![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Well, I'm not sure what is in
this particular example, but in general I see it as a BrE/AmE difference. As Lynne Guist says
here, Americans play with Legos and step on a Lego, while the British play with Lego and step on a piece of Lego or a Lego brick
. So there you have it. I know which I prefer, and I feel that wars have probably been fought over less, but hey. Best wishes
DBaK (
talk) 18:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Legois the appropriate form here. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In case there was any misunderstanding; I'm not saying asking for help with AfD is okay, not at all. I'm saying there's no rule against saying "come help me improve this article" in general (presumably, not when it's at AfD). Your points about canvassing within a walled garden are valid, I'm just worried that users like Jesswade and others who haven't done much in the project space are being caught in the crossfire. That's all. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit. ∯WBG converse 14:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any truth to it? That is
“It can range from slurs to having your edits reverted or edited on frivolous grounds,” Lakshane says. “You have to take the trouble of making the edits and doing the research, but also defending them. Some women I know have quit because of Wikipedia harassment which spilled into real life.” Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit.
And what are we supposed to do about
Harini Barath, who helped organise three Indian Women in Science editathons, agrees that the insistence that “notability must be proved with references” often leaves out women scientists who don’t have an online presence that is deemed adequate, leading to pages being flagged or deleted, as in Strickland’s case. “There aren’t many references because women don’t get their due as much as men when it comes to being published or getting recognition for their work,” Lakshane says. “Their work gets appropriated and there is a dearth of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. So if you’re a woman artisan in India, there will not be much to cite about you."
At least the article does go on to acknowledge that the latter issue is nothing really do with WP, although sticking the point as an aside at the end of the thing, by which time many readers will have tuned out, smacks of sensationalised journalism. And the entire piece smacks of being a press release, which ToI routinely print without thought. - Sitush ( talk) 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia’s rule is that when a person becomes notable because of their death, their article will be titled as if the death was what made them notable, rather than their life.
I appreciate your sentiment but the overbroad nonsense that is WP:NFOOTY is never going to be reformed if you vote keep, even if regretful. It'll take some AFDs ending in a consensus for deletion or at least no consensus to show how it needs an overhaul. Reywas92 Talk 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your edits. Paul 1953 ( talk) 06:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush, I'm not sure what happened to my previous post (I'm new to Wikipedia editing!) and would be grateful if you could have a look at Dona Bertarelli's biography which hasn't been updated since some time: /info/en/?search=Dona_Bertarelli I've suggested quite a few updates with sources. You'll see from my user profile that I work for her, so I hope I'm doing things correctly. Please could you let me have any feedback? Thanks a lot, Mia MiaNorcaro ( talk) 10:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Howdy. Ya forgot to sign you 'statement' at the Arbcom case you've requested :) GoodDay ( talk) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration Fæ has been declined by the committee and archived. If the issues presented in the case have not yet been resolved, the involved parties are encouraged to pursue other means of dispute resolution. Bradv 🍁 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully working now? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
do you know hindi language. Lalit Jugtawat ( talk) 11:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Then please ask them that chah (चाह) and ran(रण) means in hindi and then redo my edit. Also ask them how the union of two different words is done in hindi which is called "sandhi". So the word union of chah and ran means charan and that would means 'the one who loves battle'. You can confirm it from your friends who know Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit Jugtawat ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hoi, I noticed your exchanges on the talk page of Jess Wade. What you fail to appreciate is that people may edit for their own reasons. Some are interested in Pokemon characters others are more involved in science. For Wikipedia as a project the bias in its reporting is staggering. There is not enough about India, there is not about female scientists. When people take up such a topic it is not canvassing, it is working on aspects of Wikipedia where it falls short.
Your personal story, being deaf et al is no justification for attacking a concern that is fully justified. For Wikipedia to be balanced we either do not allow new male scientists or we allow for people like Jess to focus on our short commings.
Given that you indicate to be a scientist, give me your ORCID identifier (by mail) and I will make you your Scholia... That is what I do, as well as having worked on many subjects relating to India all in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 08:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There are some things related to BLPs that can be tricky to deal with. The classic example is sexuality but others include religious belief and caste. In those situations, we ask that the article subject has self-identified in some rock-solid souce. I don't see that issues dependent on skin colour are any different. Yes, it may be self-evident that someone is black/person of colour/African-American/whatever the correct terminology may be, as in the case you refer to, but to repeatedly stress that point requires that they make a "big thing" of it themselves. As I said, I am profoundly deaf - I can't hear anything without the most powerful hearing aids, and nothing below 110db even with them - but it does not define me, despite the daily discrimination I face; similarly, a black person may choose not to be defined by the colour of their skin etc. Unless they do - for example, because of being an activist - it seems wrong to overly emphasise the point through multiple mentions of it. Oddly, another person attended Oxford shortly after me and claimed to be in a similar position: she trumpeted about it, got on TV shows because of it, was claimed to be the "first" at Oxbridge, got a job as a court interpreter because of it and was then exposed (not by me - I've never wrote about her until now - but by her employers) as a fraud on many levels, including the extent of deafness itself.
Regarding ranking people etc, a first is very often a notable thing. In some circumstances, such as winning a bronze medal in the Olympic Games, even a third may be notable because it is a formally recognised achievement. However, when we start mentioning someone as 10th or 100th or 1000th, things often become more problematic. Where do we draw that line? And when the information comes from an advocacy group, it is often of dubious reliability: such groups are usually considered at WP:RSN to be reliable only for statements about themselves. Furthermore, it is possible to create ever more precise definitions/standards in many lists, just as athletic races have been timed in seconds, then tenths, then hundredths etc. Where is that line drawn? At what point is it actually significant rather than, for want of a better term, geeky? And at what point does a phrase such as "one of the first" or "one of the earliest" become vague?
