Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 20 March 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Ernest Lucas Guest

Opinion sought

I am eager to have your or your project's opinion about the verification of dates (already arrived/now arrived at on the basis of available astronomical data) using Planetarium Software conducted by B.N.Narahari Achar, whereby he has confirmed the Mahabharata War date as 22/11/3067 BCE, date of Nirvana of Gautama Buddha as 27/3/1807 BCE, period of Mauraya rule as 1535-1219 BCE, date of birth of Adi Shankara as 5/4/509 BCE etc. This has reference to his essay - Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata included in the book - Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes (http://indicethes.org/PROC14.PS.pdf). Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sceptical but for reasons that are difficult to explain and may well be influenced by my preconceptions and also my lack of understanding of astronomy. I am aware that astrology - a different thing - can play quite a significant but generally-considered "hocus pocus" role in matters such as this. I think that your best bet, assuming that you have attempted discussion on the talk pages of relevant articles, would be to refer it to WP:RSN. I am sorry that I cannot really offer any more assistance than this. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sudhirkbhargava recently tried to use a conference report as a reference for earlier dates of Rig Veda. Among the various studies summarized in this report was a study on astronomical dating based on Planetarium Software. Discussions about the report (not the study individually) took place at my talk page, Talk:Ayurveda and at RSN. Please note the WP:Redflag concerns raised at every forum. Fringe theory concerns will also be raised if a study tries to date the Maurya empire to 1500 BCE when they so obviously had contacts with the Greeks. I wouldn't recommend using B.N.Narahari Achar's essay as a reference for earlier dates of anything. It can of course be taken up at RSN. Correct Knowledge 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can not add these speculated dates, howsoever precisely they are calculated with help of any world's-best software, as they are certainly a point of debate and need opinions from other experts. Have these dates been accepted, not globally, but at least on a bit wider scale worth of noting? For eg. Shivaji's DOB is accepted as 19th Feb by various experts and the Government and is thus observed also. Even if they are accepted, you may add these dates, not representing them as a fact, but merely speculation. That too, you may add only if they are backed by some expert of the field, other than the main proposer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CK and D, for commenting. It is slightly off my normal subject area but I have doubts about much of this type of stuff & especially in the Misplaced Pages context. I am pleased to see at least two other people recognise the latter as a concern. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tags

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove the tags on the Lohara dynasty page and use the talk page! Lets build a better Misplaced Pages together! (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Don;'t be so bloody stupid. You have failed to explain what the alleged POV is and are being point-y. Just stop it or engage in proper discussion. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please go back to discussion board and re put up the neutrality tags. Thank you for helping me make wikipedia a better place! :) I look forward to our discussion. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I won't (as I've already told you) and I don't look forward to the discussion, sorry. I am expecting another saga demonstrating a poor understanding of our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading: Koli

Hi, sitush,

Please let me know, why my comment has been removed from "koli people". I have given a reference also. If I am wrong then please let me know the actual koli people from MUMBAI. I want to know this as my wife is also koli and her village is colaba mumbai. Actually I have been searching for Mumbai koli people book but i hardly find any document for same.

-Thanks prashant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prshntsathe (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there have been various changes at Koli people recently. I presume that you are referring to this information. The second paragraph of that contribution has been removed on numerous occasions recently and I am not sure if all the additions of it were made by you. That paragraph is complete trivia and has no place in an encyclopedia; worse, it is a copyright violaton. As for the first paragraph of your contribution, well., I can see nothing in the source that supports the statement that most Mumbai Kolis are East Indians and the source is not great even if I could see such a thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lowkeyvoice

Just leave him be. He'll make whatever decision he makes; he's clearly not going to listen to you, and I've run out of words with which to explain, so I really don't think there's much to do but wait. I know I don't have any right to be weary of this whole situation, considering that you've been in the thick of it the entire time, but still; blocking people like that makes me feel tired. :P If he goes back to his old tricks when the block expires, then the next stop is indef (maybe routed through AN(I), I dunno), but I'm still blindly optimistic that maybe he'll just agree to leave you alone altogether. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already decided to ignore him, thanks. However, the problem does not just relate to me - there is all the Saffron Terror stuff, for example, and I've had no involvement in that at all. Can a vanished user return as an IP? - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically not. Vanishing = Never returning. But, let's wait 3 days and see if he really vanishes. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If he's vanishing, fine. If he comes back a changed person, also fine. If he comes back and is disruptive again...I'll suck it up and compile the diffs for ANI. Thank you for the temporary reprieve, Writ Keeper. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kallar

