright violation", only that the image itself was copyright, and non-free. Jheald (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also: what I said was that it was only you that seems to think that the image might be anything other than legally sound. The discussion at WP:NFCR is about a different test -- whether the image is appropriate or not under WP's own policies (which are not the same as the law). Jheald (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here and I am not qualified to interpret the laws of the UK, let alone the US. The image is copyrighted, Commons agreed that to be the case and thus de facto we would be infringing copyright if we used it. I have never denied that there may be exemptions but until there is agreement that those exemptions apply we must err on the side of caution and that dictates we omit the image. You are the only active participant in the discussion who is arguing that some exemption applies. End. Of. Story. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The heading of this section is about WP:3RR

In the context of WP:3RR, it is important to realise that not all unauthorised use of copyright material is a "copyright violation".

WP:3RRNO does not certify "removal of potential copyright violations to 'err on the side of caution'". WP:3RRNO is limited to "removal of clear copyright violations and content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy".

Nobody, apart from you, is calling this a "copyright violation" -- because it isn't.

Rather, the question is whether it falls within WP's own policies -- which is open to (and receiving) legitimate debate.

This is precisely the case which is excluded from WP:3RRNO -- WP:3RRNO does not authorise you to break WP:3RR in this case. Jheald (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see "End. Of. Story." above? - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

message

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Krantmlverma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you my effing nursemaid

Dear friend,

Please consider if you wish to persist in following my edits across multiple pages. 2 can play that game as well as 1.TheWikiIndian (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not your nursemaid. I am, however, attempting to resolve numerous issues that are being caused by your extensive deletions on articles relating to the Aam Aadmi Party. For example, you removed this based in part on it being a mirror of us. I'm struggling to see how that could be when our article was not created until after that source had been published. I know that not everything you do is bad but a significant quantity of it certainly is dubious and that is why I am taking an interest. Please do not feel that I am hounding you because that is not my intent. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. I have no specific interest in AAP. I made 1 edit to the page and had moved on but was chased by an extensive AAP POV pusher vindictively for my edit. Being provoked, I then came to discover the extent of POV pushing by that fellow, some IPs and some prior editors operating in seriatim. That caused me to start cleaning up the articles they have been active on and which "coincidentally" turn out to be AAP articles. TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is not the impression that I am getting, sorry. You are a fairly newly-registered contributor but have an almost incredible knowledge of policy acronyms etc., you are accusing practically everyone of pov relating to AAP stuff - including me - and you seem to be heading towards a battleground approach involving a lot of pedantry and an awful lot of bad deletions of content. Indian articles are a toxic area of Wikipedia at the best of times, as often are political articles: combine the two, as in this situation, and you've got to be pretty careful about what you do. There is more to contributing in areas such as this than mere swallowing of the policy dictionary.

Sure, the AGF thing might be enshrined in our policies but human nature tends to operate differently from that ideal, especially when someone seems to be a single-purpose account. Your contributions have been almost without exception related to the nexus of AAP/India Against Corruption/Right to Information and they have almost entirely been "anti". That comes across as strange. I can understand that you want to counter the perceived puffery etc surrounding those movements but the extent to which you are concentrating on them and the extent to which you are scything stuff does not look good to me, speaking as someone who has never voted, has no involvement in Indian politics nor indeed in India itself. Maybe try editing some other stuff for a while. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

re: Hemu

Just wanted to assure you that I have read the two previous discussion you linked earlier on the Talk:Hemu page, and more generally: while I may not be replying to each specific point Sudhir or you raise on the page, that is only with the view of keeping the discussion somewhat directed. Hope I didn't leave the impression that I was imply ignoring your or Sudhir's comments in the process. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sock investigation report: in case you wish to add any evidence, counter-evidence, or list other accounts. While the SPAs and IPS are undoubtedly sock/meat-puppets, I am almost hoping that Sudhir is not the master, since otherwise my time (and even more of yours) would have been wasted in all that pointless discussion. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Try to find policy

Hi I hope you are good. I am trying to find the policy where it says that you have to not lose the attribution of wikipedia changes. Like if someone deletes and article you can not restore the article and pretend you wrote the whole thing, and same thing for merges. I think you would know where it is? I saw it long ago. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that is kinda scattered around a bit. It is all based on our licensing requirements. Try Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which should hopefully provide some info and links to whatever your precise situation may be. Some of my talk page stalkers might know of a specific, all-in-one article. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush. I'll give you one guess who that "someone" is. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Sjoman (2nd nomination) then I think you are fair game on this occasion. You probably should have enough experience by now to know that a more sensible recreation route would have been to request userfication of the deleted article in order that you could work on it and retain the attribution. Worse, you seem to be up to your old tricks of not sourcing statements about a living person and bulking up a refs section by adding pointless citations - the ISBNs suffice for verification of existence and spamming a publisher & a blog seems unnecessary. MarioNovi is correct in the point that they make and while it is fixable by the method suggested by David Eppstein, there was no harm in highlighting it. Basically, if you fly close to the sun - as you often do - then you can expect to hit problems. This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? MN's methods may not appeal but more often than not they seem to be correct, in a bull-in-a-china-shop sort of way. The only reason I'm not getting involved in that discussion is because I cannot see p. 16 of the Princeton book. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK copyright doesn't exist on facts, thus attribution is not an issue. As to the refs, I have to admit I was influenced by your own insistence on Jeff Berlin's output being firmly referenced. If they are not required I will indeed remove them. I've attempted to make those refs more useful. Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush for the links it is what I wanted. Wwwhatsup did you look at the links, the first sentence of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page.". If you copy deleted page then you lose this, but there is a solution that is mentioned on the AFD. How did you get a copy of this deleted page? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

He may have written it from scratch. I didn't see the original article and so have nothing to compare it to; my comment above was based on comments made by others in the AfD, which seemed to suggest a similarity. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, what I say is also based on his comment in creating it "restore prev deleted article with emphasis on notability". But I can not see deleted articles. MarioNovi (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Norman_Sjoman Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This does mean that you took other editors work then, yes? But we can fix it like discussed in the AFD. MarioNovi (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lohanas

Hi, Sitush.

I have to say I don't quite share with your view that Lohanas are not an ethno-linguistic Indo-Aryan peoples given that the true definition of "Indo-Aryan peoples" means native speakers of that branch, and also that they are widely reputed to have history from Sindh, which is the reason for them speaking Kutchi:

"Indo-Aryan peoples: Indo-Aryan or Indic peoples are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group referring to the wide collection of peoples united as native speakers of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-Iranian family of Indo-European languages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_peoples

Other Indo-Aryan peoples would be Sindhis, Punjabis, Gujaratis, Rajasthanis, for instance---Ribena786 (talk)

It is a complex topic and there are lots of people who want to claim the origin, often with the flimsiest of evidence. I'm not sure that relying on another article hosted on Wikipedia really does the job here and, of course, there is the whole mess of the Aryan Invasion Theory and other such nonsense. To be honest, I'd happily see both the category and any claims relating to it removed from all articles because it adds exactly zero to the sum of our knowledge. As with various groups making claims of kshatriya status, it seems to me that this Indo-Aryan palaver on Wikipedia is more about one-upmanship that the imparting of worthwhile knowledge. And as with the kshatriya thing, it is inevitable that sources connected to the relevant group will claim the status even though other sources dispute it and the academic world generally does not have a decent definition of it. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

If you dip a toe it may explode.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Hi, Sitush. Whenever I come across you, I end up feeling ashamed that I don't myself more often dive in the deep end and attempt to defend and improve the kinds of articles that you deal with. The truth is I can't face it. But here at least is a barnstar in recognition of your heroic work. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Bish. There is nothing to stop you dipping a toe in the water, y'know? You don't have to dive in. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree you deserve this. MarioNovi (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dipping a toe? O RLY, nothing to stop me? Look at all the scary stuff that happened when User:NeilN dipped a toe, nothing but a toe. [1], [2] (scroll on down, and on and on). Enough to put anybody off going anywhere near the water. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

P.S., on a tangent, am I the only person who sees a bit of a disconnect between extreme clueless newbiedom and on the other hand familiarity with WP:BITE (so beloved by pseudo-newbies), as well as adequate skills for posting wikilove messages of different kinds and knowing the way to Jimbo's talkpage? Unusual profile. Anyway. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

Oh, sure. I've had death threats etc and a most peculiar off-wiki accusation relating to someone called Prince (who, if the accusation is true, now owes me around USD300,000). The topic area certainly can be a time-sink but it would be less so if more admins were prepared to step in and to step in hard when appropriate. Which in my experience is 10 - 15 per cent of the time. OTOH, when it all gets a bit much, I wander off and do something else. In fact, my wanderings-off are probably a good-ish indicator of my mood! - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, if you need an admin to step in then please call on me if you wish. I usually step in softly once (except for really egregious stuff) but generally once folks have failed to take the first olive branch I see little point in offering more. I admire your ability to dive into the murk and challenge others without very often losing your rag; I wish others would work out how to do that. I'm not promising I'll always agree with you but I've rarely had occasion to disagree by much thus far. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I don't expect people to agree with all that I do or say and I am aware of my fallibility. You allude to one aspect of that fallibility with your "without very often losing your rag". Alas, I do lose it. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen, that's more of dropping a toe nail than dipping a full toe! I don't know if the war is over, but there was one going on between Jyothika and Simran Bagga fanboys before I went walkabout, it makes for amusing reading; those articles tend to provide the ideal conditions for a fish pedicure for those new to the space and in the process allow Sitush more time for his more masochistic ventures. —SpacemanSpiff 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it is as much masochism as a desire to right great wrongs. Masochism is allowed on WP but righting is not, so perhaps I should be indef'd. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actress categories

If I remember correctly there was some discussion on not creating actress categories separate from actor cats. I think it went up to an RfC on one of the pumps, so you may want to check on that and save yourself some time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in two minds about that see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_5#Category:Telugu_film_actors. In fact, I've only been cleaning up because the outcome of that discussion was improperly implemented and because it has given me the opportunity to resolve some BLPCAT problems etc at the same time. I see that the actress bit has now reappeared at CfD. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And another — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

3rd. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

4th. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bartaman Bharat

Hello Sitush, can you please copyedit this short article Bartaman Bharat for grammar, spelling etc?

Swami Vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary DYK celebration September 2013 — Date requests
This is a part of Swami Vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary celebration initiatives 2013 is being celebrated as the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. In September 1893 he delivered a series of lectures in the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. Six of those lectures are mainly referred and recorded in the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. We are attempting to feature DYKs on the dates on which Vivekananda delivered his speeches in Chicago. Please note Please assume good faith and help if you can. If "DYK featured?" column indicates "no", that means, the date is still free. Please do not select more than 1 DYK per day (even if you see more than 1 DYK are nominated per day). Do not comment on this template or the planned DYK celebration in the DYK nomination page. Post your comments here. Task completed: 100% complete
DYK promoter/Admin, please note If you feel a "passed" DYK nomination is not ready to be promoted or a hook needs to be pulled down from queue, please replace it with the immediate next DYK hook or select one from the reserved DYKs.
Date	Article	DYK nomination	Reviewed	Passed	DYK featured?
11 September	Swami Vivekananda (film)	Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Vivekananda (film)	Done by Crisco	Yes	Yes
15 September	Sister Christine	Template:Did you know nominations/Sister Christine	Done by Piotrus, Overturned by BlueMoonset, redone by Crisco	Yes	Yes
19 September	Vedanta Society of New York	Template:Did you know nominations/Vedanta Society of New York	Done by Bonkers The Clown	Yes	Yes
20 September	Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)	Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)	Done by Crisco	Yes	Yes
26 September	Josephine MacLeod	Template:Did you know nominations/Josephine MacLeod	Done by Dharmadhyaksha, BlueMoonset had a question, re-reviewed by BlueMoonset	Yes	Yes
27 September	Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached	Template:Did you know nominations/Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached	Done by Bonkers The Clown	Yes	Yes
Reserved DYKs
Date	Article	DYK nomination	Reviewed	Passed	DYK featured?
N.A.	Nachuk Tahate Shyama	Template:Did you know nominations/Nachuk Tahate Shyama	Done by Hmlarson	Yes
N.A.	Religion not the crying need of India	Template:Did you know nominations/Religion not the crying need of India	Done by 99of9	Yes
N.A.	Bartaman Bharat	Template:Did you know nominations/Bartaman Bharat	Done by TParis	Yes
N.A.	User:Titodutta/Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism (85% complete)
N.A	Atmano mokshartham jagat hitaya cha	Template:Did you know nominations/Atmano mokshartham jagat hitaya cha
N.A	User:Titodutta/Vedanta Society of Northern California (13% complete)
N.A.	User:Titodutta/Kanyakumari resolve of 1892 (30% complete)
N.A.	User:Titodutta/Bahujana hitaya bahujana sukhaya cha (5% complete)

Tito☸Dutta 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tito, my laptop has died and I'm struggling to use any of my other PCs for physical reasons. It is unlikely that I'll get round to it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia

Why you think she should not be under Category:Indian female royalty ??? Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 04:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush told me he's got spotty Wikipedia access for the short future, but I can make a guess--because she's not royalty? By the time she was born, there were no more royal titles in India. So why would she belong in that category? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Shobhit, this has beene explained to you on multiple occasions. I know that you say you publish a society magazine but Wikipedia is not the place for Hello-style gushing sycophancy. Promote whatever distorted view of reality you wish in your own publications and perhaps even elsewhere on the web, but not here. Given the number of occasions that this royalty-pushing issue has been contested, I'm inclined to seek another block if you reinstate it again. Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Kakatiya dynasty

I know nothing about the subject so if you get the chance and inclination, can you please look at this edit which has been reverted back and forth a few times, starting on September 7th? Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about including proper references but I do not agree with your opinion that the revision you have restored to is the "best version." It does not give any sources whatsoever and it propagates caste agenda as in the paragraph NielN linked to above. Not to mention it is very poorly written. I will address your valid points. Thanks Jonny555 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

2012 Fatehpur violence

Could you take a look at this. It mentions some BLPs, eg a reporter being arrested, with no followup, obviously I can't read the sources and don't know if they are RS. And the original creator seems not to quite understand about Wikipedia. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't read them either, D, sorry. I'm always very wary of the no follow-up situations, however slow the Indian justice system operates, and doubly so when the articles are basically news events. Such things on WP, at least when they relate to India, often get forgotten after the initial frenzy and leave dreadful imbalances. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and remove anything that seems to lack a conclusion - if someone wishes to reinstate then they should address that issue and if they can find no sources to do so then it was clearly not as significant as the original reportage made out. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't related to India, it's in Bangladesh. User:Ragib and User:Titodutta could help with Bengali referencing etc. cheers. (@Doug). —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Dougweller and SpacemanSpiff:, these are biased. Few editors are writing articles on every attack on Hindus in Bangladesh and few other editors are trying to prove that the events were not so significant. Anyway, yes, I can read Bengali. Ref 5. 6. 7 are dead links ("I am getting "page not found" error message). BTW, not only me Google also understands Bengali, they do broken translation, but, you'll understand. --Tito☸Dutta 07:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, what do you propose we do? I know it's Bangladesh, but I don't know many editors in that part of the world! I removed all the names. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I forgot - given that the original creator doesn't understand our copyvio policy, there may be copyright issues here, ie it may be a direct translation from the sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Dougweller:, I can not understand what you are trying to do, we have tried multiple times, see our latest and best attempt Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_54#2013_Bangladesh_India_WikiProjects_dispute_resolution. Nothing happened.
  No, the article is not word to word translation of the two Bengalis sources I can see (other three are dead links, so, I don't know). You'll find some more info and refs here. --Tito☸Dutta 08:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• ask User:Sohambanerjee1998, he can read Bengali, is active in Wiki these days and never edited these articles, so totally uninvolved. --Tito☸Dutta 08:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes how may I be of some help. I am willing to end any dispute and am pledging that will be neutral and impartial. Sohambanerjee1998 09:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to clear up possible copyvio (doesn't seem to be a problem), BLP violatins (dealt with by removing names, and hopefully any possible misrepresentation. But I don't think I have time to work on this particular article anymore right now. Thanks everyone for commenting. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes lump all these things under "India" because the same problems arise and they once were indeed all in India. My apologies for any offence to national sensitivities etc. And my thanks to all those who have chimed in - good stuff. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Brahman Maiden"

Regarding your recent edits to Ksitigarbha, are you aware that there are two terms that are similar — brāhmaṇa (sometimes brāhman) and brahman, and that you've linked to the completely wrong concept? If you were familiar with Buddhist texts, this would be obvious because there is no such concept as a "brahman maiden," and you would realize that the difference between a long "a" and a short "a" makes all the difference in Sanskrit. There are different transliteration schemes and different practical manners they are made simpler by omitting diacritics. For the record, both Brahman and Brahmin transliterations are well-attested in this particular case, but when you find an explanation of the meaning of the term, it's always the meaning of Brahmin (i.e. Brahmin caste). When you link to Brahman, it distorts the meaning of the story and confuses readers by introducing notions about a supreme Hindu deity, when in fact this girl is from the Brahmin caste. If you are going to edit Buddhism articles, you really need to know the difference between brahman, brāhmaṇa, brāhman, and brahmā, and when the transliteration brahman means "brāhman" or "brāhmaṇa," and when it means "brahman." (see: http://www.google.com/search?q=ksitigarbha+girl+OR+maiden&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=ksitigarbha+girl+OR+maiden+brahman+OR+brahmin&tbm=bks) Tengu800 06:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've not linked anything in the article. I'm trying to fix problems caused by a prolific sock - if the source is not clear then find a better source, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Compliments

I hope you're right on this one. Are you also going to open an SPI? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is here. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Image source

Hi, a specific photographer source is important to verify a claim as for why a file could be freely licensed. File:Gopalswamy D. Naidu.jpg is not claimed to be free and a fair use rationale is given. Deleting an image like that for lacking a source misses the point. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts that the original uploader took the photo, sorry. It looks more like a scan from a paperback book cover and copyright of such works rarely lie with the photographer. We'd need the original source. I'll see if I can verify this and/or provide an alternate image. I did comment on the talk page there. -

Eg: this is clearly the same image in original photo form, - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether he took the image or whether this is a colorized version, the uploader does not claim this image is freely licensed. If an image is uploaded as non-free we need not verify that the uploader made it free. Hekerui (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

But it is replaceable. I hate image work precisely because people can abuse the rights of others and that is what seems to be going on here. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Indian television actresses

Category:21st-century Indian television actresses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Indian film actresses

Category:21st-century Indian film actresses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Brahmins

You have removed a clearly researched and well referenced edit? Is Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap (PHD) a Vishwakarma? Also, what is the reason to ignore voice of 18 crore people in India? [3] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose account intent on pushing an agenda that is not accepted by the other communities. I think that says it all, don't you? - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I asked you, is Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap a Vishwakarma? Does he not come from another community? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. I was fixing the work of a prolific sockpuppet and a quick search suggested that the author of the source was a mathematician, which makes him no more reliable than you or me for the point in question. Add to that the known pov-pushing of people such as yourself regarding this issue and, well, I wasn't going to waste an afternoon checking the details. I suggest that you take it to the article talk page if you feel that you have a case. Even if the stuff is reinstated, it will need a big rewrite to make it clear that it is mostly only the Vishwakarma's own vanity etc that favours the claim. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

People who have known the details know about this fact. In 2003 Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap has received ‘Vedanga Vidvan’ award instituted by Maharshi Sandipani Vedavidya Pratishthan (Ujjain), an autonomous body of HRD, Govt. of India,and also is director of "Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture" [4]. In the same page please note Jagadguru Dr. Shivaratri Deshikendra Mahaswamyji of Sri Sutturu Matta unveilling all the 4 vedas in 24 Vols of his institute. There is no confusion among the knowledgeable. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of those bodies but I do know that there are thousands of such minor research institutes, private universities and so on in India. Find some more sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you and request you to discuss further offline. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD

Hey, Sitush, I saw your comments about the CfD process needing reform. I'm working on a proposal to standardize notifications about deletions, renaming and merging. While some folks working in CfD post notices faithfully, it's considered an "optional" step. I'd like the practice to occur with every proposal and also have relevant WikiProjects notified, too. I think we need to hear from people who set up categories, who have some expertise on the subjects that we try to organize through categories.

One important thing to be aware of is that, compared to other areas of Wikipedia, there are relatively few people working in CfD and consensus is a very important part of the process. So, if there is strong support from a group of Editors on a proposal, it can influence the decision (for or against). But that means participation from more than one person, like yourself. That's why I think WikiProjects can be so valuable especially on sensitive proposals that involve aspects of nationality, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Just my 2cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Subject knowledge matters at CfD at least as much as a theoretical knowledge of the role of cats: I do not get involved terribly often but I find that gross distortions of fact are occurring on almost every occasion that I do. I would support such compulsion as you suggest and I'm pleased to see that someone is reading a part of my mind. I'd take it further, though: CfD should be like AfD and thus there should by "deletion sorting", even if that is renamed as "merge sorting", "split sorting" etc. If that does not increase participation then perhaps we should be deploying a bot as I've seen used in certain situations where images are proposed for deletion - it notifies all article talk pages where the image is used. Of course, that would be unwieldy for CfD, given the number of articles at which a category may often be found; the solution would be to notify, say, every fifth article.

If unilateral splits are causing too much work then abandoning WP:BOLD in favour of nominating cats for creation might be necessary. I simply do not have the experience to determine whether the occasional comment I have seen concerning workload due to splits are correct. I do know from my limited experience that people involved in the CfD process often seem to prefer the dogmatism of precedent over the pragmatism of "other stuff exists".

Consensus is an important part of the Wikipedia process in general and CfD is no exception. That few people participate at present does not itself drive the need for consensus and is indicative of either an arcane process or irrelevance. I do know some very experienced contributors who think that the latter is the case, except where maintenance cats are concerned. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Sitush, you've given me an awful lot to consider. I like the idea of "deletion sorting", anything to get the word out. It sounds like you've had mostly negative experiences at CfD and I'm sorry for that. I've had my share but I'm trying to improve the situation. I hope that if I post an RfC about this, you might contribute your views to it and offer your suggestions. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess my experience of CfD has been that it has the appearance of being a cabal of sorts (yes, I know there is no cabal). Sure, anyone can participate in the process but in practice it attracts a few regulars, many of whom would probably benefit from trying some actual article work from time to time. Their experience of the process is such that mere incomers become swamped in arcanities and the regulars themselves appear often to be divorced from reality. Whether non-maintenance categories exist or not is a fairly minor consideration in the scale of things: they have some potential utility, of course, but in their current form they are just a merry-go-round for pedants. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ambedkar

You have been reverted by more than one contributor at the Ambedkar article. Please could you read WP:BRD before reinstating that content. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

please don't Vandalism B.R.Ambedkar article. all the source of the article there was to provide the proof of the statement,the article you reverted was good and align to wikipedia policy. Thanks - Premknutsford25 (talk)

Have you read WP:BRD as I suggested on your talk page? You should also take a look at our attitude to consensus and inaccurate accusations of vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In any case, despite the sources it was copyvio from[5]. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good spot! It might be easier to revert to the point prior to the original addition of a couple of days ago. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

May i know what did you find the copyright material in B.R.Ambedkar article, which you reverted back by stating that Your addition to B. R. Ambedkar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. As that article is not a copy and paste job. Give me the proof of copyright violation.Premknutsford25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Were You Sure ?!

Hello Dear Sitush, I AM talking about this Edit of Yours. Were You sure when You changed the sentence from "However, some scholars, such as C. V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha do not accept this." to "However, some scholars, such as C. V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha do not accept these assimilation theories". I have doubt that You may have assumed good faith in the User who initially wrote the sentence, and may not have verified that while editing the sentence. I tried to get a look at page 551, but it's only a snippet view. I won't mind if You would want to leave a reply 'there' rather than here. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 14:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only see snippet view but the statement has been there, unchallenged, for a long time. We'll have to assume good faith in whoever added it until someone can check the sources. Maybe work out who added it and ask them? - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for the reply. ← Abstruce 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Clubbing Aam Aadmi Party protests

Hello Sitush, Can we club protests on 10 June 2013 & 16 September 2013 as below & add it in the article?

On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners.--ratastro (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Three people, including me, have suggested what the extent of coverage should be (if any at all) but you seem unwilling to accept this. That is probably why you are at present being ignored on the article talk page. If you would like me to say this there then I will do so. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would appeal not to ignore my point of view. We have come closure to have consensus on this. What I am suggesting is - 1) Remove following lines from the article

On 10 June 2013, Kejriwal supported the agitation of Delhi auto rickshaw drivers, who were protesting the Delhi government's ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws.[24] Kejriwal claimed that, auto rickshaw drivers supported his party and they carried AAP's advertisements on their auto rickshaws and this is the reason for Delhi Government's ban and he challenged that volunteers of AAP will put 10,000 advertisements on auto rickshaws as a protest.[24]

2) & then add

On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners.

3) Why I am against adding a single line 'The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi' is because readers do not understand the point of view/demands behind this protest. However as this is AAP article, it should put forth well sourced views of AAP on important issues.--ratastro (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong place. Please leave all this on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

How to treat this?

Hi. How to treat this non-English FULL article in English wiki (on viswakarma)?[6] Can we altogether delete it?Rayabhari (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Abecedare has redirected it. Non-English articles can be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD) but a redirect seems reasonable here as the thing appears to be an alternate spelling/transliteration. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you ...