With regard to the specific article, I have no doubt about worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contributor, though, had made quite a few significant errors in another of their recent creations that might in fact have significantly embarrassed the subject (eg: mis-stating her qualifications, her role in a large team and, IIRC, a claim that she was the first African-American to discover an element). They're on a mission to improve coverage of similar people, which is fine, but we need to be accurate and we need not to overegg the pudding with poor sourcing, misrepresentation of those sources or making a fuss about something of which the article subject might not themselves be making a big deal. For example, I acknowledge that the person in the specific article sits on the diversity committee for their university, but it would be wrong to say or even suggest that she does so as a representative of her ethnicity unless that is indeed sourced, and the suggestion might arise if we have inappropriately "banged on" about it beforehand. People sit on committees for all sorts of reasons, occasionally not even willingly as has happened to me.
These issues often arise when someone gets too close to a subject and/or when their experience of contributing here is confined to a very narrow topic area. I suppose it is a sort of "can't see the wood for the trees" thing. My advice to new contributors would always be to edit broadly, not narrowly, but I do appreciate that some people only have a limited area of interest and obviously especially so when new (one article!). But once you've created, say, a couple of dozen articles in one area, it is really, really useful to look at how things are done in another and then revisit your own creations. - Sitush ( talk) 13:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ GerardM: - Sitush ( talk) 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I've just googled "twitter clarice phelps" and if you do the same you will see just how quickly our misrepresentation of that person has spread. There will also be all of the mirror sites etc. It has the potential significantly to affect her career and we should be appalled if we are the originators of it. - Sitush ( talk) 09:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush, I am sorry for saying this thing about nationalist. I think I was wrong, it is just confusion over stock but I learned by looking at more sources that it does not matter if stock or water is used. This does not change based on different nations but either can be used, so it is a factual error, contradicted by multiple sources, but it is not nationalist and I apologize for my mistake to say this. Shofet tsaddiq ( talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Will some passing admin please block Mynameiskautilya3 - Sitush ( talk) 17:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Done by Widr. Thanks, whether you saw this or not. - Sitush ( talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Gazal world ( talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This person is a sock pupet of the person banned from Wikepdia /info/en/?search=User:Robert_Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.137.66 ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Why? Why should the latest peer-reviewed science not be used on a topic that is very relevant to it? It's not" too variable, too small in sample size, usually speculative and based on a fast-developing new science"
You are obviously very ignorant on how SNPs are sourced, sequenced, compared and an admixture is determined for a population group. It's literally based on our DNA and is very accurate. Give me one good reason not to add genetic peer-reviewed science other than it upsets you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, after the reading the guidelines it makes some sense. I still have one question -- the race nd ethnicity guidelines say From "a modern scientific standpoint, ancestry comes down to haplogroups." this is what the study i posted was based on. Is that wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, I made a general reply at WP:BN related to your comment, but didn't ping anyone. As you had not yet commented at Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards, I wanted to let you know that it was running and would be the best place to discuss potential changes to the admin activity policy. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Should the minimum number of required edits/actions be raised to ten, in order to demonstrate at least marginal engagement with the project?is "It should be 100 edits per year" - feel free to make your voice heard. — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the utility of the Authority Control template, please. I've just looked at Karl Lagerfeld and it has generated a massive number of hidden categories. Then I clicked on some of the entries in the template and I'd say that roughly half of them point to nothing in particular, at least one appears to be circular, some are not in English, and another (the WorldCat one) is effectively a duplicate of the VIAF one and actually says so! Seems like pretty much a complete waste of space to me, and certainly was a complete waste of my time. Is this all being driven from the crazy WikiData project? - Sitush ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Made changes to Etymology in Vanniyar. Please check once and modify as required Reason being some are already mentioned in history section and also Etymology would be usage and meaning of words.
Thanks very much
Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
Is there actually such a thing or is it a mis-spelling of Sheikh? None of the references seem to bear out the existence of a Shaikh over a Sheikh.-- regentspark ( comment) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Vettuva Gounder one of the caste using Gounder title.But you are redirect to Gounder.why? In Tamilnadu Gounder title using castes are Vettuva Gounder,Urali Gounder,Vanniyar etc Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk) 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Am I right to be feeling a strange sense of deja vu? -- regentspark ( comment) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Highpeaks35. There is some reference to a discussion at User talk:Highpeaks35#Indian subcontinent in which you participated. So you might know the background to some of this. If all the claims about Highpeaks35 are true, some admin action may be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Long time. Hope you are doing well and feeling OK. Sorry to bother. An editor called Xenani is consistently trying to add OR stuff to Nadar pages. If you are free, please look into it. Nadar climber talk. I am not sure what to do with this guy. Cya later. TC Mayan302 ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have written on the side of Muthuraja.Kudiyaanavar tamil meaning is Farmer. Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk) 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Titodutta ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know sumant singh jhala Tripathijidubey ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sir, a living person needs to self-identify his caste but what about the deceased? For example Nanji Kalidas Mehta and Mahadev Govind Ranade. Kindly enlighten. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There is constant vandalism in article Maravar. Please put a Edit restriction on the article. Verified contents are being removed, please help Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Sangitha rani111
Thank you very much Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
Hi Sitush, in the history of this page. I found the removed content interesting and was a real research. Can I add it back. MRRaja001 ( talk) 12:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush. You created both articles which obviously are about the same person. The article G. Chockalingam is more detailed so I propose that the content of that article be preserved. Both articles can be merged. It seems that the kk spelling is somewhat more common. So if the final article about this person should be found under G. Chokkalingam, then the best procedure may be to have the current two sentence stub at G. Chokkalingam deleted and then to move the current article G. Chockalingam to G. Chokkalingam which would leave G. Chockalingam as a redirect. If on the other hand this person is better known as G. Chockalingam, then that article should remain and G. Chokkalingam should be turned into a redirect. -- Proofreader ( talk) 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sir, would you kindly check the recent edits? I've removed the Indic script and re added some content reliably sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
how are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.68.236 ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
a whole lot of reviews (and some more, which are not mentioned), as to the People of India (ANSI) volumes and I guess that's more than enough to grant a stand-alone article to the series. What do you say? Needless to say, the reviews are almost always negative and highlights on a vast range of issues :-) ∯WBG converse 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Fed up of the professionally offended. The likes of Fae should take note of comments such as those highlighted by Joe Lycett here. - Sitush ( talk) 06:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Returning to my opening remark, an apt description is here - "much ado being made by the people who make being offended a way of life". I find it tiresome. - Sitush ( talk) 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Sir, can castes be quoted from personal websites of the subject. This article seems to be using this website for this purpose. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 14:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saranya Bhagyaraj might be dodgy - 2 x delete, 1 x keep, 1 x draft doesn't look like the sort of AfD a non-admin should be closing, whatever the merits of the various comments. - Sitush ( talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Sitush: I great admire you as an editor but noticed you recently made wholesale edits on Idar State rolling back - appropriately so - a bunch of poorly sourced changes. However, your changes also have rolled back a bunch of minor edits I and others have made along the way, which you probably would not have an objection to. For example, your rollbacks now again refer to Idar as a princely state, which it was only during the British Raj. In its long history before the Raj, it existed as a sovereign state or in vassalage to other states like Gujarat Sultanate.