Hi,I am pointing to the same reference material that was used by Misplaced Pages.Using it as a reference partially will portray a group of people in a negative connotation and you cannot argue that i am using a weak reference from British raj. That reference was in Misplaced Pages for more than a year and i got the necessary approval for using that.In fact one of your moderators advised me to use that. Please refer my talk page if you need more information. Thanks -- preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunnattar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC) UTC template, header added, minor copyedit --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tito. Arjunnattar is now aware that this issue is being dealt with at Talk:Kallar (caste). - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Nadars

Hi, this is to let you know that the page List of Nadars was..re-edited by you,and had deleted out many reliable links and features..This is to tell you that it was briefely edited by me and my team...the information was properly reliable and if you are not pleased with it , you can do extensive research in the internet and any further deletion would lead to further action by Misplaced Pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr n Mrs (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see your talk page and that of the article. Please do not meatpuppet. And please do not violate WP:BLP. Finally, the burden is on you to provide evidence of verifiability, not me. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rp

You reverted a change that I made earlier today on the Jiddu Krishnamurti page in which I used the Template:Rp to tidy up the citations. As far as I'm aware the template:Rp is still current and the reasons for using it remain valid, i.e. "It is a solution for the problem of an article with a source that must be cited many, many times, at numerous different pages". What is your justification for reverting my edit? Vacarme (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CITEVAR, although I did not specifically refer to those in my comment on the article talk page. Jiddu Krishnamurti has been a problematic article since a group of editors based at New York Public Library became involved with it many months ago - you'll spot their work in the 65.88.88.* IP range but they refused to register accounts. There was much discussion on their talk pages and in the (now archived) article talk threads. They went so far as to threaten the likes of myself and Sunray with appeals to WP:ANI, Jimbo etc but never followed through. The article around that time was among the largest on Misplaced Pages and it was turning into a full-blown academic paper. However, WP is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal.

The article is still a mess of trivia etc but better than it was. Frankly, it is of peripheral interest to me but one definite improvement among your recent contributions has been the splitting of footnotes from citations. I slightly amended the format of that because {{efn}} has come around and is (I am told by people with far more Featured Article experience) to be preferred. The JK article could and should be featured but it needs a fair amount of work first. You are welcome to continue towards that goal. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Given that article needs a lot of work (I agree) I'm surprised that 'correcting' a variation in citation method deserved any attention especially when the References are so untidy and the change is, or rather was, for the better. I don't know if a consensus was previously reached on the matter but I doubt it - in my experience most people either don't know that there are alternative methods or if they do, they don't care. I'm aware of the policies you cite, but I've been around long enough to know that there are are times when using good editorial judgement and common-sense overrule other considerations. Vacarme (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

From the very start of CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. It was using a particular style and had been for a long time. There may have been the odd citation that did not conform but you efforts, well-intentioned although they were, introduced dozens of them. FWIW, I like {{r}} but I rarely get to use it. The NYPL people were well aware of the various styles available to them. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The CITEVAR text to which you refer is actually about (not) varying between different formatting styles such as APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing. So, in the case of the said article, if the style is 'author/date/title/publisher' don't change it to 'title/author/publisher/date', and so on. This is completely different to introducing an (approved) mechanism for dealing with repeated or multiple citations to reduce clutter etc. Also, your pedantic insistence on not changing the "established citation style" doesn't really make sense when there are so many inconsistencies in the references as currently shown. If you prefer {{r}} it's a shame you didn't help me to apply it.Vacarme (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah-ho: don't you dare start having a go at me, accusing me of pedantry. Wrong, and it is why I also referred you to WP:CONSENSUS (which does not need to be recorded as it can be de facto). Now let's leave it alone, shall we? I am not in the mood to deal with it here, so find some suitable noticeboard if you wish to pursue this. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Need a review of edits by a possible problem editor

Care to touch this one with a ten-foot pole? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They're mostly removing unsourced content without providing an explanation. Or, least, that is what they did on the articles that had not already been reverted by Dougweller. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Testing