... like to bring to bear your fine judgment and considerable experience, in other words, weigh in, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_17#Category:Colonial_schools_in_India? I have already warned editors there I'll be soliciting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If I must. A quick glance suggest that this is another instance of those who are regular at CfD not understanding the subject matter but proclaiming from on high based on some hidden rule-book that insists the state of affairs in the US is somehow comparable to everywhere else. Such well-intentioned but cavalier dogmatism needs to be checked (as in stopped, not audited). I'll take a look through the various articles first but it seems to me that you are correct. If people must be pedants then at least let them practice their pedantry accurately. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And in keeping with your last sentiment I have struck off the pesky "t" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Vane Russell andMaratha clans section in Maratha

Should we be using him at all? If we do, the present wording is silly and needs to be replaced by material from his article. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't like him as a source. At first glance, he seems better than the discredited scientific racists such as H. H. Risley but he opted for an equally poor underpinning of his research, being the elitist, rigid Brahmin vision of the varna/caste/jati/gotra systems. I think the standard WP:RSN response probably applies, ie: he is reliable for his own opinion and little more. These people were driven by agendas, susceptible to what they were told by the locals, often unable to comprehend the language and often also reliant on even older studies of dubious provenance and reliability. There is little from the Raj period that is reliable, imo, although I've heard good things about the studies of James Hastings regarding religion and he at least is still cited by academics today. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

regarding the asansol edits

hi sitush!! thanks a ton for your suggestions and edits in the asansol section. as you rightly pointed out, India not being a police state does not merit the names of commissioners and the like in the leader box. it was a bad mistake. however, i do not quite agree with your other corrections: for one, Asansol is a major junction for the Indian Railways and the details of its connectivity with other parts of the country would only serve to strengthen the article. Ofcourse, randomly dropping train names would hardly help- so I decided to indicate the place names and sourced the same. and regarding your discomfort with the unsourced sections pertaining to the railways, will act soon- rest assured.

warmly E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlebnisschreiber (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about the mistake - it wasn't "bad". Rather than creating what amount to a long list of train routes, can you not find a source that supports "Asansol is a major junction for the Indian Railways" and leave it at that? Or perhaps expand it very slightly (if you can source it) by saying "Asansol is a major junction for the Indian Railways. There are XYZ train movements in a year, making if the nth busiest junction in India."? - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Blobfish

Hi I hope you are good. I have tried editing other articles, but reached a conflict on Talk:Blobfish#Drawing, I would like it if you comment on it. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you had been moving around a bit - good stuff. Materialscientist is experienced and just because of that I'd suspect that they are unlikely to be wrong here. I'll try to look through the debate properly later today. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed some arguments

I have removed certain arguments from the article. Is that alright? No body replied to them so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVishwakarma_%28caste%29&diff=574024428&oldid=574024286 Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to strike through and add a note; for example:

<s>This is what I said originally. - ~~~~</s><small>struck: made a mistake there, sorry. - ~~~~</small>

which would have resulted in:

This is what I said originally. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Struck: made a mistake there, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

but don't worry about it - at present the discussion involves only we two and you've notified me of what you did (thanks). I've asked RegentsPark to take a look at what is going on - they're a calm, collected admin with experience of India-related subjects. However, I wouldn't be surprised if RP suggests that we seek a truly independent third opinion. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed them for the while. Thanks for clarifying. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Tartarrman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Manda clan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tartarrman (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Delhi state assembly elections, 2013". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 12:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I should not be blocked

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Tartarrman (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush you do get that you've been edit warring just as much as Tartarrman, right? (non templated 3rr warning) NE Ent

No, because I was discussing and didn't revert after commencing that engagement. Tartarrman (who is obviously not new to Wikipedia) reverted thereafter and hasn't got a leg to stand on because they are engaging in original research. The prior removal, reinstated by Tartarrman, was in July. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV guidelines

Hi, can you please tell me what to make of NPOV guidelines? Is it applicable to all the BLPs or we do have to select the articles on some basis. I have noted down your comment about Akhilesh Yadav "This article concerns Akhilesh Yadav, not the period of government that is headed by him." and " We are not intended to be a platform for politician soapboxing whether for or against a person or government, nor are we usually prone to reflect the day-to-day, often breathless reporting of newspapers". I respect these views, but somehow they are not reflected anywhere in the article about Narendra Modi. Criticism about his every aspect has been mentioned, sometimes even an opinion of author constitute part of the article " He shifted his emphasis from Hindutva to development politics " which was based on opinion of author of a pro-Left Frontline. On the other hand if the whole storm of news articles in newspapers/ magazines/ newes portal about Durga Nagpal/ riots do not constitute part of Akhilesh Yadav, then what does? 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor

Hi Sitush. Could you take a look at the discussion linked above and examine the competing sources to see whether Kapoor was (a) a Pathan (b) a Punjabi Hindu or (c) we can't definitely say one or the other. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also

I try not to get involved but did you see all that happened here [7] MarioNovi (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No I had not seen it. I suggest that you steer well clear of the thing. Free-use rationales are a minefield and tempers are lost very quickly. Remember what I said about choosing your battles wisely? Although, of course, WP:BATTLEGROUND also applies ;) - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will stay away, but I know that you are also concerned about some users not understanding copyright or policy correctly so I want you to know it continues. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Free use is an exception to copyright: it acknowledges that copyright exists but claims an exemption for use on the grounds specified in the rationale. I don't like it (I think it amounts to intellectual property theft) but it is not an argument that you or I would win. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What continues, MN? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I said what continues "some users not understanding copyright or policy correctly". I have a question, why are you following my edits on wikipedia like here [8] and here [9] ? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

When the image was tagged CSD I attempted but failed to get the author of the image to give it a free licence. The author promised me to make an alternate free image available shortly. As such I thought the CSD appropriate. I somehow doubt that fair use extends to using someone's passport photograph when there are many publicity photos available. Nyttend did not address the issue when hastily removing the CSD. When I reverted, he then assumed wrongly that it was I who had originally proposed the CSD, and responded inappropriately, as he/she later admitted. I chose not to go further with the issue. How does that comprise "not understanding copyright or policy correctly"? I am genuinely interested to know.

You posted up a an RFC on Blobfish. I responded, and addressed the issue. On investigation it appeared your concerns, even if they turn out to be justified, are not backed by sources that contradict the wide consensus and sources that the picture is a valid, historical representation, and removing it was premature. On Spongebob I merely teased Werieth over incoherent edit summaries.

All of this is way different from than the ad hominem policy nitpicking and forum shopping I have grown accustomed to be on the receiving end of, as exemplified by the first comment in this section, and your recent exchange with Stalwart111. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

New comment (moved from top of page)

Apologies, Sitush. I am new to Wikipedia editing and appreciate your patience re errors in posting style and content etc. Although I can somewhat understand your reasons for undoing my amends to the Lohana entry, the issue I have with the current status of the page is that, certainly as far as self-identified Lohanas are concerned, it is (a) inadequate; and (b) misrepresents their history and current standing. so I can understand the reluctance to state something as a fact that one is not able to support through verifiable written citations. As I am sure you will appreciate, rural Indian history is not well documented (and certainly not in English) but there has been a culture of oral history over the ages that has been passed down over generations. I would hope you can share my view that, it is still better to set out the information and label it as the community's own history / uncitable oral hisotryrather than leave it out altogether. Also, I would be grateful for your views on the source found at: http://issuu.com/cosmicrohit/docs/historical_self-identification_of_the_uk_lohanas__

Many Thanks

Sachin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.218.34 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the traditions of oral history in India are a known problem for Wikipedia articles on the subject. However, we can't allow everyone to say whatever they have been told - that would be a recipe for informational anarchy - and thus we do insist that almost all statements made in our articles are verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Indeed, it is often said that Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth" - we recognise that there might be a difference and, of course, there is nothing to stop people from contradicting Wikipedia elsewhere on the web. Some argue that this rejection of oral tradition, unless it is referred to in reliable sources, amounts to systemic bias but, alas, there is not much that we can do about it. Generally, we prefer to paraphrase secondary sources, since we are almost always not recognised experts on any given subject and the role of an encyclopedia is to summarise the opinions of such experts etc.

issuu.com is almost as dodgy a repository as scribd.com. We do not link to copyright violations and there are plenty of them about. That would not stop us citing something hosted there (without including a link) if we were sure of its provenance but we have a problem with the item that you mention. It appears to have been uploaded by someone called Rohit Barot, who is also the author. Barot claims to be a member of the Department of Sociology at Bristol University and to have written the paper for the Lohana Research Group. We have no idea of Barot's academic standing (eg: undergraduate, professor) and on page 22 the paper says that it is a "provisional and primary study" that has only examined three sources; it recommends that much more work is required and, of course, the thing is annotated as being "unpublished". The latter point presumably means that it has not been submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. It seems likely that the author is this person but given all of the qualifying statements that he makes in the paper, it seems to be little more than speculation. The combination of these things - and particularly the "provisional" bit - makes it prima facie unreliable as a source. They have had other work published and it might be worth your time looking through those items to see if there is any useful content for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Made a small change

Corrected a small confusion because of similarities [10] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Kindly ref the original source [11] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see that. If you want to email me a copy of, say, that page, the one prior to it and the one that follows then I'll take a look. We cannot rely on Google Books snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dussehra (film)

The article Dussehra (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither the current revision or past revisions demonstrate that this film meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: One or more major contributors may be currently blocked and unable to remove this proposed deletion template. Additional eyeballs are requested to review and improve this page if the film is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I am notifying you because you have worked hard on improving/de-promotionalizing this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Kourgm22's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just replied to you - by the way, his first edit on this was a bit different in that it said "Historians believe" Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi! Im sorry for editing the article so many times but the lack of generic information in it made me add the information that everyone seems to know. Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Ministerial candidate of the Aam Aadmi Party. But for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the fact which makes the article superflous. You asked me for a reference, I gave a reference. Im sorry for the excessive bias on my part, but not acknowledging a valid edit displays bias towards a certain political party on your part. I request you to exhibit the neutrality which is the essence of wikipedia and give whatever references of opinion polls, you feel represent an unbiased view of the upcoming elections. Again, very sorry for inserting my weird propoganda in the article but omitting Kejriwal's name irked me. Dondraper1993 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dondraper1993, Kejriwal is the "national convenor" of the party but the party has specifically stated that it has no leader. In any event, it is by no means always the case that the party leader becomes the CM candidate. You may mean well but your sources are connecting a party office with an elected state office and that is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. We need a source that actually says Kejriwal is their CM candidate. Hope this makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes

probably. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Kayastha

Dear Sitush, I agree that I should have discussed. And I must tell you that not much has changed since the last agreed upon version. But you will agree that nothing is static and there is nothing like the best possible version. Therefore, there's always scope for improvement. What was going on were minor tweaks and aligning more closely with source. I sincerely believe that whenever even minor changes are made, you and other active editors/admins are there to ensure that quality of this article is not compromised. While aligning a particular statement with source, I observed that it was meant mostly for Kayasthas in Northern and Western India. And I discovered another relevant statement meant for Bengali Kayasthas in an existing reliable source. And I felt that my revision history explanation would clarify. Anyway, please go through the modification, especially the statement on Bengali Kayasthas, and that the existing statement ends with Kayasthas of 'Northern and Western India' in the source. Needless to say, our common goal is to improve the article or enrich it with more facts. You will probably agree that the statement mentioning 'well-knit sub castes' is not meant for Bengali Kayasthas, and it is categorically mentioned in the source itself. Please go through, and share your valuable opinion. Sorry, but the change was never meant to be unilateral. Rather, I thought, it would help the existing information align more closely with source. Please suggest. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Awaiting your response! I sincerely believe that a logical and rational person like you wouldn't stick to an incomplete statement, anyway please do share your opinion. Ekdalian (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that you have reverted to an incomplete statement (current version) saying "In the beginning, they were recruited from the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya castes, but gradually developed into well-knit subcaste communities." but missing the vital ending part i.e. "in northern and western India". Also, the alternate statement for Bengali Kayasthas is cited (from an existing reference), and not only complements Tej Ram Sharma's comments, but also describes in one single statement the evolution of the Bengali Kayastha community. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I cannot deny that I'm getting a bit fed up of all this pedantry regarding Bengali vs other Kayasthas but right now I'm not in a position to address either your valid points or your less valid ones - I've got IT problems and am using all sorts of different PCs in an attempt to find a decent solution. The issues that you raise will have to wait for a bit: please note that the article has been stable for some time prior to your changes and is reasonably well-sourced - there is no rush. Especially since the Kulin Kayasthas have their own article anyway. Please don't let's end up in a India vs Bangladesh nationalist mess about communities that have existed for centuries before the recently-created national borders. - Sitush (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you are busy with other issues including IT problems. Do take your time. But please, don't compare this with India vs Bangladesh and all, this is a gross overstatement. This is not even about Bengali vs other Kayasthas. It is just about stating the facts, as available in source. And, you know, none of us are supposed to be experts. We are simply quoting or stating from the source. You are also aware that the caste system in Bengal evolved differently. As responsible editors, our only concern would be better sources and more relevant information. That's all. And please, Kulin Kayastha (though related) is a separate article, covering a particular clan among Bengali Kayasthas. And when we talk about one particular article, I believe we should focus on it, not related ones. Though its good to see that a related article is in a better shape now. These minor but relevant modifications are obviously aimed at taking another step towards making the content more accurate and informative. Please take your time, and share your views, so that we can handle the issue I have raised. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I have great respect for you, and there is no doubt about your contributions. But, I have always observed, that a brilliant editor/contributor like you, at times, is too keen to defend existing content of some articles. Since you are actively editing many other articles on a regular basis, I would like to request you to spare 5 mins, and go through this issue. I had just completed an incomplete statement as per source, which anyone would consider a minor change, but, with an impact, since it changes the meaning of the statement. And had incorporated an additional statement regarding the origin of Bengali Kayasthas, from an existing reliable source only. And I believe, both of these conform to all our policies. Would request you once again to share your views. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I deal with a lot of articles. I also have had genuine problems here and am playing catch-up. In the scale of things, the Kayasthas are really pretty minor. I've not forgotten the issue and will get round to it ... but it is going to take a lot more than five minutes because there has been some ridiculous pov-pushing on that and related articles and if it is still going on then it will have to be stopped, which will likely take several days. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I 'll put in my best efforts to re-write this part combining both the sources, avoiding copyright violation. Please let me know your views, in case you have any concern. Or else, once done, you may edit the same, or suggest me any further change. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, please advise if the following sources are allowed in the Kayastha article:

• Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar, by Ashwani Kumar [Please go through page number 195]
  
• Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, by Ambedkar [please read from page 182 to 184]
  
• Calcutta Review, Volumes 100-101 (this is imo the most exhaustive research into Kayasthas, please note quotes from mitakshara (which incidentally was composed around 12th century AD), please read from page 113 to page 149)
  

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

September 2013

Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It has been observed that you had reverted back the article B. R. Ambedkar more than five time on 18 september 2013.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Premknutsford25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to copyright violations. Retaliating in this way is childish. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given Premknutsford25 a warning for his use of this template as a reply (by him) to your warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How come that someone who's been editing since two days, and made only 14 edits, knows about NPOV-policy? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vishwakarma (caste) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that refer to smiths and sculptors belonging to the ''Vishwakarma [[Kuladevata|kula]]'' ([[clan]]}. Prior to the Raj period, these communities were referred to names such as ''Kammalar'' in present-
• and these five had five sons Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna and Suparņa<ref>name="Sathyan">{{cite book|last=B. N.|first=Sri Sathyan|title=Karnataka State Gazetteer: Bangalore District

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to K. A. Mammen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• worker, a leader, a friend for his colleagues, one of the founder members of [[Kerala Congress]] (Political party in [[Kerala]]. Living in a village, he extended himself to transform the villages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Indian Christians

Thanks for picking up where I left off on List of Indian Christians. Did you get all of the way through, or do more sections need checking? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been picking away at it for months. There is more to do and I intend to add sources available in the linked articles in those few instances where there is actually something there. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good; I only jumped in because an editor was unhappy that I was stripping info out of a parallel article based on WP:V and WP:NLIST. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw that article. Funny, I can't recognize any of the names. The famous ones are not there. I'll list a few on the talk page (what I can dredge up from my aging brain.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Hey Sitush, next time you need something RevDel'd, just go to WP:RFO and request it there. The same people at RFO can also RevDel something and it is kept out of the public eye on ANI.

Just go to WP:RFO, click on "Using this form if you have a Wikipedia account with Wikipedia email enabled, send an internal Wikipedia email" and use the form. Don't forget to the subject from "Wikipedia email" to something more descriptive like "RevDel needed at <Insert Page Name>". The folks there should get back to you in an hour or so (they are pretty busy). Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to note: Oversight can be requested at the same form (in case you didn't already know). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know about that, thanks., It is because they are usually "pretty busy" that I didn't go down that route. It needed shifting quickly, in my opinion. You mean well, I'm sure, but you really do not need to teach me how to suck eggs regarding how to send an email etc. I presume this must be some standard personal template that you use. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And it wasn't an oversight matter - that is mentioned at the top of ANI anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, typed all that out myself. :) I always like to give people benefit of the doubt when it comes to all the different WP pages we have here. I didn't know about WP:RFO until about 2 years ago and I have been here for 7 years now. :) When they created RevDel, they started taking RevDel requests at WP:RFO, I think that's when they started getting busy over there. That and we are constantly losing admins around here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We are? I know that RfA is a mess and there are periods when nothing happens there, and I know that there is a scarcity of admins willing to take a prolonged interest in India-related stuff, but has the total number of admins actually changed much of late? Have the existing admins - or, at least, the ones that actually do administrate - become less active? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we have lost a good many great admins. They either burn out or are sick of the hypocrisy sometimes. RFA is a big part of why we have less admins and there are some who are becoming less active. Still others have kinda backed away from their admin role and are editing more (which is good). The admins that make it through RFA (and the ones we have left) are less experienced than the others. I used to have a good many admins popping up on my watchlist all the time, now not so many. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Need your Help

Hi, Sitush i need your help... i am new to Wikipedia can please tell if i have proof that certain person is there in film and all link as reference... but still people are editing it can please tell me what to do as i feel your are the right person from whom i can take help... even few people... my ID is blocked and i don't but few days back my company is facing problems from few ppl... who were editing our film because of which it got deleted. so if you can help me then please reply in this article only... will be waiting for your reply...

(talk page stalker) Hi 113. The criteria for includiing someone in an article on a film are outlined at WP:CASTLIST. Unfortunately, IMDB doesn't count as a source because it doesn't have an independent verification process. Take a look at the link above and then explain how Pooja Welling satisfies the criteria on the talk page of Jeena Hai To Thok Dhal. Given your history, I'd suggest coming up with a strong case because you've been trying this for a long while (and are socking right now but never mind). --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush good morning as i was new to Wikipedia i didn't knew many thing i thought that people are bully as we face few problem in the page before i never new that sitush and u or any others were in administration... so it was like we planned to take legal action so later on we came to know from concerned person that u guys are in admin... but then i was busy with work... later i got to know about it... the time you wrote Reema returns it actually sound like mummy returns... please guide and help me... for the same... i have valid link to it if you still feel that the link are not reliable then its fine with me.... 1. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-13/news-interviews/32663040_1_shiv-sena-film-songs-akshay-bardapurkar 2.http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2012/sep/010912-Pooja-Welling-and-sister-Reema-to-work-in-Ravi-Kissens-upcoming-film.htm if you feel this are not reliable source then please let me know what is reliable source...

Brahmin article

Sitush, asked for references in the Brahmin article (please see talk page). The article quotes blogs and sites such as Hindujagruti.org. These are not academic sources. Kindly take a look at the article and follow up please. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sorry for the delay - I missed your message for some reason. I have been picking at that article and will continue to do so. It is a bit of a mess but we're getting there. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Backward classes

I've come here rather than replying at DRV. I had indeed looked at the article and list talk pages and at the post-AFD discussion with Black Kite. I haven't looked at discussion at related articles, nor do I have any knowledge of the subject.

From an editorial point of view I agree we would be better off without this list and that the readers of Other Backward Class should be referred off-site for this sort of detail. However, that is merely my opinion. At DRV I must put on an utterly different hat and ask "was the AFD conducted properly and was its close within administrative discretion?". Having thought about it a lot (and bearing in mind I tend to favour "merge" in a polarised keep/delete "notability" debate), I reluctantly but firmly came to the answer "no". Even if "merge" was a good close, I don't see what has happened since as being anything like a real merge.

I also thought about your contribution to the post-AFD discussion here. What you say to me makes editorial sense but I do not see that as being merge either. I am sorry to say I personally think the list article is hardly any use and it would be best left to gather dust (and, I expect, worse). I doubt whether DRV would have endorsed an WP:IAR delete close but it might just have turned a blind eye. All round a sorry situation. Best wishes! Thincat (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is what I mean: it is dogmatism on both sides. Warden is being rather silly in adopting what seems sometimes to be almost the default ARS membership position that "sourced lists are ok, regardless", and he has consistently demonstrated the same lack of clue regarding caste as did the topic-banned Doncram and others. On the other side of the discussion. people are being too dogmatic in compartmentalising issues. I do understand that it is intended to be a procedural forum but rules are made to be broken. The list is wrong, unwieldy, almost impossible to maintain, out of date, potentially a magnet for problems at some point in the future, adds nothing to what is available off-wiki ... and thus serves no useful encyclopaedic purpose. I've just begun to draft this, not as a replacement for the list but as a sort of brief essay. I realise that you feel constrained by the nature of the forum in which the discussion is being held but that list is going and I do not give a stuff if I get blocked for edit warring or whatever in order to achieve it.

It isn't often that I say "I'm a wiki-expert on the subject" but there are occasions when the community should give additional weight and, yes, I am among a small group of people here who probably so have distinctly more expertise in the sphere than the rest. I can't canvass but if a few others among that small band were to turn up somewhere and start citing IAR and COMMONSENSE then, surely, the community should listen. Especially since some of the wider community do in fact agree in principle but won't commit precisely because of the rules. If you think that it should not exist, as seems to be the case, then say so and bollocks to the policies. No-one is going to take you to ANI for adding such a statement to that which you have already said at DRV. Warden needs to know. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We are different in temperament! I keep complaining about WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletes where there have been substantial changes to the article. I do so even when I think the revamped article would (and should) fail AFD. Thincat (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, add that list to your watchlist because if it is retained then I will be nominating it for deletion yet again. Maybe you'll suffer a pang of conscience as your wikilawyer head conflicts with your gut but in any event I'm going to get my way here and I'll canvass if I have to. One note at WT:INB should do it. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a deal! Thincat (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Press |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7991 |accessdate=2 October 2013}}} {{ODNBsub}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bhogal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing kadapa page

hi situs,you have reverted my contributions to kadapa wikipedia article saying that there were copyright violations.As i'm new to wikipedia editing,can you please tell me the exact reason for the rejection.Is is because 1)I copied some text directly from these cited websites? 2)I cited some websites that i think are not in free use license? 3)of both of above reasons? And will it be accepted if I cite those websites but present the same information in my own words.If i capture a photo of 'kadapa' myself and upload it to its wikipedia aricle then do i need to consider any copyright issues? Thanks Rpratesh (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it is good that you are asking these questions. You were copying text directly from the websites, although I think you changed the order of a couple of sentences. You need to use your own words and you need to be wary of close paraphrasing also. If you are not sure about close paraphrasing, which can be quite tricky to deal with, then it can sometimes help to draft what you want to say in your sandbox or on the article talk page and ask people if they agree with it.

If you want to use photographs taken by yourself in an article then there is no problem with doing so but please do be aware that when you upload your photos to Wikipedia they are then effectively available for use by anyone in the world, anywhere (book, website, newspaper etc) and in any manner that they choose: the license that you have to grant offers you more or less no rights at all over the images that you create.

I've simplified things above because I know that you are new. You're not going to get into trouble for making honest mistakes: we're all new here once and we do encourage people to be bold, although not reckless, in their contributions. I hope that you enjoy helping us to improve our coverage of Kadapa and, indeed, any other subjects that interest you. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think it depends on what Rpratesh means by "capturing" a photo and uploading it. Saving a photo from a website to your hard drive and then uploading it to WP is not okay unless it meets copyright standards. Posting your own photos, taken by your camera, is fine and Sitush offers some good advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Stand Church

Without me jumping in the car to go and have a look, am I right in thinking the the sign outside Stand Church says 'All Saint' Church, Stand'? see: [12]. Richerman (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember but have texted the vicar. She is a customer of mine: it seems that her Employer is less good at fixing IT issues than creating things. ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Poking my nose in....[13] which is its correct name. J3Mrs (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Never trust a signwriter with an apostrophe ;) Or a proofreader who is merely a member of a church congregation etc. Of the latter I speak with some experience: I've had to rescue a fair few documents generated by various groups involved with that church and, well, they seem unlikely to have attended the school that once existed across the road from it. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the sign needs an apostrophe, but I'd have added a comma. J3Mrs (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the spelling etc matches that which is located near to the war memorial on the eastern side? Despite passing the thing at least three or four times a week, I'd not even realised that they had replaced the sign on the north side.

I've not been in the church since my schooldays, when attendance at carol service was compulsory unless you were Jewish (I guess that the need to think of other non-Christian faiths did not exist then). It used to be the highlight of the year once one reached a certain age: the service was a combined jobby with the girls' school and was the only such meeting of the schools in the year. You could almost cut the adolescent sexual tension with a knife. I think that we did once share a speech day at the Free Trade Hall but the only one of those I can recall with any clarity involved shoving a lot of fireworks in a nearby red pillar box and destroying the thing. We only meant to blow the bloody door off ;) Happy days. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian English

I saw in your edit summary that it had recently been discussed on WT:INB that there is no "Indian English". Could you point me to that discussion? I see this from 2011, but that resulted in a consensus to keep IE and BE separate. A result which I would personally support unconditionally; speaking from issues in my field (teaching ESL), there is little doubt that there is a separate dialect known as Indian English. I think it's correct that in most cases, in writing, there is little or no discernible difference, but, at the same time, denying/accepting a language/dialect is a big deal. Oddly, most governments and educational institutions would probably prefer to deny the existence of a local dialect; the Singapore government, for example, has gone to a lot of effort to try to eradicate Singlish. I wouldn't be surprised if the government of India would also prefer that there were no "Indian English" and that everyone there just spoke "real English". But, of course, defining one dialect as "real" and another as a "foreign" variant is pure colonialism/imperialism/racism.