When I started working on the article, it was in very poor shape (and it still is) but I decided to make positive, incremental changes. Unfortunately, your wholesale rollback has undid some of my work.
I wouldn't mind if actively-engaged editors made challenges to my edits in somewhat proximity to when I made the edits, so I can discuss and challenge them. However, you seem to have stepped in long after the edits were made, and unrolled a whole bunch of edits including mine and succeeding edits, so that it is hard for me to actually have an pinpointed debate about one or another change.
I am frustrated because I consider myself a reasonable editor and often ask for and accept your advice and that of other editors. However, the nature of indiscriminate edits makes it difficult for me to trace back my edits and separate the good edits from bad edits. It is discouraging me from positively engaging with Idar State. Deccantrap ( talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
So nice to see you editing, Sitush, and removing so much crap! Bishonen | talk 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC).
Sir, can this and this be used to support that Virendra Sehwag and Vijender Singh are Jats? They didn't self identify explicitly but said it indirectly. I've removed a lot of entries from List of Jats article added recently by a sockpuppet of User:Dahiya1208. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes they are jats
Do you see anything over
this source that supports :- Washuta says she is praised for her numerous essays such as " How Much Indian Was I? My Fellow Student Asked".
?
∯WBG
converse 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete all the reference from British regime book ? You have created lots of spelling mistake in the article ? I've complained about you. And where is it written that citation from British and before can't be given. PerfectingNEI ( talk) 08:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems we got to the end of the 159s, except for the new additions that keep popping up. Congratulations on all the hard work. Reyk YO! 09:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes in the article some part is copy pasted but I give you different references so what is the problem with you I give different sources for this article so how can you deleted it. If you have any problem with peragraph you can fix it but pls do not delete the whole article.
I thought of your recent remarks on my page about cultural differences in national discourse when I stumbled on this userpage description, now deleted. I've redacted the name of the institution and shortened it a bit:
X College, one of the most illustrious tuition centers in Y has always astonished and impressed people with its unique teaching style, better facilities, counselling sections and its way of interaction both with parents and pupils. Since its establishment in 1972, it has taken special care in moulding and transforming students into better citizens, making them a part of a vibrant society and thereby promising them sparkling morns ahead. Not-only does it coach but also instils courage, confidence and knowledge in young ones. […] X College has already contributed a lot and will continue to sustain its glittering victories in the days ahead too.
(Straight off the institution's own website.)
Bishonen |
talk 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC).
South Coast Railway zone was announced officially, but continue to function as South Central Railway zone till date. The page and its railway articles got changed zone name. The references still say south central. What should be done?-- Vin09 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
On 27 February 2019, AP part of Waltair Division, Vijayawada, Guntur and Guntakal divisions were merged into newly formed South Coast Railway zone.I'm not sure what to do but each article in the new zone certainly needs to refer to the move. I'll ping BrownHairedGirl for advice regarding categories. - Sitush ( talk) 05:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As of now, the a new railway division was announced, but it to function completely, it may take some timeis that we may never know when the "some time" is over. I would tentatively suggest that we should change things in accordance with the official announcement that was made but that is likely to present a sourcing issue, as with the AP/Telangana bifurcation. No easy answer that I can see, I'm afraid, so it will be best to seek a wider consensus. You might also want to notify the Railways Wikiproject of the discussion at WT:INB because I suspect they will have dealt with this type of thing before. Sorry I cannot be of more help. - Sitush ( talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Vin09 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 !!
Yes Exactly. I meant to express the same. Thank you very much.
Thank you Sitush :)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Hi Sitush, it looks like we need to review these edits. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:28, 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))
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)
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)
dude just don't erase the pages okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahanjhon ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
Hello status ji..
I have more details for this page ... kindly contact me to my email address
Thank you SakarayShankar ( talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My edits are being removed by user @HinduKshatrana on @Chudasama_dynasty page, he is saying that sources which are in Gujarati are not reliable , is it so ? If Hemchandracharya's Sanskrit sources are reliable than what's wrong in noted poet Zaverchandmeghani's Gujarati sorces , Kindly protect my edits ,please help. Raakuldeep ( talk) 05:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct.
∯WBG
converse 10:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I've seen you comment on the notoriously unreliable caste articles and their sources, and I thought of you just now, as I ran into this, Siege_of_Cawnpore#Bibighar_massacre. It reads like Christian hagiography of martyrs thrown to the lions, and this is the source. Many of the sources in that article are pretty old; I wonder if modern sources exist and if they might not present a more neutral assessment. BTW I got here via Joseph Rooney (priest), which is pretty interesting. Drmies ( talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you (when you're back!), or one of your talkpage watchers, take a look at this article? I raised its protection level on spotting a 3RR report but can't judge the merits of the recent stream of edits that removed/added several kb of content. Abecedare ( talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Im one the guys who added the several kb of content.:) But I'm ever so slightly annoyed at its removal. All the gotra (sub-castes) I added were taken from either H.A.Rose or Noor Arain and Ishtiaq Ahmed. Its not my own conjecture on the issue. I'm wasn't sure if Arain are Rajput or Arab and to that extent I represented both sides of the coin and I also created the infobox currently on the page reflecting both opinions (although someone has recently changed that too). As of recently I have shifted more towards the view that Arain are Suryvanshi Rajput -as Ishtiaq Ahmed mentions this as one of the oldest theories, based on the genetics work of the Harrapa Project which I've reflected on the Arain (delhi) page its also due to this genetics work that I wrote down the Raja Bhutta oral tradition (which is also present in the works of H.A.Rose and not my own conjecture] since it would seem to have the most evidence behind it (but i still added the fact that they had higher amounts of baloch genetics than other punjabi castes in an effort to be as impartial as possible). I also added Arain to the suryavanshi page and put their infobox caste as suryavanshi.