No new message there! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Very nice, although I'm not sure how much use it would get. In view of your "No new message there!" note perhaps you could set a trend by designing a template that says "You have no new messages at the Noticeboard for India-related topics"! - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
2. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
3. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
4. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
5. The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @277  ·  05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ezhava

Sitush, what is the core issue there? That Ezhava and Tiyya (Thiyya) are the same? I might be able to find some contemporary references for you if I know what to look for. --regentspark (comment) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We have modern sources that say they are the same caste, in the sense that the community is identifiably one but known as Ezhava in one part of Kerala and as Tiyya in another. The different nomenclature has existed for a long time and modern sources acknowledge that the Tiyyas claim to be "ritually superior" to the Ezhava etc. On the other hand, people who are quite obviously from the Tiyya community have been turning up for many months trying to say that the two are distinct castes rather than one caste that uses different names in adjacent regions. This situation has been noticeable since the early part of 2012 when the Tiyya Mahasabha made a legal threat (see the article) & M. Knight Shyalamam's father made a claim that, based on a privately-commissioned study of his own DNA, the Tiyyas owe their origin to the ancient inhabitants of Kyrgyzstan. A lot of it appears to be tied to claims for preferential treatment under the OBC etc system. This latest fracas is not the first, nor has it been limited to the Ezhava article - there have been numerous attempts to create a separate article for Tiyyas, usually in quick succession. I have a strong suspicion that there is socking or meating going on, or at least some organised off-wiki canvassing, but ultimately I do not care. All I've ever asked for is reliable sources and they've never been able to provide anything other than Thurston, reports about Shyalaman and other stuff that emanates directly from the Tiyya community. Any info that you could point out to me would be useful, regardless of the "side" it takes. All I am here to do is reflect RS but it is becoming tedious having to rehash this thing every few months, especially when the "other side" cannot produce decent sources or, indeed, often a logical argument. Where is that man, Fowler?- Sitush (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I'll see what I can find but it looks like sources are not the issue. Now where did I put that DNA kit :) --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, sources are not the issue except insofar as those making the claims have never produced any that comply with our policies etc. As my penultimate post says, this has been dragging on for years and they always come up with the same unacceptable stuff. There is an off-wiki campaign and if someone wanted to take a dim view of goings-on, the attempts to fork are in order to use WP as a soapbox for that campaign. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I got:

1.  Tiyyas are the largest subgroup of Hindus in North Kerala. Since the 1940s, they have been able to transcend their low-caste status through educational and occupational achievements, caste reform movements, and through participation in political movements ("SOMEHOW IT HAPPENED": Violence, Culpability, and the Hindu Nationalist Community, RUCHI CHATURVEDI, Cultural Anthropology , Vol. 26, No. 3 (AUGUST 2011), pp. 340-362)
2. Caste, Class and Economic Opportunity in Kerala: An Empirical Analysis, P. Sivanandan, Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 14, No. 7/8,, Annual Number: Class and Caste in India (Feb., 1979), pp. 475-480, Published by: Economic and Political Weekly, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367366. Here, the author doesn't explicitly equate the two but uses them interchangeably.
3. The Relative Autonomy of Party Practices: A Counterfactual Analysis of Left Party Ascendancy in Kerala, India, 1934–1940, Manali Desai, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 108, No. 3 (November 2002), pp. 616-657, Published by: The University of Chicago Press, Article DOI: 10.1086/367919, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/367919. Here the author treats them as different castes with the Ezhavas as "intermediate" while the Tiyyas (or Tien) as "low-caste or polluting".

There is a book by Dilip Menon "Caste, nationalism, and communism in South India : Malabar, 1900-1948" published by Cambridge U Press that might have more info. I'll take a look when I get to the library. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. The interchangeable usage is common and does not advance the situation we have, although it does not negate using such sources for other points/info. I think Chaturvedi is treating the two as the same but I've not read it for over a year & will have to see if I still have the copy that was sent to me. I have JSTOR access & can look at Desai, who seems to be taking a contrary view in positioning the Tiyya below the Ezhava (whether as one caste or two, Tiyyas seem generally to be regarded as ritually superior etc) - so, this is worth a good read. I've never seen the Menon book before - £25 on Ebay but I think I've spent enough on books for Misplaced Pages already this month! - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll email you a copy of Chaturvedi later today. I don't think she mentions Ezhavas at all but could be wrong. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Emailed! --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