Anyway, what I'm trying to ask is, was there a more recent discussion? Because I'd personally recommend maintaining the use of the template, despite the difference not being so significant for the type of writing we do. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been a more recent discussion than 2011. It involved RegentsPark and some others (SpacemanSpiff or Fowler&fowler, perhaps?). Dialect doesn't affect the written word, in so far as we would never accept such dialect anyway. Otherwise I'd love to write in the Lancashire dialect for which, oddly enough, I think some dictionaries do exist! In any event, I'm not removing that template where it already existed, merely not seeing the need for it where it doesn't already exist. You are going to cite MOSTIES at me now but if the thing already contains only British English or US English, which are well-defined, then there is no point in changing that template for an ill-defined variant that cannot even decide whether it is "cops" or "police", "-ise" or "ize" etc. Consistency in writing, presentation etc is the primary goalof MOS, not massaging egos or faux empathising even when no such consistency exists. I'll try to find the thread tomorrow - late here & I've just spent too long typing this because I'm struggling to find words that won't offend one group or another. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about more recent than 2011, but noticed that I have been quite voluble in Talk:Indian_English#General_remarks and then, apparently forgetting what I had written, I say more (something different?) in a section below. Yeah, mulling this over in 2013, I don't know what to say. I think there are a few scholarly articles on "South Asian Englishes" now (which analyze the syntax, phonology etc.) The Indian government has too much on its plate (and India is too linguistically freewheeling with 28 official languages, in contrast to tiny Singapore) for them to standardize anything or discourage anyone from speaking their English in the way they want. But I don't think spoken Indian English is developed enough linguistically (in terms of sheer vocabulary) for it to be anything like a standard English like Australian, Irish, South African or West Indian English. For most Indians, even the very cosmopolitan and anglicized, it remains a second language. Even those children whose parents speak to them at home in English, live in a social environment which is not English speaking. It is changing though ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As F&f mentions, IE hasn't developed the way the Australian or Irish variants have developed, but that is actually the main point here. e.g. the original editions of Wren & Martin are used widely even now (I used a hand me down copy from my mother who got it from her mother). Spelling sees no variation from BE, but phraseology is closer to Victorian era BE. Vocabulary, other than the standard loan words that have been adapted to general usage in modern English there are also many unique terms in IE that are reflected in spoken and written communication. You'd hardly read about someone dying, just about them passing away, men carry purses just as much as women, mean wear dresses just like women -- only their dresses would be called shirt and trousers in the west, we pass out of classes and not just from drinking, women are never pregnant they just happen to be carrying for about nine months, and so on. There are some scholarly works on this but I given that it isn't developing in the manner of the other primary language variants there isn't much interest of course. A simple way to figure out the differences between IE and BE would be to read an R. K. Narayan novel from the 80s and then read God of Small Things or The Inscrutable Americans and you'll see the significant differences. Laws and government documents continue to be in IE (a reading of the latest Food Security Bill or the Rape victims bill would show you the stark difference between legalese IE and legalese BE), court cases and judgments are also mostly in IE. Even today you'll notice some of the travel approvals in government offices would use OCS to mean On Company Service to indicate pre approvals for travel plans of junior officers! Since the late '90s / early '00s English usage has become more Americanized, and you'll find that out while reading many of the English newspapers -- exclude the ToI which doesn't appear to have a MOS etc, but when you pick up a copy of The Hindu you'll notice that world news and major domestic news will be in current BE but domestic news and local news will be reported in IE. Business news generally follows AE/BE. And then there are people like me who mix multiple variants in everyday communication causing a horrendous mishmash! That said, from a MOSTIES perspective I would say that anything related to government should be in IE, scholarly works articles should depend on context -- e.g. it would be absurd to have Tishani Doshi's works classified as IE but something by Mulk Raj Anand should be held that way. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A quick note before I dig around for something since 2011. Yes, dialect such as "passed away", "expired" and "breathed his last" are the common way to say "died" in IE, causing a conflict of sorts between MOS and WP:EUPHEMISM. And if we start deploying MOS:TIES as lawyers woulf argue we should then we'd have to use crore/lakh etc everywhere and that is absolutely a recipe for disaster: most in the west probably do not even know that alternate system of counting exists and they'll be forever moving commas around. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's where I disagree completely, crore and lakh are common uses and they should be used in IE articles per MOS:TIES. We don't remove purely American or purely British terms from articles because others won't understand. If this should change then MOS:TIES should be changed to say that only Western variants are allowed. —SpacemanSpiff 08:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is that, again, there is no consistency. I have no problem with using crore/lakh if it is used throughout the article but Indian sources use both that system and the western version, which can cause problems with quotations. And, as I said, ignorant people from the west - who are the majority of our readership - will seem a population figure expressed as 1,00,00,000 and start moving the commas. It happens, as I am sure you will have seen. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Threads at WT:INB. I've not actually read the things yet, although I will have participated in some of them since 2011.

• May 2007
• November 2011
• June 2013

There was one at MOS earlier this year but I was not aware of it - was in hospital at that time. See here.

There is at least one thread on numbering, evidenced here. I've not really searched for that - it just popped up my my search for "Indian English". - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Expression such as "passed away" (which is still used in AmE, and in my view much better than "passed," which is more common), "breathed his last," or "expired" are fine. They certainly shouldn't be removed. From my perspective, not enough Americans are reading older books, the classics, even of AmE, let alone BrE. Classics in America (in middle school or high school) these days are "Catcher in the rye," "My Antonia," "Where the red fern grows," "Rascal," "To kill a mockingbird," "Grapes of Wrath," etc and not the older "House of seven gables," "Billy Bud," "Huckleberry Finn," "Last of the Mohicans," etc So, when someone in India says "expired," which an American should understand if they'd read a little, they think of cream cheese in the fridge. I think the problem in India right now is that IE is not stable enough, and often in newspaper stories, an awareness of the "linguistic register" is not there. So, it's hard to figure out what is Indian English, what is newspaper-ese, what is slang picked up from AmE, and what is plain incorrect Here is a random story from The Hindu, (which I believe is the best Indian newspaper) that I just looked at. The unusual expressions are in italics; my comments are in parentheses:

"YSR Congress President Y S Jaganmohan Reddy on Friday (universal newspaper-ese, ie. adverbial of time in mid position) said that he would undertake an indefinite fast (IE? for "hunger strike") here from Saturday against the Centre’s decision to divide Andhra Pradesh. A delegation of the YSR Congress Party will go to Delhi to meet the President and others to highlight the injustice being meted out (IE? the expression is used in BrE/AmE but has a meaning closer to punishment/sentence/injustice applied to people, but I could be wrong here) to Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, Jagan told reporters here. The agitations (IE? for "public demonstration" or "strike") being organised by his party would continue across the state, he said. He wondered how the state could be divided without the important issue being taken up in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, which has been the well-established practice. (Sentences like these which involve dangling modifiers and lack of coherence occur in all written Englishes, i.e. how many times has the state been divided for it to be the well-established practice?) Highlighting the dispute between states like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, he asked how the water would be shared post (IE? for "after") the bifurcation (IE? "division;" bifurcation typically means "branching") of Andhra Pradesh. He also highlighted the problem of revenue for the residuary (legalese or formal for "remainder" or "remaining portion") state of Andhra Pradesh without Hyderabad, from where major chunk (too informal for a sentence that has "residuary") of revenue comes."

At least this is what I notice (besides a few missing words, probably typos). I preferred the older IE, where there was more consistency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of The Hindu as the best of the Indian newspapers. I'm less sure about the usage of euphemisms, although I agree that they are time-honoured ones. Your example is fairly mild evidence of the IE problems but even that is not well-written English, regardless of national ties. We really, really should not be allowing our articles to go down this route. As a stickler for the language, Eric Corbett might have something to say, although he is probably not familiar with examples in IE. BTW, have any of the many "fasts unto death" that have recently received major news coverage actually resulted in a death? They've all had the appearance of hyperbole. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well there are lots of expressions of British and American English that don't literally mean what they say. After all, "hunger strike" doesn't usually involve a "strike," and "strike" itself has come a long way from "striking (lowering) of yards by mutinous sailors" to "striking of work" to "striking." I'm guessing in Indian English it is understood that a "fast unto death" is simply "a fast until demands are met." If we go down that path, we'll have to throw out half the words in the language. It is probably better to link fast unto death. I agree that the plain bad writing shouldn't be allowed. But, in spite of what I might have said on Talk:Indian English, I think Indian English expressions should be allowed provided they are linked and not too outlandish (as "breathed his last" would be in a WP article), but I would allow "passed away" and "expired." After all we allow "likely" in AmE (for "probably" or "very likely" in BrE) or "torch" in BrE (for "flash light" in AmE.) etc etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

NB, I've just created Agitation (South Asia), because it has made it to OED! Speaking of NB (still widely used in India?), I don't know that too many Americans understand it, given that the link also gives "not bad" and "northbound," but they used to a generation or two ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My main problem with IE is the lack of documentation. Unlike AE and BE, there are no dictionaries and no well defined style guides. We'd end up with people arguing over what is correct or incorrect in Indian English and those arguments will be based solely on what our editors think (which, as we all know, is not at all reflective of what the world thinks!). On Wikipedia itself, IE has mainly been used by POV pushers to correct great wrongs or to Indianize article titles and I haven't seen instances where stylistic or grammar issues have been raised (would love to see some examples and I admit I've only scanned the above discussion). Given all this, I'm not sure this is something we should be pursuing at all. --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I must admit although I know about the existence of the Indian numbering system, I am basically ignorant of it and have to continue looking it up. It's use is always going to be confusing to most Westerners, who do indeed change the commas to make sense - I've seen that happen also. I'd also prefer to follow WP:Euphemism which I agree is used in western English as well (which is one of the reasons we have the guideline I believe). Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about WP:Euphemism. So thanks for the reminder, Dougweller. So, we could get rid of "fast unto death" on the grounds that it is a euphemism (or hyperpole), but what about "indefinite fast," "agitation" (street protest), "post" (used as an adverb to mean later (in time), not later (in the text) as it is sometimes used in legalese), "bifurcation" (to mean division), ... from my sample paragraph above. Those are not euphemisms. If the best English-language Indian newspaper is using them, then many editors from India will be using them too. We can't outlaw those expressions. It is probably better to have a list of commonly used IndE expressions (gleaned from The Hindu for example, not contributed by individual editors) in the India style guide (if there is one). Also, RegentsPark is right. POV-pushers will keep using the excuse of IE to attempt to change "Ganges" to "Ganga" etc. So this is not an easy issue to resolve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the word 'bifuracted' today - and I'm not bothered with 'post' or 'bifurcation' used the way you describe, I don't even see them as particularly Indian usage. Scholarly, maybe. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bifuracted"? Perhaps we now need {{Dougweller English}} ? ;) - singed the mass-producer of the tyop, Sitush (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion! But all theory/principles aside, I would be interested in knowing what norms you all actually follow when editing India-related pages (Irrespective of what the current guideline pages currently say on the topic). For example, here is what I (try to) follow for "Indian English" articles:

• Use British English spellings, ie, with a u in "colour", "favour" etc; -ise instead of ize; ...
• Use SI units except for human heights, for which use feet-inches. Allow, but don't enforce, use of lakh and crore (but not arab, kharab, ...!)
• May use some India-specific jargon for which there is no perfect Western substitute. Examples from articles I have read or edited recently: bandh (public strike?), lathi-charge (baton-attack?), sati (self-immolation/self-immolator?). In such cases, the term should always be wikilinked on first use, and preferably the literal meaning, or at least context, provided in accompanying text.
• I never (consciously) mould (aha!) the grammar or style to conform to Indian English usage, however that may be defined or ascertained.

Do any of you do anything more (or less) ? Aside: Typical India and Hinduism related articles are so badly written (ie, in terms of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar; not just style) that we should be pretty happy if we can ensure simple comprehensibility, in whichever English variant that may be. :-) Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have any patience for these "Indian English" or "South African English" arguments, and "passed away" is just plain silly. Good English is good English, end of story. And it would be ridiculous to allow that Indian numbering system in WP articles, as it would only lead to confusion. I'm not even happy with tolerating the differences in spelling between British and American English, and I simply won't tolerate archaic expressions such as "gotten", but I accept my position may not be shared universally. Eric Corbett 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Abecedare,
• I use whatever spelling is already dominant. If there is a real mess then I opt for BrE because it is my belief that BrE spellings are more commonly used in India. I would prefer to see BrE throughout for that same reason but there is a limit to how much fighting I can handle.
• Use {{convert}}
• Explain/link terms such as lathicharge (baton charge) and bandh (general strike), although I'd prefer to see lathicharge gone just as much as I would prefer to see crore gone - same proviso as previously re: fighting
• Just fix the grammar: it is usually poor and while there are differences between English variants, eg: use of commas), they're really not significant when compared to the other horrors that I see.