I also think that its crucial to have the "Sutlej vs ghaggar vs hissar arain section". Because previous users seem to be very confused about the status of Arain as either zamindar or market gardening or Malis and i think that the heading is essential to explain the sutlej arain as a landowning caste and all other arain to be occupational appropriations as mentioned by H.A.Rose. Again this isnt my own conjecture. Indeed it makes little sense to declare arain as not being landowning (as the version before me did) when they owned 33% Jalandhar (see gazetteer). I understand other users adding the market gardening reference and compering Arain to Malis but its poor research on their behalf when this only applies to Hissar Arain and Arain of non-sutlej areas as H.A.Rose describes.
Another thing that annoys me is that my addition of Arain being "to a man mohammedan and orthodox" is for some reason always removed even though I've taken it directly from H.A.Rose. But i think that its an important point as it helps differentiate arain from Hindu Sainis and Kamboj to whom they are often compared (although the genetic testing has shown arain to be distinct from them)
Anyway It took me a lot of effort to write down that content and would appreciate if it was kept there, especially due to the fact that most if not all is backed up by sources. If there are indeed legitimate bones of contention then i dont mind seeing it removed but otherwise I find it annoying to see it removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
I welcome the block on the page as necessary but its also locked me out too so i can't revert the edition to my own.
Anyway thank you for your time -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you're not editing content right now, but in the hope that you'll return, I wanted to bring these edits to your attention. I hope they don't make you less likely to return, but I know you've dealt with far worse. I simply don't have the time right now. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know your name is in a sidebar about striking editors for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This opinion piece on the BBC as well as the guy's book The Truth About Us: The Politics of Information from Manu to Modi? I have no desire to dip my toes into caste issues, but do try to stay abreast of most major historical developments... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature"; there's far too much evidence of substantial caste hierarchy from pre-colonial times. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Here are two, both available free on the internet (at least for now), both written by famous historians of India, and both downloadable:
Two others that are slightly older, but also written by famous historians of India Romila Thapar and Percival Spear are also available free:
For what's its worth, while I'm at it, here are most of the remaining currently popular books:
Some popular textbooks on Indian history
|
---|
|
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: I am not contributing at the moment (see section further above) but would encourage you to take a look at some of the suggestions even if you have no intention of editing in the topic area. It's fascinating stuff and, of course, has a direct effect on over 1.2 billion living people. - Sitush ( talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Trying to parse the ideological battle above, it occurred to me that there could be an issue of semantics going on. So, looking up the OED, I found this:
Caste 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; the members of each caste being socially equal, having the same religious rites, and generally following the same occupation or profession; those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another.
- The original casts were four: 1st, Brahmans or priestly caste; 2nd, the Kshatriyas or military caste; 3rd, the Vaisyas or merchants; 4th, the Sudras, or artisans and labourers. These have in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude, almost every occupation or variety of occupation having now its special caste.
- This is now the leading sense, which influences all others.
I have to say kudos to OED for capturing the British POV so perfectly. There are about ten quotations given, ranging from 1613 to 1875, all British, including James Mill's History of British India. (I guess I have to read this book some day.)
The Indian usage of the term is not covered by the OED. But we have other sources. André Béteille writes
The English word "caste" corresponds more or less closely to what is locally referred to as jati or kulam. In addition to jati and kulam, many of the villagers, particularly the Brahmins, are familiar with the concept of varna. Although the terms jati and varna refer normally to different things, the distinction is not consistently maintained. Varna refers to one of the four main categories into which Hindu society is traditionally divided; jati refers generally to a much smaller group (see Srinivas, 1962, pp. 63—69). The English word "caste" is used to denote both, not only by foreigners but also by villagers who are familiar with English. It will be shown that there is no real contradiction in this, for the word jati has a series of meanings, and by extension it is applied to what, according to traditional usage, should be designated as varna. Thus, it is quite common for a person to say that such and such an individual is a Brahmin, or even a Kshatriya, by jati. Within a given context such usage is intelligible, and does not generally lead to ambiguity (see Béteille, 1964). [1]
Béteille gets it almost right except that he jumps to the conclusion that the talk of "Brahmins" and "Kshatriyas" necessarily means varna. But these two groups are also jatis. They have been so from the beginning. Only if they use terms like "Vaishya" and "Sudra" can we be sure that they are talking about varna. A remarkably lucid Christian book explains it as follows:
The one English word 'caste' has long been used to translate two different Indian words. One of these is varna, one of the 'castes' described in the Hindu law-books. ... The other Indian word translated 'caste' is kulam. This is the endogamous social unit usually following one traditional occupation. The kulam is sometimes described as a sub-caste within the varna, but this is a misleading attempt to relate the two terms, for it is the kulam which is the actually functioning social unit, governed by its own 'caste' council, and there may be sub-castes within it. [2]
So the ideological battle is underscored by a battle for language. The Indians want to use 'caste' for jati or kulam and they essentially refuse to use it for varna. On the other hand, the British want to use it for varna and refuse to use it for jati or kulam.
So this seems to be crux of the matter. Even Susan Bayly, who is quoted in the BBC article, is using the term in the British sense when she talks about the "people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance
". She cites "Bengal, the Punjab and southern India, as well as the far northwest and the central Deccan plain" as examples, which are all places where the varna order did not exist.