An FYI that I picked up Menon's book from the library. There is a lot of mention of Tiyyas but no mention at all of Ezhavas. I'm off on travels for a bit and won't be taking the book with me but will take a closer look when I get back. Hope things are well with you. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've read Chaturvedi and, while it has some info that can be used in the article, it doesn't really help with the sticking point. I'll take a look at the JSTOR ones over the weekend. I am getting back up to speed but deliberately limiting my time here (I got a bit carried away last weekend and suffered for it). I hope that the travels are of the pleasant variety. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The P. Sivanandan source (E&PW at JSTOR) is not of much use. It refers to Thiyya in a heading of one table summarising data from the 1921 census but that is it. Every other mention is of the Ezhava. I don't think we can read the author's mind when it comes to citing in an article but, yes, they appear to be treating the two as being one. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Desai, I am not seeing a distinction. The article talks of the Tiyya of Malabar as being "low caste" and also refers to "low‐caste Ezhavas" in another district. As we already know, various sources have indicated that two names have a regional basis of usage. Since I am currently logged in at JSTOR, I'll dig around there yet again - I find it frustrating because their search mechanism keeps timing out and has done ever since I've had access. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Lets Restart

Alright dude, going through your history of editing you are not a bad guy. You are a bit of a ripper of articles but that is understandable with the amount of garbage that can be posted on a 💕. I think you hit a nerve when you edited the Memon People page because it meant a lot to me, but judging by your history of editing it wasn't personal.

I would like to apologize for over reacting. While you are a senior editor, you still need to read WP:BITE. There are some people on wikipedia who appear to have sinister intentions and I don't think you are one of them. I would still appreciate it if you would remove the muslims usurped the hindu ruler on the Loharna dynasty. It is the only edit I am requesting because it is somewhat offensive to those whose ancestry converted from Hinduism and hoping you will do it as gesture of goodwill. Thank you. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

Apology accepted. As for your request, well, we are not censored and if a reliably sourced something should offend one or another group of people then that is just unfortunate. I'm not sure that I understand why events of so long ago should cause such angst as you mention but "replaced" is very different from "usurped" and the latter is the term of choice in sources that I haven't even bothered to cite in the article, such as page 258 of Houtsma, M. Th (1987). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. BRILL. ISBN 9789004082656.. One that I have seen uses "deposed" instead but the point is that it was indeed an overthrow of a ruler. The article needs more sources and I know of some additional information that I've not got round to adding thus far, but it is not in need of censorship. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the word "usurped" has the same connotation as "replaced" or "overthrown"? What do you think the difference in these words is? Compare the following two sentences:

1)Bill Clinton replaced George Bush Senior as the president of the United States.

2)Bill Clinton usurped electoral power from George Bush Senior

I do not think information should be censored. I just think when something as sensitive as religion is involved the word usurped should not be used to describe things. Do you think the phrase "The Christians usurped the pagan Romans" would be something that would be tolerable to many?

Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

Clinton replaced Bush as president as a part of a legitimate legal process. Kota's position was usurped. They are not synonyms, as I said in my response above. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What does usurped mean? What is the origin of the word? Do you think the origin and the meaning of the word is consistent with Misplaced Pages:RNPOV? Would you be okay with getting a third opinion on this? I am not a very experienced editor of Misplaced Pages and unfamiliar with how policy of WP:RNPOV apply. Also there are words with different meanings in different parts of the world and this may be one of those words. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, Lowkeyvision, I've conflicted with you yet again. Please, please can you put your brain in gear before writing something. We all mess things up from time to time but you seem to do so consistently and it is a darn nuisance.

No, I do not agree with using the WP:3O process at this time. For someone so new to Misplaced Pages, you seem to know a lot about obscure policy areas etc but clearly you are not following due process here. You should have continued this thread at the article talk page, where it is likely others would see it and offer their opinions. People interested in the subject matter of the article are not necessarily interested in the goings-on here. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please teach me how to go about discussing a change, specifically the process. It is something that is frustrating for new users because they dont know how go about helping imrpove the encyclopedia. At what point does one get WP:3O? At what point does one go to dispute resolution? While I am new to Misplaced Pages, I would like to think of myself as someone who is not an idiot ;) And I do not like to base things on fluff either because I need to have the ability to absorb large amounts of data and apply it correctly everyday. This includes ethical decisions I make everyday and medical ethics which are based on more Kantian ethics, which is where you will find most of my argument derived from. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

I have no idea what it is that you consider to be "fluff". Kantian ethics are irrelevant here; Misplaced Pages policies etc are relevant. See WP:TPG for some assistance with how talk pages are used.