More generally, I'm coming round to the dialect point: words such as lathicharge and indefinite fast are in current usage in India and they are generally unusual elsewhere. I'm still not convinced that they should be used - it reinforces differentiation and makes things less comprehensible to your average English language reader - nor that this necessitates a style tag. If people are not likely to understand a term then the solution is to change the term, not tag the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare @Eric Corbett @Sitush: I tend to agree with many of the things said above, but here's what I worry about. People living in India contribute to WP. As I demonstrated above, the best English-language newspaper in India, The Hindu, uses expressions (which are not euphemisms or slang) but nonetheless not common in other Englishes. Further, when I type "Indian English" in my OED on-line advanced search I get over a hundred entries which use "Indian English" and many more which use "South Asia". For example:

• the sixth entry for "academic, n, adj" says, "U.S., Canad., and Indian English. In pl. Reading, thinking, and study as opposed to technical or practical work."
• the third for "accomplish (trans)" says, "To make complete or perfect; to fit out or equip. Also with with. Now chiefly Indian English." It even gives two examples from Indian authors (1992 H. L. Chopra in V. Grover Polit. Thinkers Mod. India XVII. lxiii. 488 His insatiable thirst for knowledge accomplished him with all modern standards of scholarship.)

That means Indian editors will be using those expressions, especially if the OED recognizes them, but more importantly because they already have over a hundred year history of usage in India. Don't get me wrong: I'm not talking about poor writing, which should be anathematized, or words such as "gotten," which I agree should be avoided, or even "lathi" or "bandh," which are loan words, specific to India, which are OK, but academic/scholarly writing in Indian English. I believe the best thing is to have a page similar to: List of British words not widely used in the United States, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Even "euphemisms" can be tricky. I just searched the usage of fast unto death. I have a feeling, though I can't be sure, that Gandhi might have first used the expression in the late 1920s. In the 30s it was being used in the House of Commons and without quotes. It has a slightly different meaning than "hunger strike." Is it a euphemism or hyperbole? (Now) I'm not so sure. I think it is an expression of Indian English with a specific cultural meaning (which includes "high-principled," "spiritual," albeit much abused today). In other words, you might go on "hunger strike" in prison to get better food, but Gandhi went on "fasts unto death," to promote peace between Hindus and Muslims. You can't use "hunger strike" there. But I agree that most India-related articles don't rise to levels that allows them to be subjects of such discourse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that such a list would be borderline WP:OR and almost certainly WP:DICDEF. And without linking to it from every India-related article that is or "should" be tagged, it probably would not assist us. OTOH, it is of more use than the List of Other Backward Classes (now at DRV) that I want to see gone per WP:IAR! I think that the same IAR rationale for excluding that OBC list might validate having this words list. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

:) Me and my fancy ideas. But, but, how do we have those British and American lists? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the rules are being ignored? - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

:) I just saw the OBC list. How did they get to the Andaman Islands (which I thought only had the Jarava tribals who threw poisoned darts at you with deadly aim, per Sherlock Holmes (in The Sign of the Four?))? I'm impressed that you know so much Wiki and India lingo! I still can't remember the rules after 7 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think F&f has explained this point better than I could. The thing is we have around 1.5-2M (note: I don't use lakhs/crores normally) page views per month from India, about 90% of them on en.wiki and the remainder on the vernacular ones and this is within the top 5 country-page views on en.wiki. Most of these readers (albeit ESL) are most familiar with the language used in The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, the Toiletpaper of India, etc and using that kind of style/vocabulary shouldn't be a problem at least as far as articles specific to the readership goes. In the case of something like Pavitra Rishta, Vanniyar, or S. Janaki that would be imperative, while in the case of Tishani Doshi or India that wouldn't be ok as the readership of those articles is more universal and we should strive for the lowest common denominator for vocabulary while sticking to BrE for spelling (which is IndE spelling). As far as articles on Upanishads etc, the use of IndE should be avoided because scholarly works on those articles are not in IndE but either BrE or AmE. Likewise, the lakh/crore thingy -- it's very common in election reports, budgets etc and when someone comes in to look at the history of Category:State Assembly elections in Maharashtra they are most used to those terms and it would be a disservice to them if we use anything else (during the last general elections even the NYT --and I'm not sure about the WSJ, just don't remember -- used lakhs and crores in their reporting in the print versions, '000 and M in brackets)

The New York Times usually reports the figures they are given, with US equivalents in parentheses. So, for example, the Times would say 37,113 crore, or 37.1 billion rupees ($7.3 billion approx.). (Interestingly, it did this as far back as 1900[14].) We should always do the same thing because no one outside India understands those measures. But, that's not the same thing as requiring the use of Indian English because (1) the equivalent is also included and (2) the original numbers were, presumably, in crores and lakhs and therefore that's how they should be reported. How about this for a biographical article in IE: Shri X, a crorepati and a compounder (Roorkee University) who passed out in 1970, passed away in 2012.--regentspark (comment) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to tell when Shri X came into this world. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"It is with great sadness that I must mention that I was not able to meet the gentleman before his expiring as I was always wanting to give him a new dress and purse when he accomplished himself with his double MA in zoology and compounding. I am hoping to meet his missus at the betrothal of his third cousin's brother-in-law's niece and offer my deepest sympathies." would be the first talk page post after the WP India banner is added. —SpacemanSpiff 18:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if yawl really want to meet the Indian readers where they are, you should be editing List of Bollywood films of 2013, which uses the Indian number system for domestic box-office numbers, the "US number system" for worldwide grosses, and cleverly avoid all other English variant problems by talking almost exclusively in proper nouns. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Back to the serious note, in response to RP's comment above, I didn't realize that the NYT did that as a matter of practice, good for them. Now getting to business news, just looking at the front page of today's The Economic Times, the count of words/articles: crore(s) - 11/5, lakh(s) - 1/1, billion(s) - 2/1, million(s) - 0/0, so apparently I was wrong about the skew toward million/billion usage which it seems is the case only for Forex issues. Likewise, on checking the Annual Reports Reliance Industries and Tata Motors I found that the former uses lakh/crore almost exclusively while the latter has an eclectic mix of lakh/crore and million/billion which has apparently happened after the LR/Jag acquisition. —SpacemanSpiff 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Indians may of course do as they wish, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Indian Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What these Indian newspaper examples etc are proving is that we shouldn't use them as an example of how we should write. It is self-evident that they do not know how to do so themselves and desperately need a style guide. Consistency and comprehensibility go hand in hand. I am surprised to see US newspapers using crore/lakh etc and I cannot recall ever seeing the same in, say, The Times or The Guardian in Britain - maybe I've missed it, maybe it reflects prejudices of some sort. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just checked.

• New York Times, in its house style, it seems, only allows "lakh" or "crore" in direct reported speech, but does it in different ways. Example: “Earlier, we couldn’t even handle five rupees , but now we manage over a lakh of rupees in savings with ease,” giggled P. Arul Jyothi, 43, of Meyanampatti village, discussing an increase from 10 cents to about $2,000.
• The Times, also usually has lakhs and crores only in direct reported speech (with sterling equivalent in millions), but they sometimes allow it (nearly direct) indirect. Here is one: "While setting up his laptop and juggling two mobile phones — he changes his number every three weeks to avoid detection by police — Vinay explained how he makes 50 lakhs (about £64,000) a year from his bookmaking business, which has more than 200 customers whose average wager is one lakh."
• The Guardian allows it a little more. Here is an example: "In the past eight years, Laxmi, who works as a project co-ordinator at Stop Acid Attacks, a New Delhi-based organisation that supports survivors, has undergone seven reconstructive operations at an estimated total cost of Rs 30 lakh (£34,000). She hopes to have further surgery before a final cosmetic operation."
• The Economist allows even more: "Dr Dabholkar also offered 21 lakh rupees (about $33,000) to any sorcerer who, under strict scientific conditions, could stay on fire for a minute ..." or " In India, the e20 has been priced at 5.95 lakhs INR (approx. 10,000 USD) with special financial schemes in certain cities"
• The Independent too allows about as much as the Economist. Example (of the same e20): "The dream is that the e20 could become the first electric car in the world to make a profit. Priced at Rs.5.96 lakhs (about $11,000) after environment-friendly subsidies available in Delhi, it is not cheap." or "The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has highlighted both the telecom and coal procedures, controversially alleging that the absence of tendering led to astronomically high losses for the government. His most recent estimate is that the government has potentially lost as much as $39bn (CAG’s Rs1.76 lakh crores at pre-2012 exchange rates) on coal in recent years. The Rs1.76 lakh crores may well be far too high, but even if the real figure is really only a fraction of that, it would be significant."
• The BBC, oddly enough, with its long history of multi-culti (Naipaul's expression?), doesn't allow it that much and when it does, it seems very relevant to this discussion! Example: "The official figure is actually 270,000 since 1995. Mr Rogers said he saw the figure in the newspapers, so it seems likely he misread a lakh - a unit which in South Asian represents 100,000 - as one million, which is a common mistake because it is often written as 1,00,000."

So there you have it. Why isn't there a conversion template like we have for miles/km, feet/meters? Can't some Bangalore Wikipedians program one? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, some digging going on there, F&f! It used to be possible to see the style guide for The Economist - I have a 1980s copy lying around somewhere. It would be interesting to see one or two of these in order to get a grip on the parameters. Better still would be a guide for The Hindu or similar but somehow I doubt that will surface. Anyone have a contact there? BTW, we do have {{INRConvert}}, which is for currency. I've never see a basic numeric convert template but, yes, it seems likely to be relatively trivial to this ex-programmer. - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The NYT published style guide doesn't have either "lakh" or "crore." It must be something only available to their reporters (on line perhaps?). So, the Economist print style book might not have it either. Btw, the OED and Webster's Unabridged (the twin pillars of the global English :)) both say first instance of use of "lakh" in English is ca. 1600 (Websters: 1599, OED:1613) The definitions are: (OED: "Anglo-Indian, one hundred thousand"; Wester's: "India: One hundred thousand." In the old days The Times was less restrictive. The OED has an example: 1955 Times 3 Aug. 2/6 "Detailed prospecting, which has so far cost 19·80 lakhs of rupees, led to the location of iron ore in Kalabagh and its suburbs in the Punjab." I'm guessing 1955 was closer to 1947 before which more Britons knew the expression "lakh." If you could do a conversion template, it would be great! As you know, 1 lakh = 100,000 and 1 crore = 10,000,000 (ten million). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Actually the Template:INRConvert/doc that you mentioned already has the "lakh" and "crore" parameters, you'll just have to change the default from dollars back to rupees and get rid of the rupees symbol, but I'm you know that already. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Barun De and Tapan Raychaudhuri

An open letter to Sitush, an editor of the esteemed journal wikipedia, which I dearly want to see attain great heights of excellence in the world of peer reviewed journals:

My dear Sitush,

I sign in and leave my comment this time as the son of Barun De, the eminent academic administrator, and the 26th and last doctoral student of Tapan Rayachaudhuri, the eminent historian. Your utterly brillian edits however leave me a bit confounded. Allow me to state why:

[1.] Your edits on both Barun De's and Tapan Raychaudhuri's pages are quite predictable. You deleted Barun De's ancestry completed. Gone are the references to his father, his grandfather, his uncles and even his closeness to Professor Saiyid Nurul Hasan Saheb. That's fine, since my editing did not meet your wikipedia rules. But how could you then bring back the paragraphs on Tapan Raychaudhuris ancestors, a paragraph that I had inserted. The zamindari background referred to here on TRC's page is a democratic one: intermediaries of some economic, social or political significance, who were happy to host Frank Bell, ICS, the Magistrate and Collector of Bakarganj and then advertise Brajendranath De, a former Magistrate and Collector of Hooghly. If the ancestry of one family deserves mention then other ancestries should also be mentioned in the same breath.

[2.] Hemchandra Raychaudhuri's page was my creation as well. I suggest you change it or delete it since I may not have known the rules of the wikipedia at the time of its creation. I got all the information from Banglapedia which is partly run by the eminent historian, Salahuddin Ahmed's students in Dhaka. I know you won't delete this page, lest the zamindari types in Great Britain revolt. It is of course fine with me that Basanta Kumar De and Lt. Col. J.C. De's pages have gone with the wind, but let me tell you, Sir, all self-respecting doctors of that hallowed institution, Calcutta Medical College, still gasp at the name of J.C. De, and there still are some old railwaymen in Calcutta and Bombay who smile very serenely at the mention of old Mr. B.K. De of the BNR. These were thoroughly anglicised civilians who inhabited a colonial world that lived in cantonment or railway towns and literally lorded it over the petty village aristocrats.

That's all for the day. If I have anything else suitably trivial to clutter your talk page with - you invited me to come to your talk page - then I shall definitely do so. So long and good luck to the older and wiser ones from our land now comfortably residing somewhere in Great Britain. And finally, your identity is slowly but steadily coming out.