Finally, I might point out that OED shows how the British owned up Brahmin fundamentalism 100%, with phrases like "from time immemorial been divided", "those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another", "in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude". A Brahmin traditionalist from the 17th or 18th century would not have written anything differently. It is also ironic that this kind of pseudo-history should make it into the OED, because perhaps without the peudo-history, the British sense of the term cannot be understood! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I am aware you’re not editing at the moment but can you or any of your talk page watchers investigate this? @ FlyingSimurgh: is making undiscussed page moves to various articles including The Solar Dynasty, The Lunar Dynasty etc. As you will see, he is adding fake coats of arms and pushing castecruft nonsense. Literally all of his sources are snippet views, Raj-era sources and other wikis. If anyone could take a look, that would be very helpful since it’s getting quite ridiculous. 213.205.240.130 ( talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, The moves were me lining up the khsatriya dynasties with each other and to better correspond with the lunar dynasty which was already called that. Fake coat of arms are indeed fake, but actually if you see the various branches of suryavanshi dynasties they use exactly the same "sun in splendour heraldry" with a face on it and i already captioned the image as "Sun (in splendor) features heavily in the coat of arms of the dynasty and its branches" so as not to mislead anyone. Same thing with the chandravanshi. Honestly it was just my attempt to make the infobox look more comparable to the infobox of western dynasties like bourbon, saxe-coburg etc. I don't think I've ever used another wiki as a source but definitely I'm guilty of using raj-era sources. Honestly I had no idea that raj-era sources are off limits. Sorry for that. Feel free to change the pages as you like. But I don't think the version should be reverted entirely. Because my key contribution of the branches and castes are generally sound. Thanks and sorry for any mess - I assure you it was un-intentional. Regards -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright mate, take it easy, I'm new to wikipedia so honestly I don't know the rules and I've admited as much above. I'm not pushing my own caste agenda, I'm neither Arain not Rajput and really I mostly started off with editing pages for Mughal related stuff and princely states.
I think its completely unfair to call Arain a gardener caste, I think it just shows a lack of research on your own behalf. I can even site peer-reviewed stuff to show you that SUTLEJ Arain have been considered to be one of the landowning castes. After all they owned 33% of Jalandhar during the Raj-era. Mali's of other provinces often appropriated for themselves the caste of arain but as the raj noted these were not real arain (although as you've pointed out raj sources aren't accepted), not dissimilar from hindu sainis (malis aka gardeners) claiming rajput ancestry (and their status only changed during the raj era). I wonder if you guys have a bias because, for some reason no one on wikipedia has a problem with Hindu sainis or even Bhonsle being on that page but everyone is up in arms about Arains . As for Arain being Khastriya the political scientist Ishtiaq Ahmed says and I quote :"It is worth mentioning however that some early Arain accounts claim a Surajbansi Rajput origin". As far as I recall, suryavanshi is one of the major Kshatriyas Lineages.
Now as for being dishonest, that wasn't my intention, Ive tried to provide sources on everything from the genetics stuff to the history stuff on that page. I've gone back to the page but it seems you've made all the edits anyway. On the talk page for Arain, I've registered my opinion and differences and have always been completely objective.
Frankly it was unknown to me that the Indian section of Wikipedia was run as a
Jagir by a clique who's verdict on things from raj-era sources being blanket unreliable to Hindu Sainis being khsatriya but Muslim Arain not, seem quite un-democratic to me and even biased. But anyway I'll make it a point to stay away from the caste stuff incase it rustles "the clique's" feathers. In my eyes its just arrogant snobbery. You guys make swift assumptions like calling Arain "a gardener caste" yourself and seem throughly upset when anyone counters it. I've personally always tried to be reasonable and understanding and humble when it comes to my own faults.
Thank You
-flyingsimurgh
Can i put statements on wikipedia which are based on BOOKS which i have read offline and are a reputable source? i will provide the page number, ISBN no. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikhilPatelReal ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about alienation,
|
... saw your respons to Boing! - the perfect day, Kafka's birthday. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
A plate of Khichdi for you | |
Here is one plate of
khichdi for you. Khichdi is an Indian
comfort food made from
rice and
lentils and was the inspiration for the
Anglo-Indian dish
kedgeree. Khichdi is also thought to be the inspiration for the popular Egyptian dish,
Kushari. Thank you.
Titodutta (
talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) |
-- Titodutta ( talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi just wanted to enquire if you removed nai being Kshatriyas to Sudras interms of their caste category? Out of the 4 options below with 1 highest and 4 lowest ? What are the nai’s Category? Many argue Kshatriyas and some Sudra? Please tell me : 1. Brahmins (Highest) 2. Kshatriyas ( second highest) 3. Vaishyas ( medium highest) 4. Sudras ( mediumish vague lowest but higher than untouchables) 5. Dalits ( lowest) Sam.Johnanderson ( talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Just so that you know: I am not sure whether the people who were citing "Joseph Thekkedath History of Christianity in India" were citing volume 1 of Mundadan or volume 2. And I only got that from a citation in a bibliography in another book, which I think has the wrong year on it. Cleaning up the duplicates shrank the page size by 5%; and there are rather a lot of citations left to clean. "Menachery G; 1973, 1982, 1998; Podipara, Placid J. 1970; Leslie Brown, 1956; Tisserant, E. 1957" for example. And I have no idea what "Chaput, pp. 7–8." is meant to be pointing to. Uncle G ( talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In the Signpost thingy - is Fram's RL id known? If not, he's using a psuedonym and the person remains anonymous, so my position remains unchanged. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. The ArbCom need to determine whether The Signpost might have risen to that level or attacked (there is no disputing that it was personal from the Fram accounts point of view - NPA applies even to anonymous accounts, or at least is routinely treated as doing so). - Sitush ( talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, this is Bowen here. Thank you for your interest in our project again. My colleague, Sensiblekoala and Modestabcd, mentioned here will post our interview questions to you here shortly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Bobo.03 ( talk) 03:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not writing, of course. I thought that you might like a little reading, though. Uncle G ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir, isn't the mention of race/physical features not allowed in Indian caste article? Shouldn't we remove mention of Risley's races from the Kurmi article? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Now that's sarcasm :) —— SerialNumber 54129 16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The DIB also tells us that Edward Kissane's middle name is Joseph and states that xe was born in Lisselton a village next to Ballybunion.