I've copied the relevant parts of this conversation to Talk:Lohara dynasty and marked it as such - hope this helps. A content dispute that is between two contributors primarily because other contributors do not know that a discussion is continuing to develop does not merit 3O and any sensible person who participates in the provision of 3O would immediately note this. If the dispute does not draw input from other interested contributors within a reasonable time - say, a week - then recourse to WP:3O would be reasonable. I say a week because, for example, that is the amount of time allowed for contest of proposed deletions. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case let us resume: What does usurped mean? What is the origin of the word? Do you think the origin and the meaning of the word is consistent with Misplaced Pages:RNPOV? Also, I do not see this as a dispute but a discussion.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

You seem not to understand that this is the wrong venue but, for what it is worth, I've provided you with a source that actually uses the word in this context and I've mentioned that on the article talk page. Go there, please, because I am not responding any further here. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See talk page :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

Patel Page

Hey so what makes someone able to link a caste to a surname on the Patel page? A last name does not determine caste correct? The page is about a caste and the other page is about a surname(not a caste).

I remember you taught me that Memon People page the people could not be listed because the last name is not caste unless there is proof. There is no proof that the people listed as Patel on the list are of the caste. This isnt an attack. Just trying to gain better insight what you logic is about this. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

As far as I could see, both the list and the article concern the surname. As far as I can see, neither mention caste. A last name cannot be used as verification of a specific person's caste - there are, for example, plenty of people called Nair who are unrelated to the caste of that name. I think that you are comparing apples to oranges here.

I'm a bit busy doing some research relating to another Misplaced Pages issue but I'll get back to you concerning your earlier message in the section above. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

] --> "This article lists people of the surname Patel, an Indian surname not necessarily tied to a specific caste or class."

I think the list might actually be surnames and the article is related to castes. Let me know what you think. If this stands up, can I list all the people with the last name Memon on one page and link it similar to Patel.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

Don't start this palaver again, please. Show me the sentence in Patel that mentions the word "caste". You are way off-course and you are not going to game the system to suit your agenda at Memon people that led to a block. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am being sincere. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

It would be easier for me to open tor portals and annoy the crap out of you. Seriously, this is a peace offering and I mean it. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Fine, if you are being sincere, but you are also wrong and are wrong in ways similar to those that caused issues previously. Show me that sentence containing mention of a specific caste or even the word "caste", please.

If you want to open tor portals and annoy the crap out of me then feel free. You will lose eventually, and perhaps much sooner than you think. So I suggest you do not make threats like that, even disguised as comments. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you. You have seniority and I am trying to take your understanding of the system. I do not view as an enemy but as a filter for how things work. Teach me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

Any chance that you can think before you write? You are drifting into another irritating recent habit of posting multiple messages and changes to messages in quick succession. It is a complete nightmare for others to deal with. And, FWIW, I am not senior to you. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

] <--This is what I think we are. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

I do not do YouTube, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It is Steve Jobs explaining how a team works. Anyway- It is on the Patel list page the caste and surname quote. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

Huh? You mean the "This article lists people of the surname Patel, an Indian surname not necessarily tied to a specific caste or class." that you quoted earlier. How the heck does that sentence mean that the list concerns people of a specific caste? It actually says the opposite - "not necessarily" - and names no caste. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So lists of surnames can be compiled as long as they are not castes because they are self evident? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

If a notable person has the surname Lowkeyvision and an article about them on Misplaced Pages, and if there are other people with the same circumstances, then in theory they can be grouped as a List of Lowkeyvisions. See Sharma for another example of people sharing the same surname being listed, and note that it does not say they are all (or even mostly) of X caste or Y religion or Z sexual orientation, etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Alright, my interests are obviously in the Memon People page because I wish to build it. I have a couple more questions for you.

