User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Manspreading

Inappropriate comment on Arbitration Workshop page

This is a warning that pseudo-threats like this are not only inappropriate for Arbitration, but Wikipedia also. Further statements like these will result in a block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll email you a justification: my so-called pseudo-threat has resulted in your actual threat, which is ironic. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am curious to know the particular sitting arb(s) who asked you to issue this real-threat. ∯WBG^converse 06:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: did you get my email? Couple the external link I gave you with stuff already found/raised on-wiki in other articles created and I think we need to find some way of resolving what is clearly quite a significant issue relating to BLPs because the problem seems to be growing by the day. Note this, this and, most significantly in terms of the alleged threat, this.

I have no idea how the issue can be dealt with without a ruckus arising but dealt with it must be and I would appreciate your thoughts on that. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I can see that you have been active since I posted the above. It seems poor form to me that you should issue an inappropriate and actual threat then, prima facie, ignore the response. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, it's been a rough week. My comment is not a threat, simply a promise. Regardless of that, I have passed on the concerns to be dealt with, but can't comment much about what is being done about it because of the nature of the situation. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rough weeks happen, so sorry about that. Your semantics regarding threat vs promise do not stack up: it amounts to the same thing in this situation, it was misguided and it would have seriously concerned someone with less nous about people who wield the tools than I have.

I have no idea to whom you have passed the information nor why "the nature of the situation" prevents it being discussed. As I see it, the only issue is whether to post that external link on-wiki or just actually deal with the problem it raises and which, I promise you, is just the tip of the iceberg. Or is the issue that you as scared of bringing down the wrath of the clueless among the Women in Red participants as I am? No contributor of that degree of experience should be making so many factual errors in any article, let alone in what is probably hundreds of BLPs and it is only the accusations that get flung around regarding perceived misogyny & systemic bias that are protecting her. I'm tempted to go for it. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for causing you problems. And well done fighting vandalism. Good luck.

List of Jats

Sir, an editor tried to include 2 entries which I think is unsourced/original researches or unreliably sourced. While the Hoshiar Singh Dahiya's entry isn't supported by the sources (one is reliable but doesn't mention caste and the other is unreliable), I am confused on Jat Mehar Singh Dahiya's entry. The source used A doesn't mention his caste but uses the word 'Jat' as part of his name. It uses terms like "Jat Poet Mehar Singh". Another article B similarly mentions his name as "Jat Poet Mehar Singh" or "Jat Mehar Singh". Even the Wikipedia article uses the word "Jat" as a part of his name. So I've removed it as per this quote I might be called Nair, for example, but I can assure you that I am not a Nair; and Helen Reddy was not a Reddy here. Was it a good decision? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think so, yes. There is some ambiguity in those statements. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Seat_of_government. Vin09 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Bunt (community) and Shetty

Hi can you please have a look at recent edits by an ip on these pages. I have checked the sources and they seem to reflect a different community than the one mentioned in the wiki articles. The obc list also is confusing as there are various castes under shetty name. Linguisticgeek (talk)

Will do. I have been watching the back and forth these last few hours but not really checked the detail. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Linguisticgeek: I've opened a discussion at the Bunt article talk. Let's flush it out, one way or another. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@sitush: The following article “http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/shetty-brother-in-a-bind-over-false-sc-certificate/958780/“ clearly states that shettys & Bunts of Karnataka come under Backward class. Infact, Bunts of Maharashtra come under Scheduled caste. So, why are you removing it? To add further proof, let’s look at the Bunt community name, as cited in the stable Wikipedia version. They are also called “Nadava”. The “Nadava” community comes under OBC list as given in the official Indian government website “http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/cl/karnataka.pdf” So, clearly all the shettys including the Bunts come under OBC category as cited in Official Indian Government Websites data.