Nothing to do with improving articles here, sorry, but does anyone have access to page 5 of the Yorkshire Evening Post, 28 August 1920. Specifically an article about a bloke called Ford who died in a drowning accident at Colwyn Bay? I know about the British Newspaper Archive but I would have to create a throwaway email address etc, which is a pain. - Sitush ( talk) 11:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant to say "no more infallible" here. (Or maybe "no less fallible".) Bishonen | talk 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
‘we argued that many parents, K-12 teachers, professors and university administrators have been unknowingly teaching a generation of students to engage in the mental habits commonly seen in people who suffer from anxiety and depression. We suggested that students were beginning to react to words, books, and visiting speakers with fear and anger because they had been taught to exaggerate danger, use dichotomous (or binary) thinking, amplify their first emotional responses, and engage in a number of other cognitive distortions . Such thought patterns directly harmed students’ mental health and interfered with their intellectual development – and sometimes the development of those around them. At some schools, a culture of defensive self-censorship seemed to be emerging, partly in response to students who were quick to “call out” or shame others for small things that they deemed to be insensitive- either to the student doing the calling out or to members of a group that the student was standing up for. We called this pattern vindictive protectiveness and argued that such behavior made it more difficult for all students to have open discussions in which they could practice the essential skills of critical thinking and civil disagreement.’ Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind:How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Penguin Press 2018 p.10
anonymity is falling apart, Mrs. Bayly! ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 10:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir, while genetic studies are not allowed in the caste/tribe article bodies, is it OK to add these in the external links section like in this recent edit? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello there. The article Jatland has been deleted, by me. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatland as delete, and removed the backlinks. During that process, this caught my eye in the lede of Sonipat district:
I probably shouldn't remove it, since I can't read those sources and also since I've been sufficiently involved with the whole Jatland concept by deleting the article, but it's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I checked the history a bit, just to make sure the sentence hadn't been recently snuck in before the existing references (it hadn't). Would you perhaps like to take a look at the references, and, uh, do whatever you think is right with the sentence? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
References
Its ok. Tom Johnson edits. Most of my edits were just to reorganize your document and add more headers. I think it is essential to have descriptive headers in wiki documents so readers can find essential information, like when a boxer took a title or lost one. You might a agree with this, and I'm sorry you couldn't see the utility of this approach. You did a great job of sourcing your information, but left out a few details. I don't think the section "background information" is particularly relevant or necessary, but thats ok, so I put it last. It disrupts the document's sequential flow. Good luck, and I hope you like the box on the right which at least gives quick, essential information for the reader. Wish we could have discussed my changes first.
Best of luck to you..............you did some great research. And no, I very rarely do large edits on other peoples work, particularly those as well researched as yours. I wrote the boxing bio Abraham Jacob Hollandersky, which you will find well written and researched, though I would prefer you not edit it, other than to add information. I recently added quite a bit of info to Daniel Mendoza, which I think you will also find well written, although I do tend to favor more headers than you. Dcw2003 ( talk)``` Dcw2003 ( talk)
I would advise you to find a more descriptive header than "Consolidation"; It is not clear what is consolidated, nor what the section contains.....Two headers for this large section might be advisable. My writing is simpler, and my sources not always beyond reproach, as are yours, but I believe the reader can more easily identify critical information due, in part to frequent use of headers. I added 5' 9" as height to Johnson, and listed him as a heavyweight..........I hope you can keep this information.
Again best of luck...your work and research are exceptional, David
there's a post at the bottom of my talk page for which your expertise may be fruitful. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sir, I had posted a request on help desk with a caption "To check about reliability of website". An user suggested me your name to ask about the answer of a particular question which she couldn't answer. She told that you can help only. Please! go on the help desk and answer that query (caption provided above). Thank you. ( 223.230.143.123 ( talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC))
∯WBG converse 09:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
as it sickens me, but when you wrote this, is this what you were thinking of;
So again, I am curious. What did you mean by this? PackMecEng ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
social club or a venue for people with special needs[3] is just people respecting the principles of the encyclopedia. Just an aside here, the special needs comment is rather unbecoming. Also everyone forced out will be replaced and the pedia will be just fine. I do want to mention though I was not referring to you specifically, I try not to guess motivations of people I do no know. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup I was referring to civility, which is why I linked to that one. If you think our conversation here is just as civil as the things Corbett has been saying I think you need to re-calibrate what civility actually is. In regards to losing integrity, I think we will have to agree to disagree. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It was voluntary. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to know that website "Knowledge @ Wharton" exist really or it is fake. Can I trust on the content provided on that website? I found some important information on that website and want it to add in one of the article. I checked about it on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but I couldn't find this website name there. Please! tell me that this website exist really and can I trust fully on its content. Thank you. ( 223.230.145.170 ( talk) 16:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC))
Hey sitush plz add notables which you removed right now Xxxxxxxxy ( talk) 05:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear sitush I m new here Where to find your edit summary plz explain Xxxxxxxxy ( talk) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dcw2003 ( talk) I think it is essential to say when a boxer wins his primary title. The critical aspect of online documents, even short ones, is to find essential information quickly. This can't be done without titled headers. THe dates in the headers may not be necessary in some cases, I suppose. The most critical event in a boxers life is what title he took, and when he took it. I have written professional bios for many years. The only way to find information in wiki is with section headers. I can make them shorter if you like. All the top articles in wiki, the A and B articles have effective section headers. Readers don't want to search through a document to find essential information. This is a base element of all online documentation. We don't use indexes. I hope you don't modify my work, but I will discuss it with you if you wish, even by phone. Can a reader find the most essential information in your articles quickly? Thanks............I'm not intending to be critical
If you don't want to use headers, you're free not to use them. Thanks
SITUSH=== I will make my section headers shorter, fair enough. But if you check the revision history, I'm writing most of these English boxing bios and adding many, many references. I average an additional 20-30 citations per article. I see your logic, and hope we can reach an understanding.