1) What is the best way to confirm the ancestry of a caste of people. For example, how would you recommend I go about finding a list of people who are of Memon ancestry compiled by a third party.

2) I can get records from WMO and they keep records of who was a Memon or not. However, as you stated consensus is against "self published" resources. To this A) if WMO had a page, can their self published statistics go on that page? B) If "self published" data is not valid, then what makes things like the US census poll believable or statistics by human rights organizations. Aren't they self-published? Don't they also have conflict of interest?

Thank you for the earlier clarification. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

I am not trying to solve this thing by tackling the root of this. I don't want to hold a grudge. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

Re: (1), I have no idea other than read WP:RS and take particular note of WP:BLP. I'd much rather such lists did not exist at all here because there is only rarely a connection between a person's caste and the reason for their notability. Regarding , the WMO is not independent of the Memon people, whereas the US Census Bureau is independent of them and of the > 99 per cent of the US population who do not work for it. In any event, the WMO census has been shown to be unreliable because you couldn't answer the questions posed of it, and the fact that they put their name to such a load of dodgy data has to raise questions about the reliability of anything they say. Just do not use them, except for statements about their own organisation's structure/history etc (not the Memon people's structure/history). - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The majority of Memons are not part of WMO. The mechanism of the census is something I do not know the internal mechanisms of because I am not part of the organization. I am taking this as a challenge to trace/do something that hasn't been done before the Memon People. I look forward to working with you. How does one document court cases? ]

"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. " - Ghandi. Do you think that is true? . (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

I do not know for what you would intend to use that court ruling. However, it appears to be a primary source and such rulings are not usually considered acceptable. If you can find a secondary source that discusses it, preferably in context with any related rulings before and since, then you may be on to a winner. Personally, I avoid even those unless there are literally dozens of the things and they are broadly in agreement: lawyers, after all, generally make a good living out of offering different interpretations of what, to the layman, appears to be a simple case (sic) of the written word. You could try asking at the talk page for our Law Project, however.

You really do not want to know what I think about Gandhi or religion: suffice to say that I am not of a religious inclination. In the Misplaced Pages context, we are all supposed at least to "rub along together" (a British phrase that may not carry well around the world, hence the quote marks) but there are exceptions. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A man that can free a billion people from slavery without a sword or a gun is worth merit to study. Humanism is a religion to some. Misplaced Pages:Randy in Boise are the only people truly worthy of rebuke and your energy would be better spent correcting. ;) Now I gotta start making the list. Thank you for the information. (Lowkeyvision (talk))

Hi there!

Would you be so kind as to take look at my talk? And perhaps, a comment will not be too much to ask of you? Mr T 08:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it's about Rashmi Singh again. Mr T 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyriac Pullapilly

Fair enough as per his origin - I didn't read thoroughly enough before adding that category. Sorry. If we can't categorize him by citizenship, can we categorize his work better? Multiple "Historians of X" categories might apply, but that's still better than just "Historians." TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced it with Category:Historians of religion for now. That reflects the works that are noted. I need to dig through his journal papers etc at some point but it is low on my to-do list. The article was created primarily to assist with a dispute elsewhere regarding merits of various sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Chamar 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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved this to the end. You have clearly not checked Talk:Chamar - please do. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Considering that all sources for Muhammad Ilyas Qadri were self-published or otherwise violated WP:RS, do you think it's a candidate for WP:AfD? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. He likely has some fanatical supporters and there may be difficulties in finding neutral sources but see, for example, this. Both the man and the organisation that he founded look likely to be notable. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call on all points. I'll see what I can do, then. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page

I am editing using my phone and iPad. If you do not want to discuss, then that is your own problem, not mine. But I will not allow you to make disruptive edits to the Chamar page. bal537 21:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) bal537 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Banda Singh Bahadur

Sitush! How are you? I have a question: can you look at the recent edit dispute and figure out who's right? I'm semi-protecting the article from IP edits, which is where most of the caste-warring came from. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• It will take a while, I think, but I've left a note on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it may now really kick off because I have removed 90% or so of the text - copyvio since 2006-ish. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? OK, I'll have a look and delete what needs deleting. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Ha, it was stubbed on 24 May 2006 already as a copyvio. The history got a lot shorter... Drmies (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Max Müller