With my sincere regards,

Bikramjit De — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikramjit De (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My identity has already come out: one death threat specifically noted my address, I've mentioned my full name (which is a pretty uncommon one) on here since then, etc. And it ain't Indian, although a great-grandmother was born in Bangalore of British-born parents who were over there ca. 1850 and had returned to England probably by 1861 and certainly by the time she married in Manchester. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, and I wish you very well in your long life. Please, don't keep editing Barun De's page meaninglessly. The informations available on Aniruddha Ray's obituary are wrong. My grandfather was never posted in Agra, he was posted in Adra, a railway junction town in present day Bengal. My father was a Marxist which Ray denies. I know that other eminent historians have already objected to this comment that Ray has made. And he was not the Director of the CSSSC for fifteen years, he was the Director of the CSSSC for ten years from 1973-1983. What's worse is that Ray's piece is very badly written and represents the views of only a segment of the people who were closely looking after the health of my father in the last two months. So, please, leave his page to the care of his son, whom he brought to this world, and who has nothing else but his father's memories, accurately represented, to clutch on to for the remainder of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikramjit De (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Adra/Agra is obviously a typo in the source. The article does not mention your father's historiographical leanings precisely because it is rarely a great idea to take the word of one person on an matter that is largely subjective. The "15 years" anomaly is explained in a footnote; the 10 year variant is the one used in the body. If you want to remove the source then start a discussion on the article talk page, making sure that you are logged in and that you sign your posts every time you contribute. If the source is deemed to be unreliable then we will remove it and all statements that are supported by it. Finally, it is not your article and it is not nor ever will be in your "care" - you have been told this on several occasions but you are socking and editing under so many different logged-out personas that keeping track of things has become well-nigh impossible. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

[1.] I doubt if 'Agra' was a typographical error in Aniruddha Ray's article. I know him very well. I don't know who asked him to write the obituary note, but I know this very well, my father wouldn't have wanted him to be entrusted with this task, since he thoroughly looked down on Ray. He isn't a second rate historian even, and he knows little about the details of my father's life; [2.] I don't know what the rules of this journal are, but claiming that Barun De was Director of the CSSSC for 15 years is claiming too much. Do make it 10 for the CSSSC - you have the data on the CSSSC's website or you can write to the Director of the CSSSC - and 4 for the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute. I can see you have once again got in to the page and changed the 4 years I wrote to 5, but, let me tell you, my father, Barun De, was Director of the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute, Kolkata for 4 years only, since its inception in 1993 to 1997, when he turned 65 years of age, after which he remained the Maulana Azad Fellow for 1 more year from 1997 to 1998. If you don't want to believe me then do write to the present Director of the Maulana Azad Institute, popularly called MAKAIAS in Calcutta, and check with her, since the institute website doesn't have this information; [3.] What is socking, sock puppeting and flying under the radar of common sense? Your language may need modification. You are free to say and write whatever you want to - after all we live in a democratic world - but your so-called 'bluntness' as one wikipedia editor has defended you with, tends to sound plain abusive. Yes, I can sign in, as indeed I am presently, but unlike you, I may not have so much time to spend on the internet. It is amply evident who is making the changes you are reverting within a few seconds; I am making these edits, and I do have the right to make these edits, since I am the person in question, Barun De's, son, and I was the person who opened this page. I don't care if you don't care who is whose son, and if you have some obscure policy/rule showing utter disregard to sons, but I do have the right to point out what is wrong or objectionable on a page on my father on the internet. My father's reputation and identity are my responsibilities, not yours. Elsewhere, you sought to suggest that I may be incorrectly claiming to be Barun De's son. If you don't want to believe me check with anybody in Calcutta, Delhi or Oxford, or perhaps with your new found friend on the internet, Aniruddha Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikramjit De (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:V. Again. In fact, I think I would rather that you did not post on my talk page again. I know that you are an educated man who holds an academic post but your continued inability to understand the difference between truth and verifiability, to appreciate that you have a conflict of interest, and to accept that any encyclopaedia requires sources is showing no sign of abatement. You are basically just wasting my time and, doubtless, you think that I am wasting yours. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific

Hey, long time.. :) POV statements? Please point out which para actually contains POV statements. Because most of the statements use hardgrave as ref. And Nadars were predominantly climbers in the 19th century. I dont understand why you removed that line without any explaination. The Nadars today section cant be expanded very much due to the unavailability of refs. The latest book about the nadars of today is a book by harrish damodharan H.Damodarann pg 175-195 and the book just has a few points that can be added to the article. If you find anything interesting in the book please add it to the article. As far as I know the book has very few points that can be added. My previous edit was not a major edit at all. I just cut and pasted a line from the first para. Please explain why this version is clearer. I am very sure my version was clearer.Mayan302 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

While am not getting into your argument with Sitush, I have to say Harish Damodaran's book is simply an agglomeration of data pertaining to the business sector without any understanding whatsoever of caste. Note: am not saying anything against you or your statements. Am only making a note on that book, if it is going to be used for future references on wiki. Harish Damodaran assumes titles are castes, a common mistake all brahmins make, and a common claim all non-brahmins utilize(d) for self-promotion under the varna system (which they started since the colonial period). Harish Damodaran does not make an attempt to understand trade as an activity prior to the colonial period and East India Company. Nearly all his caste history belongs to the post-colonial period, colonial period, and to the period a little while before the Brits formed the government. Harish Damodaran also makes unsubstantiated claims such as "The current chapter on the Vaishya communities includes their non-Bania extensions such as the Chettiars, Sindhis, and Parsis". All his writing somehow tries to club communities into vaishya varna and lacks understanding of business and business units as trade guilds without the varna system. While his book is good to know how various business personages started off in the modernist period, it is not a reference point to understand trade in the context of caste based on how a caste existed in an immediate time frame before the modernist period. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi Sitush, please stop bullying and discouraging new editors, you seem to be more concerned with your own views on topics of public interest rather than seeing the truthfulness and social utilitarian value of wiki articles created by others. Hope you would appreciate my frankness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NothingButTruthIndia (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

When you say bullying, I must protest. Perhaps you do not know what bullying is. Sitush has so far never involved in personal baseless allegations and name-calling. So you are completely off-base with such allegations. As for truthfulness, this is an open media. So there is always discussion...feel free to talk openly and come to a consensus.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I, Fowler&fowler, award this barnstar to Sitush for his prodigious contributions to Wikipedia, for his unflagging commitment to the Wikipedia principles of verifiability, no original research, and the neutral point of view, and for his extraordinary ability to remain unruffled in the face of pettiness and churlishness displayed by others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Three cheers for the man in the trenches, fighting the good fight. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, Hear!!! I am with Flower & Flower, Binksternet. Rayabhari (talk)

Thank you, all. I might be a bit on-off here for a few days - I stumbled across User:Teenly on Saturday and wandered round their contributions both here and at Simple. It has rather upset me. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree too!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

Hi, there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Thank you. Fordx12 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not proper response

Hello I hope you are ok. Did I do something wrong to get reverted here, I am not sure? I would like some advice, if you are not busy. Thank you. [15] MarioNovi (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess that Beyond My Ken thinks you should have added a {{cn}} tag instead. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you. MarioNovi (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush is correct. One should only delete unsourced information if you are certain in your own mind that it is incorrect or misleading to our readers. Otherwise, the proper response it to tag the info with "cn". (Of course, you could also do some research to see if the information is correct or not - it's not necessarily incumbent on other editors to do that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But it is incumbent upon people who add statements to ensure that they are verifiable, which pretty much means that they should source it at the time - WP:BURDEN. I have a mixed opinion of this type of situation: for India-related articles I quite regularly delete without previous tagging, although I do also tag a lot. Some of the choices are down to experience and, yep, some are probably down to what mood I am in at the time. As you are a relative newbie, Mario, I think it is probably best to stick to tagging unsourced stuff except in the situations that Beyond My Ken outlines. If they're still unsourced in, say, six months' time then feel free to remove. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fully in accordance with what you say - much of this a judgment call, based on personal experience & Wikipedia experience. In the case of 8th Street / Astor Place, my familiarity with the area gives me the gut feeling that the unsourced info is most probably true, but I agree that it should be sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see so I tag them then wait, it makes sense. Is there a way to find all tagged things so someone can find sources for articles that need them? This is more helpful than "not proper response", thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review my edit

Hi it's me again if you remember. Recently I've spent considerable time researching and preparing a draft for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article. As a start, I re-did the entire lead which I just transferred from my sandbox only to have it reverted with a not so polite reply on the talk page. This is the edit, please review it and tell me what do you think. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Making major changes to controversial topics such as the RSS is a brave thing to do. I wouldn't worry too much about the reaction from Darkness Shines: they have a certain reputation for bluntness (even more so than I do) but there is often good cause underlying it. I've asked for clarification on the talk page and would suggest that you continue discussion there. Plenty of people keep an eye on DS. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Melgiri Pandit

This article is heavily edited by an IP hopper who besides any pov issues doesn't understand or agree with WP:NOR as shown by their recent restoration of content I deleted. If you have time, I'd appreciate your putting it on your watchlist. Probably needs more cleaning up as well. How's Gyp? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I've watchlisted it and I note the recent good work of Abecedare. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Vigyani's talk page.
Message added 13:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

impressed by your knowledge

dear Shittush! I am very impressed by your knowledge of all everything under the sun. As such out of admiration, I would like to be in touch with you. By the way where do you live and do you have any cell/email to contact. see you and enjoy the autumn. vijax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.106.224 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Rajput Groups of India

I seem to have given you a lot of work, removing the Rajput Groups of India template from several pages. All I did was add the template to every page that appears in that template, but I note you have since removed several names from the template itself.
I don't know if the Rajput Groups of India is a specialist subject of yours, or India/the Subcontinent in general, but I often add templates to the pages linked to in that template. Are you willing to check over any other India/Subcontinent templates before I repeat the exercise in the future?
Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. The status of various Indian caste groups is often dubious - they make all sorts of wild claims, a lot of which are accepted only by themselves. As a basic rule, if the article is unsourced then do not add the template because that also is unsourced. Many of the articles should not even exist, per WP:GNG.

What you did has merely given me a kick up the backside: I'm now cleaning up some things that I had intended to clean several months ago! Tbh, if you don't understand the subject area and do not want to delve into it then it is probably best not to add such templates to India-related pages. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

The Details provided in this regard are misleading, it is evident from history.The changes which i had made are correct.Chauhans are a clan of Gujjars.

‎Shivaji

And its talk page, 182.182.40.150 (talk · contribs) is presumably the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Shivaji stuff seemed very point-y to me and it was an assemblage of a lot of sources of varying quality. I've reverted it for now and just hope that some sort of consensus can be gained on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Shastri and Kayastha

Yes. I agree with the point you are trying to make. Having said that, in Indian context, for many but not all castes, the surname is caste specific. So Srivastav, Saxena, or Mathur are traditionally associated with the Kayastha caste. Lal Bahadur's surname being Srivastava meant he was probably Kayastha. All I did was to find a book that verified his caste and that is why I included it in the article. Unless, somebody produces evidence to the contrary, aren't we supposed to have AGF ? Please illuminate me on this if I am missing anything in this matter. BTW, I have been editing on Wikipedia first under my IP and then as JS for eight years now. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you changed the reference regarding Shastri being a Kayastha. Unfortunately, I could not see page 28 that you mention in the reference. All I can see is the title of the book. Can you send me a better link so that I can verify . Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The link is not the important thing, although it is a nuisance when books do not have ISBNs due to age etc. Try this. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say is Congratulations in finding this reference. I saw it during my research but could not see the page where it said Lal .... was Kayastha. Now I can see it. Well done. Regards Jonathansammy (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't search for the caste name. I just searched for "lal bahadur shastri" among university press books that I was aware of. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Iyengars page problem

Hi, Sitush, this is work2win and i want you to help me out. i had recently edited page "List of Iyengars" and had added "Vyjayanthimala" as a person in a category of Entertainers column. The english wikipedia page of "Vyjayanthimala" has clearly mentioned in the summary that she belongs to tamil iyengar family. Same is the case of "Hema Malini". But you have removed both the persons from the list. I tried my level best but could not find the reliable links for both the people separately though same thing is mentioned in their home pages. My question is in absence of reliable source, can a information from his/her wikipedia home page be taken in other wikipedia page linking them indirectly. Work2win (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If, for example, there was a source in the Vyjayanthimala article that showed her self-identifying as a member of the Iyengar caste then you could add her name to List of Iyengars and cite that source in the list. One thing that you have to ensure is that the source does in fact say what is claimed and in the case of Vyjayanthimala this was not true, hence I have just removed the statement. It really is not the end of the world: people in the entertainment industry are almost never defined by their caste and thus it really is rather irrelevant to their notability etc. The only reason that it gets mentioned so much is usually because of caste pov-pushers, desperate to gain some reflected glory for their community. I'm surprised that they don't have better things to do! - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please bear in mind that being "born into" a caste is not good enough for Wikipedia. I know that the tradition is that caste is inherited but it is also a fact that caste actually changes over time and that people such as Amitabh Bachchan reject all such associations. They must self-identify to comply with WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stubbing

I had not seen your post at AN/I when I suggested the same thing. I support that if that is indeed the best route. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the sensitivities surrounding the subject matter, the coincidence may well end up being a case of "great minds get shot down in flames" ;) - Sitush (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

HA! Very true.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Caste : self identification

Hi. Regarding self identification of one's caste, I have some confusion and request you to clarify. For example, Rahul Gandhi gave a statement somewhere during election campaign that he is the Secretary of the party and a Brahmin. But, as already well documented elsewhere, his father is of Parsi origin and mother is a Christian. In such case, can we (In wiki) consider Rahul Gandhi as a Brahmin? I have also opened a discussion regarding this in the talk page of above article and reverted one edit regarding caste. Kindly comment. Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Carry on

Trying to stay calm and carry on: if you can explain to me where the ground of the battle is that you mentioned on {{infobox person}}, you will be the first to do so. I see people from both "sides" on a way to compromise, working together for goals they share, trying new solutions. - I would like to improve content, can you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, all three of you - Nikkimaria, Andy and yourself - have recently gone through a bruising encounter that ended up being dealt with by ArbCom. I have no desire to get sucked into the blast area. Initially, I only commented in the thread because Andy appeared to have unilaterally removed something from the template documentation that certainly was not a trivial change.