Please try not to use insulting language,.................like "you're making a hash" of these bios..................I 'm writing most of them, and they are much better with what I've added, I think You'll agree. I'll keep the section headers small.
Dcw2003 ( talk)Please do not revert my articles. The work was lengthy, and really better than the articles were when I started. Most of the articles I started on were STUBS............several sentences. I've done a few of the American fighters who were bareknuckle champions. At least two were only stubs when I started. I would be stunned and disappointed if you reverted these. I have gone back and am trying to make the section headers fewer and shorter. They do match the sections. Please please please do not revert my articles. You will destroy nearly all my work. Please assure me you will not revert these articles. Please stop following my contributions. Please assure me you will not revert my articles.
I've rolled back most of this on Talk:Ghirth, but what does he even want? To put it all on Ghirth (horrible thought)? I've written to Utcursch to ask him to have a word, but I don't think he's around. And probably you aren't either. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
Hello, I'm seeing a strong resemblance here and here. What do you think? Tracy Von Doom ( talk) 04:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Well, I'm not sure what is in
this particular example, but in general I see it as a BrE/AmE difference. As Lynne Guist says
here, Americans play with Legos and step on a Lego, while the British play with Lego and step on a piece of Lego or a Lego brick
. So there you have it. I know which I prefer, and I feel that wars have probably been fought over less, but hey. Best wishes
DBaK (
talk) 18:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Legois the appropriate form here. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In case there was any misunderstanding; I'm not saying asking for help with AfD is okay, not at all. I'm saying there's no rule against saying "come help me improve this article" in general (presumably, not when it's at AfD). Your points about canvassing within a walled garden are valid, I'm just worried that users like Jesswade and others who haven't done much in the project space are being caught in the crossfire. That's all. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit. ∯WBG converse 14:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any truth to it? That is
“It can range from slurs to having your edits reverted or edited on frivolous grounds,” Lakshane says. “You have to take the trouble of making the edits and doing the research, but also defending them. Some women I know have quit because of Wikipedia harassment which spilled into real life.” Lakshane and her team themselves faced harassment for suggesting the community toolkit.
And what are we supposed to do about
Harini Barath, who helped organise three Indian Women in Science editathons, agrees that the insistence that “notability must be proved with references” often leaves out women scientists who don’t have an online presence that is deemed adequate, leading to pages being flagged or deleted, as in Strickland’s case. “There aren’t many references because women don’t get their due as much as men when it comes to being published or getting recognition for their work,” Lakshane says. “Their work gets appropriated and there is a dearth of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. So if you’re a woman artisan in India, there will not be much to cite about you."
At least the article does go on to acknowledge that the latter issue is nothing really do with WP, although sticking the point as an aside at the end of the thing, by which time many readers will have tuned out, smacks of sensationalised journalism. And the entire piece smacks of being a press release, which ToI routinely print without thought. - Sitush ( talk) 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia’s rule is that when a person becomes notable because of their death, their article will be titled as if the death was what made them notable, rather than their life.
I appreciate your sentiment but the overbroad nonsense that is WP:NFOOTY is never going to be reformed if you vote keep, even if regretful. It'll take some AFDs ending in a consensus for deletion or at least no consensus to show how it needs an overhaul. Reywas92 Talk 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your edits. Paul 1953 ( talk) 06:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush, I'm not sure what happened to my previous post (I'm new to Wikipedia editing!) and would be grateful if you could have a look at Dona Bertarelli's biography which hasn't been updated since some time: /info/en/?search=Dona_Bertarelli I've suggested quite a few updates with sources. You'll see from my user profile that I work for her, so I hope I'm doing things correctly. Please could you let me have any feedback? Thanks a lot, Mia MiaNorcaro ( talk) 10:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Howdy. Ya forgot to sign you 'statement' at the Arbcom case you've requested :) GoodDay ( talk) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration Fæ has been declined by the committee and archived. If the issues presented in the case have not yet been resolved, the involved parties are encouraged to pursue other means of dispute resolution. Bradv 🍁 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully working now? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
do you know hindi language. Lalit Jugtawat ( talk) 11:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Then please ask them that chah (चाह) and ran(रण) means in hindi and then redo my edit. Also ask them how the union of two different words is done in hindi which is called "sandhi". So the word union of chah and ran means charan and that would means 'the one who loves battle'. You can confirm it from your friends who know Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit Jugtawat ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hoi, I noticed your exchanges on the talk page of Jess Wade. What you fail to appreciate is that people may edit for their own reasons. Some are interested in Pokemon characters others are more involved in science. For Wikipedia as a project the bias in its reporting is staggering. There is not enough about India, there is not about female scientists. When people take up such a topic it is not canvassing, it is working on aspects of Wikipedia where it falls short.
Your personal story, being deaf et al is no justification for attacking a concern that is fully justified. For Wikipedia to be balanced we either do not allow new male scientists or we allow for people like Jess to focus on our short commings.
Given that you indicate to be a scientist, give me your ORCID identifier (by mail) and I will make you your Scholia... That is what I do, as well as having worked on many subjects relating to India all in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 08:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There are some things related to BLPs that can be tricky to deal with. The classic example is sexuality but others include religious belief and caste. In those situations, we ask that the article subject has self-identified in some rock-solid souce. I don't see that issues dependent on skin colour are any different. Yes, it may be self-evident that someone is black/person of colour/African-American/whatever the correct terminology may be, as in the case you refer to, but to repeatedly stress that point requires that they make a "big thing" of it themselves. As I said, I am profoundly deaf - I can't hear anything without the most powerful hearing aids, and nothing below 110db even with them - but it does not define me, despite the daily discrimination I face; similarly, a black person may choose not to be defined by the colour of their skin etc. Unless they do - for example, because of being an activist - it seems wrong to overly emphasise the point through multiple mentions of it. Oddly, another person attended Oxford shortly after me and claimed to be in a similar position: she trumpeted about it, got on TV shows because of it, was claimed to be the "first" at Oxbridge, got a job as a court interpreter because of it and was then exposed (not by me - I've never wrote about her until now - but by her employers) as a fraud on many levels, including the extent of deafness itself.