Hi, thank you for your interest in the Müller article. Obviously I have no "ownership" rights over the article, so you may edit it as you think fit. Yes, I have had it on my watchlist for a long time. I added a lot of content years ago, but I must admit I've done very little since. Most of the recent edits have been by Vacarme. I have partial access to Jstor, but only what my institution subscribes to. As for the content of the article, the main body of the article was written in the early days of Misplaced Pages when footnotes were unrequired and rarely to be found. I gave the article footnotes some years ago when a very very clumsy and primitive system was in operation. I'm sure that the article could be greatly improved with more up to date secondary sources. Unfortunately the only people who are consistently interested in it are Hindu nationalists who have a very distorted and confused understanding of Müller's role in 19th century culture and tend to repeat misconceptions and outright fictions repeated on Hindutva websites. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. They've infiltrated this article also? I probably know less about the subject matter than you but I will keep an eye out. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For spotting the copyvios in Banda Singh Bahadur: thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, & thanks. For some daft reason, I was not expecting to see a copyvio dating from 2006. I perhaps should know better by now! - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

thanx

i thanks to you that you removed the word "brahman" from brief introduction of Banda Singh Bahadur .it was sure a wrong statement in that section and people who do not know much about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR could accept it as it is. but you forgot to remove the surname "bhardwaj".this is one of a leading surname of brahmins.it must remove immediately. in "early life " section there are diffrent theory of historians available.let the people read them and left the decision on themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramsinghantaal (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR article

hello sitush

i am requsting you again to remove the surname 'bhardwaj'joined with the BANDA SINGH BAHADUR,S early name 'laxman dass'.it was good that you removed the word 'brahman' but if you will not remove the 'bhardwaj' then it is useless,because bhardwaj is also a subcaste of brahmins.so to keep the brief introduction completely neutral.this change is required.i am not asking you to mention him rajput there,but to remove any cast identity till we not reach any final conclusion.

thanking you. --Paramsinghantaal (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi_Singh

Hi Sitush. Can you please check and let me know if the links which I have incorporated are good enough, Waiting Ananyaprasad (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ananyprasad, I really do think that you need to drop this for now. You have only recently asked for comments here and you got replies from me and from Mrt3366. At that point, little had changed from the version of the article that was deleted some months ago ... and since that request for review all you have done is add a link to an Amazon biography, which is never reliable as a source and in this instance was not even necessary because you already had a source for the statements. Amazon biographies are often created from content submitted by agents, PR people etc or even the author.

The idea here is not to amass more and more sources for the same thing, which can in fact lead to a situation known as citekill, but to demonstrate her notability. Neither you nor several experienced editors (including me) managed to do that at the time of the deletion discussion and since that situation still applies, well, if anything the copy that was put in your userspace (so that you could try to improve it) should probably be deleted now also. One day, she may be notable in the Misplaced Pages sense but that day is not now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nimbalkar

Hi Sitush,

Please let me know why are you removed lots of information of Nimbalkar.... As I've seen you removed on dated 16/10/2012, Nimbalkar's clan, symbol like details... Please do needful ASAP

Thanks & Regards, Vinod Nimbalkar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.123.235 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I almost always add an edit summary to give a brief rationale for any addition or deletion. (Very occasionally, I've clicked on a mousebutton sooner than I intended). If you look at the history for Nimbalkar, which you can see here, then hopefully you can work out why I did whatever it was. If you still have queries then the best thing to do would probably be to start a discussion at Talk:Nimbalkar because that page is likely to be seen by more people than this one. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

correction still awaited

hello sutish, the correction about removing surname 'bhardwaj' is still pending.please read my previous post.waiting for ur reply. thnx.--Paramsinghantaal (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your original request on the article talk page some hours ago. There is no need to keep asking here as I have that talk page watched. Please also note that Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia - your day-time might be someone else's sleep-time - and also that contributors here have real lives outside of the project. You cannot usually expect to get a rapid response to queries etc, although often you will. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Professionalism is the need of time

You just refer to my Talk page and then discuss on commons page develop a consensus before making your self a judge and then a en forcing inspector deleting materials from 30 articles. Take time with professional attitude not an edit war engaging behavior. I well come the improvements you may propose to the map on commons if you are a linguist until then I am reverting your deletions because I inserted them first so you first prove map wrong then you can delete them in that case I will not object THANKS Maria0333 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)