Your language here, in your earlier discussion with “Linguisticgeek”, ”Let’s flush it out one way or another” clearly shows your bias. Look at the facts, I presented & make the edit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.14 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not discussing this here. That is why I opened the threads at the article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: above anon is obvious block evasion by 107.77.206.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t make the edit, then it’s fine. You are clearly too close to the subject & are therefore resorting to nonsense threatening tactics. This is highly unacceptable in a civilized society. I think you should get some etiquette classes. Anyway, I will take this up in court. In a week, I will get a court order, get this changed & get you banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.14 (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. You are not helping your cause. All you have to do is discuss the issue in the correct venue, which is an article talk page. Then consensus comes into play. I have no particular axe to grind on the subject, am not Indian and not in India etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have degenerated quickly. Looks like this IP is not only evading the block but also seems to have some axe to grind against this particular caste/social group. Making legal threats against long time wiki editors shows this guy is not here to build an encyclopedia but just push some POV. Linguisticgeek (talk)

• (Responding to Sitush comment of 08:25) Yes, block evasion but the block has expired now. I have advised (again) on my talk page that this should be discussed on the article talk page. The legal threat is an empty one but the escalation in rhetoric is unhelpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit and reverting

Please look into the page of Samajwadi Party. A certain person is again and again labelling it as caste based political party, however I don’t agree with this. Without any declaration of any kind, we cannot call a party that has been in power of the largest subdivision for many times as caste based. Kindly look into this, and if only we can call this caste based, we should actually call every party as caste based because they all do caste based politics. The ref attached is from a book that somewhere denotes that the party started as caste based but that doesn’t mean it really defines it’s main heading. Please look into this Sitush. Thank you !!

I will take a look later. As far as I can remember, it began as a Yadav-centric party and so was definitely "caste-based" in the purest sense of the word. However, I think it now appeals to a wider range of people than just the Yadavs, meaning that it still gets involved in caste politics (like most Indian parties) but does not draw its support solely from one caste, nor frame its policies solely for one caste. It is OBCs, Dalits and the like now, rather than just Yadavs. Mulayam practically reinvented it to gain power. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Exactly. I meant to express the same. Thank you very much.

As you will probably have seen, I left a note on the talk page. Someone else has now removed the claim, although the talk page comment has not yet had a response. I do think that the article should say a bit more about the early history of the party and cannot understand why it does not ... but that is something for another day. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush :)

Needing review

Hi Sitush, it looks like we need to review these edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a source used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted them at one article in the last hour or so. I'm slightly concerned that this may be a return of one of the old sockfarms. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Btw, Kautilya3, it looks like Highpeaks35 is on another run of changing article leads so that they refer to Indian subcontinent rather than whatever they previously said. In the past, this has been shown to be at best pointy and sometimes downright wrong. But I can't spot where this was said - can you remember? An example was their change today at Randhawa, which was simply wrong. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There has not yet been any resolution to the issue, but some background material has been put in WP:ISA.

Highpeaks35, "India and Pakistan" was perfectly fine at Randhawa. Why was there a need to change thing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I added it to help new readers and prevent anachronism. I did not remove modern nations, just removed a duplicated content at the end; as the wrestler was already mentioned. But, I will make sure to be more careful moving forward. My apologies. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 there was no need to "prevent anachronism" and Indian subcontinent is certainly not just India and Pakistan, as you said in your edit there. You've been in trouble for this before and my suggestion to you is that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, you forget that the term Indian subcontinent exists. Just leave it alone because one more occasion and it will be a trip to ANI or, more simply, me just calling on some admin to impose sanctions. Your edits of that type are utterly bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I will be careful moving forward. Will read WP:ISA throughly, and follow it moving forward. Again, I want to thank Kautilya3 for being such a supportive editor to me and many others, who is willing to work with us, and assuming good faith. I was only trying my best to help this project. Again, I will read WP:ISA, and follow it. Thank you both, and again, my apologies. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

No, forget the term exists. It causes you nothing but trouble and there is something very odd about your persistence in wanting to use it. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I gave you my reason: It is anachronism. Don’t know how that explanation is “odd.” Please give me a chance to read WP:ISA. I will use that as my guide moving forward, after I finish reading it. I have to go back to my daily grind; thanks for your time. Again, apologies for my edit on that article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