I have seen people return to problematic areas on umpteen occasions following ArbCom decisions and "snow" decisions at ANI. Almost invariably, they end up overstepping the mark and become blocked, topic- or even site-banned. It isn't worth it and, certainly, Wikipedia is not going to break according to whether nationality in an infobox can be inferred or not. Consequently, I just think that you could all use your talents better if you stayed away from infoboxes altogether. Everyone would gain if you did that and there are plenty of other people who could pursue perceived problems if they felt such pursuit to be worthwhile. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What you said above is not new to me, but thank you for the advice. - The arb case decision is under clarification, as you may know. - Please let's look forward (links above): do you see that people work on compromise? Can you help me with content? (I put "letting go of the past" on my talk long ago - on Ash Wednesday - and keep trying.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not get sucked into it, Gerda. I've got a gut feeling that it is all going to end badly and I don't want to be there when it does. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "it", - my first request for peer review? - I think the infobox-war is a myth and don't know why the phrase, coined in 2005, is still in use and for what. I understand anybody who is reasonable enough to stay out of that ;) - I was never in. Why some people - including some of the arbs - saw me in, that is beyond my understanding, - I take it, what else can I do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case it would seem that I, ArbCom and various other people are all misunderstanding the non-existent long-term non-problems not relating to infoboxes (!) Given that apparent lack of understanding, it is probably best that I stay out. As I said, my initial problem was what appeared to be a substantive unilateral change of documentation that Andy really, really should have discussed first. My concern at that point was not infoboxes per se. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of the nots, sure ;) - I ask for the last time if you would be willing to look at my first attempt of a request for peer review, - link above or off the first word on my user page, in "dona nobis pacem", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I slept over this. Different topic: I invite you to take an unbiased view at an article (I tell you no more than that I didn't write it but successfully nominated it for DYK), and then look at the last question on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

ps: I like your idea of wording a report but not filing it. If I ever think of reporting someone I will remember to try that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems very detailed to me but I've no idea regarding tone (sic) issues etc - I was born deaf and have almost no interest in music whatsoever. To modify a UK saying, "what I can't hear, cannot hurt me": I did like punk stuff but that was mainly because it was loud, unsubtle and short, thus not requiring a great deal of attention! In any event, the article appears to have moved on since that diff in February. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I came to say do that only if you are interested, the tag issue was resolved, against what was perceived an "overly rigid application of well-meaning essays and guidelines; this is a big loss especially for biographies about colourful personages". - Sorry to hear about your deafness, I was not aware of it, - I like your tone! - I sometimes read with pleasure and even translate (to German) articles that I am not particularly interested in, a mathematician here, an architect there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NaMO

You being slightly lesser of the devils, i hope you would use this well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadyaksha, below is what I drafted as an ANI report. I've decided not to post it right now but please, please bear it in mind:

Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) was once a fine contributor to Wikipedia but their attitude changed dramatically some months ago, around the time that they abandoned their prior user name (Animesh Kulkarni) and added the "changing profile" box near to the top of their talk page. From that time on, they have become something of a cheerleader for the likes of the presently topic-banned Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs). While other cheerleaders, such as OrangesRyellow (talk · contribs) and Sarvajna (talk · contribs) (formerly Ratnakar Kulkarni) both went silent in August, around the time that Khandke was banned, Dharmadhyaksha has merely dialled it down a bit. They've returned to doing more useful stuff but tiresome comments such as this and this today are succeeding in their "niggle" purpose. Can someone uninvolved with India-related stuff on Wikipedia please just explain to them that it is unnecessary and encourages poor behaviour in anons and new contributors. I admit to be a far from perfect person myself but it seems that every time Dharmadyaksha crosses my path nowadays, they feel it necessary to stick a pin in me.

You've calmed down a bit in the absence of Yogesh, and I appreciate that, but this sort of thing does weary me. Feel free to add a sentence or two about the marketing of Modi in the run-up to the election. I'd guess that it will have been noted in some other, less gossipy newspaper? - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My only intention to ask you to edit it was because of this wrong perception of mine. If i add it to the article it will instantly be reverted; guess why! And that "changing profile" box, changing name, have nothing to do with each other or with my associations with you, others and the ones you mentioned above. If you were to really follow my edits properly around then, you would know that. Anyways... you are free to add two and two to make five and also to post at ANI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Section Blanking on Kongu Vellalar

Hello Friend! I don't understand the rationale behind your section blanking in the page. I have seen that, you have done a lot towards maintaining the articles about castes and communities. But I have added certain information which draws from credible book sources and mentions "Kongu Vellalar" in them. I am currently restoring select sections of the page. If you have any objections, t would be good if you take it to the discussion page! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to justify your additions, not me. However, since you seem not to have taken into account my comments I have indeed opened a thread on the talk page. Much of what you added is similar in nature to stuff that has in the past been added by a prolific sockpuppet called Pondheepankar, so I'm afraid that you'll have to forgive me if I express doubts regarding it on this occasion. I'm not saying that you are that person but the content added by them was repeatedly removed & so reinstatement of it will require a high standard of verifiability/relevance etc. - Sitush (talk)

MOSHEAD

Hello Dear Friend !! WP:MOSHEAD says, "Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.". But that does not mandate that when the heading is not linked partially (but fully) and not even redirected to any other WP Article but the same as the title of the heading by simply putting "[[]]", then it should not contain links. Also, in case of headings of sub-sections, the titles of sub-sections are not underlined like in case of the headings of the sections (where the titles of sections are underlined, that may cause an un-easy feeling or a very narrow chance of confusion to a reader , just in case when the heading is linked in parts 08:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)). Is it not ambiguous then in case of the headings of sub-sections if not only a part of the heading is liked but the whole (to its very title) ?! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 08:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't work out what it is that you are trying to say, Abstruce. The guideline clearly says that headings should not normally contain links and I see no reason why your attempted link at Bhagat Singh should be an exception to that norm. I think that the basis for the guideline is mainly one of accessibility for people who use screenreaders and similar technology but in any event you are not likely to attract support for doing what you did. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Friend, as You can see, I have not even manually reverted the change. And, I AM not even considering doing that, otherwise, I would have mentioned Your Edit to discuss that specific one !! But, I only wanted to know that following the second half "....especially where only part of a heading is linked" of the sentence ("Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked"), is the guideline not ambiguous (unclear) if in case a heading, not only a part of the heading is linked but the whole (to its very title) ?! I just wanted to have a general comment from You, then I may have requested to make it a little more unambiguous. I guess I made a little mess out of it, here. Sorry for yanking the chain Thanks !!← Abstruce 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see ...

... my post at RP's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises ANI

Hello Sitush. Please move your recent comment above the PROPOSAL section which should only be for Support or Deny. The threaded discussion should be placed above the PROPOSAL. Thanks for your help. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. I see no reason to move it and indeed your notion of threaded discussion runs counter to how things are commonly done at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see that you altered your opening statement after I'd posted a repsonse and only then did you mention your desire for a separate discussion thread. Not that it matters because you ain't getting your way here: just about the only place I know of where your proposed system is routinely used is on ArbCom pages and, frankly, they are a complete mess to read, - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your hostility here is wildly disproportionate to a minor request of mine. You are, however, mistaken about the formatting part. Read guidance on RfCs for example and examine other ANI threads. No reply needed. Have a pleasant day. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your officiousness is wildly disproportionate, as are your attempts to game the system. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to WP:AGF, Sitush. Your charged personal criticisms of other users, based on their alleged misconduct on pages you admit you know nothing about, are capricious, arbitrary and in blatant violation of community policy and norms. Steeletrap (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello

How are you, I hope you are well. I am wondering if you think I have taken your advice ok on how I should change habits on wikipedia. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this missed? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, did I do something wrong? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no, Mario. It is my fault, sorry. Your last two messages came in around the same time as other messages and I missed them in the noise. I've not been entirely "with it" over the last couple of days and right now I've been awake for 40 hours or so. I need to review where we are up to and I will do that but it might not be before Friday because I'm away foir some treatment on Thurs and can't really concentrate very well at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I am hoping your treatment is good. Do not rush I just want to be sure. MarioNovi (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing I remember is I was not supposed to mention another user, but that user was not supposed to continue to edit articles he has relationship to. I have done this but I do not think he has. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that he might have agreed to step back, yes, but I really wouldn't worry about him - it can take on the appearance of being a vendetta and that is not going to make you look good. Still, I'll look into it. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You have breached the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) and the 3RR exemptions (October 2013)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bhagat Singh. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Dear Friend Sitush, on Your 3^rd Revert (18:01, 21 October 2013) [diff 578105167], I would like to provide You some suggestions.

Please allow Me to remind You that Wikipedia:REVERT says, "However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors may be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Read the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy)."

You shall also re-read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. ← Abstruce 16:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Abstruce, we keep butting heads like this because you are failing to understand how we operate and have historically failed to do so across a wide range of articles. I know that you mean well but you are still not getting it.

• I suggest that your re-read WP:3RR because I have not breached it
• I suggest that you read WP:BRD because you were bold and I opened a discussion on the talk page at the time of reverting you. That you persisted in adding basically the same sort of stuff about Marxism-Leninism thereafter is not how we do things.
• I also suggest that you read WP:RS and WP:DUE because there is no way that a news source concerning a long-dead person is going to carry equivalent weight with the opinions expressed by academics. However, you are welcome to continue discussing the point. I admit that I find it quite difficult sometimes to understand what you are trying to say and thus there are times when it is better to see if someone else can make sense of it rather than to respond immediately myself. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Thank You for being sure that I mean well. I really have a positive feeling about it, really . I would like to withhold commenting here at Your User talk page, but may I respectfully ask You to please post brief comments at Talk:Bhagat Singh#Philosophies. Thank You very much, kindly !! Thanks !!

Also, in the mean time, I believe I have discovered the book which may have been used as a Citation by CNN-IBN experts/employees. So, after a little work-out with the Source, I would just be initiating a new and fresh discussion (to discuss about the inclusion of some content in the WP Article Bhagat Singh). Thanks !! ← Abstruce 19:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I am watching that talk page. I'm also doing other things while I await developments there. And, yes, I'm struggling quite often to work out what you are saying. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Behavior

As I outlined here, I'm concerned that your recent behavior has crossed the line into harassment. I'm writing this to request that you back off, and to inform you that, if you continue, I will make use of all applicable Wikipedia dispute resolution options to deal with this matter. Please consider this to be a formal warning. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnao gold treasure incident MOS:BOLDTITLE

Hi. It seems you may be unaware of policy. Please read my comment on the talk page. Compare, as an example, the article Alexian Lien beating which does not begin "The Alexian lien beating refers to a beating..." but follows the MOS:BOLDTITLE policy instead. Please don't revert this change again, or I will report you for edit warring. See WP:3RR. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh-er, I'm scared. I seem to be attracting some right odd things at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Warnings?!?

Cheers mate; just carry on. I do appreciate your efforts, like some more editors do. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore Tamils

Would you please take a look at User talk:Hasteur#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore Tamils and comment there? I think this AfC is too full of copyvio to go ahead. I guess the option would be to stub it rather than delete, but I'm not clear as to whether anyone but the editor can do that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

14.139.187.130

Always a good idea to click on WHOIS before reporting an IP, this one is Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University. I've used Twinkle to give it an IP header. It helps Admins decide what the best course of action is going to be. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I tend to check for location and dynamic/static etc but I can't recall ever adding one of those school templates or similar to a page. I guess I have tended to think that is the sort of thing that the blocking admin might choose to do, using their discretion. I'll try to take on that burden in future. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)