There is nothing anachronistic about "India and Pakistan" and, in any case, you left those two names in when adding "Indian subcontinent", so you haven't actually fixed anything. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly. That is why I am saying, I made a mistake and apologized for it multiple times. Again, I will read WP:ISA throughly. Will use that as my guide moving forward. That way I will not make these mistakes in the future. Thanks again for your time. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

WP:ISA is an essay reflecting one person's understanding and points of view. I have added a disputed tag to it. Best not to use that as your benchmark, unless you want to get in more trouble. My advice: stay away from further messing with either topic. You have done enough damage already. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi Hindus lead section

Hi Sitush! I am a member of the Copy Editors Guild and also a recent changes stalker. The Punjabi Hindus article came up with some potential vandalism, which led me to check out the page and also the talk page. It wasn't your changes that flagged the article, btws. :) Just noted that I saw your comment about adding back in some content which, in your own words, is "although unsourced in this article, there does seem to be support for it at Sikhism#History."

Going forward, please don't add unsourced content to articles, or add BACK unsourced content. If there is support for content at any location in Wikipedia, please do the needful and obtain, then provide the citation. Otherwise, you are kinda just expecting someone else to clean up that mess for you. If the content isn't important enough to you to provide a source for it, then really, who else will do it? :) :) :) Thanks for understanding. Your help going forward in keeping Wikipedia well sourced is appreciated. Curdigirl (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

!! - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that ranks very low among the problems with that article, and at least I noted the point. Still, your message inspired me to do some copyediting and remove excess tagging etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Curdigirl, please note that the Wikipedia criterion for content is verifiability, not the provision of sources. Even though I would agree that it is a good idea to always provide sources, I also don't believe one should make an issue of it unless the content is controversial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That may have been around the time I wasn't editing much & so didn't follow through but I left the note on the talk page and check my edit summary. All resolved now + a lot more cleaning up done. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Rajputs

Sir, the List of Rajputs article has a lot of entries without self-identification. Please take a look at it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh gosh, not again. That thing needs permanent semi-protection or something else that limits the clueless. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely needs permanent semi-protection. It seems all these entries were made by 2-3 users as can be seen in this diff. Should we revert back to IronGargoyle's edit dated 27 March 2019? Although some seems self-identified. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page is indefinitely semiprotected, guys. Ever since 2012, actually. So the clueless additions of recent years have all been made by autoconfirmed users. Mostly recently autoconfirmed, or not very active — the redlinked usernames are a bit of a clue. I've now raised the protection to extended confirmed, also indefinite. But I'll leave it to you guys to revert as needed; I think you have studied the individual additions more than I have. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

PS, thank you for the thankyou, @Fylindfotberserk: that was quick! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you and welcome sir. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: looks like you should add me to the list of the clueless to whom I referred above. I really wasn't thinking when I wrote what I did. @Fylindfotberserk: unless you want to wade through the lot, I would be inclined to revert to the last known decent version and let people expand it again in small amounts. THere's just too much for me to check this time round but, as always, there will be a lot that fall short of our requirements. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready to revert it back to IronGargoyle's version now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox population fields

Based on this edit and recent ones, got a doubt on adding pop_est field? Please check if that field was correct.--Vin09 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Seemed fine to me in theory. The actual population is usually meant to come from the census. But whether we actually need both the actual from 2011 and an estimate from 2017 is something I'm not sure about. I can see the use where the boundaries have changed that cause a massive change from the census figures and which then affect public works that we are describing, such as transportation projects. Whether it is useful when there is little change is another matter but I'm not an expert on using that infobox and the documentation for it doesn't seem to say anything other than what is supposed to be inserted there. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

dude just don't erase the pages okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahanjhon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram

My only activity here will be in relation to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram until such time as the matter is resolved by either (a) clear and reasonable justification from the WMF for their actions relating to it, or (b) a reversal of those actions. I'm effectively withdrawing my efforts to build and improve this thing until then. I hope that others will, too. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)