Regarding ranking people etc, a first is very often a notable thing. In some circumstances, such as winning a bronze medal in the Olympic Games, even a third may be notable because it is a formally recognised achievement. However, when we start mentioning someone as 10th or 100th or 1000th, things often become more problematic. Where do we draw that line? And when the information comes from an advocacy group, it is often of dubious reliability: such groups are usually considered at WP:RSN to be reliable only for statements about themselves. Furthermore, it is possible to create ever more precise definitions/standards in many lists, just as athletic races have been timed in seconds, then tenths, then hundredths etc. Where is that line drawn? At what point is it actually significant rather than, for want of a better term, geeky? And at what point does a phrase such as "one of the first" or "one of the earliest" become vague?
With regard to the specific article, I have no doubt about worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contributor, though, had made quite a few significant errors in another of their recent creations that might in fact have significantly embarrassed the subject (eg: mis-stating her qualifications, her role in a large team and, IIRC, a claim that she was the first African-American to discover an element). They're on a mission to improve coverage of similar people, which is fine, but we need to be accurate and we need not to overegg the pudding with poor sourcing, misrepresentation of those sources or making a fuss about something of which the article subject might not themselves be making a big deal. For example, I acknowledge that the person in the specific article sits on the diversity committee for their university, but it would be wrong to say or even suggest that she does so as a representative of her ethnicity unless that is indeed sourced, and the suggestion might arise if we have inappropriately "banged on" about it beforehand. People sit on committees for all sorts of reasons, occasionally not even willingly as has happened to me.
These issues often arise when someone gets too close to a subject and/or when their experience of contributing here is confined to a very narrow topic area. I suppose it is a sort of "can't see the wood for the trees" thing. My advice to new contributors would always be to edit broadly, not narrowly, but I do appreciate that some people only have a limited area of interest and obviously especially so when new (one article!). But once you've created, say, a couple of dozen articles in one area, it is really, really useful to look at how things are done in another and then revisit your own creations. - Sitush ( talk) 13:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ GerardM: - Sitush ( talk) 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I've just googled "twitter clarice phelps" and if you do the same you will see just how quickly our misrepresentation of that person has spread. There will also be all of the mirror sites etc. It has the potential significantly to affect her career and we should be appalled if we are the originators of it. - Sitush ( talk) 09:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush, I am sorry for saying this thing about nationalist. I think I was wrong, it is just confusion over stock but I learned by looking at more sources that it does not matter if stock or water is used. This does not change based on different nations but either can be used, so it is a factual error, contradicted by multiple sources, but it is not nationalist and I apologize for my mistake to say this. Shofet tsaddiq ( talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Will some passing admin please block Mynameiskautilya3 - Sitush ( talk) 17:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Done by Widr. Thanks, whether you saw this or not. - Sitush ( talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Gazal world ( talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This person is a sock pupet of the person banned from Wikepdia /info/en/?search=User:Robert_Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.137.66 ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Why? Why should the latest peer-reviewed science not be used on a topic that is very relevant to it? It's not" too variable, too small in sample size, usually speculative and based on a fast-developing new science"
You are obviously very ignorant on how SNPs are sourced, sequenced, compared and an admixture is determined for a population group. It's literally based on our DNA and is very accurate. Give me one good reason not to add genetic peer-reviewed science other than it upsets you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, after the reading the guidelines it makes some sense. I still have one question -- the race nd ethnicity guidelines say From "a modern scientific standpoint, ancestry comes down to haplogroups." this is what the study i posted was based on. Is that wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abh9850 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, I made a general reply at WP:BN related to your comment, but didn't ping anyone. As you had not yet commented at Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards, I wanted to let you know that it was running and would be the best place to discuss potential changes to the admin activity policy. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Should the minimum number of required edits/actions be raised to ten, in order to demonstrate at least marginal engagement with the project?is "It should be 100 edits per year" - feel free to make your voice heard. — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the utility of the Authority Control template, please. I've just looked at Karl Lagerfeld and it has generated a massive number of hidden categories. Then I clicked on some of the entries in the template and I'd say that roughly half of them point to nothing in particular, at least one appears to be circular, some are not in English, and another (the WorldCat one) is effectively a duplicate of the VIAF one and actually says so! Seems like pretty much a complete waste of space to me, and certainly was a complete waste of my time. Is this all being driven from the crazy WikiData project? - Sitush ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Made changes to Etymology in Vanniyar. Please check once and modify as required Reason being some are already mentioned in history section and also Etymology would be usage and meaning of words.
Thanks very much
Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
Is there actually such a thing or is it a mis-spelling of Sheikh? None of the references seem to bear out the existence of a Shaikh over a Sheikh.-- regentspark ( comment) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Vettuva Gounder one of the caste using Gounder title.But you are redirect to Gounder.why? In Tamilnadu Gounder title using castes are Vettuva Gounder,Urali Gounder,Vanniyar etc Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk) 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Am I right to be feeling a strange sense of deja vu? -- regentspark ( comment) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Highpeaks35. There is some reference to a discussion at User talk:Highpeaks35#Indian subcontinent in which you participated. So you might know the background to some of this. If all the claims about Highpeaks35 are true, some admin action may be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Long time. Hope you are doing well and feeling OK. Sorry to bother. An editor called Xenani is consistently trying to add OR stuff to Nadar pages. If you are free, please look into it. Nadar climber talk. I am not sure what to do with this guy. Cya later. TC Mayan302 ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have written on the side of Muthuraja.Kudiyaanavar tamil meaning is Farmer. Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk) 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Titodutta ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know sumant singh jhala Tripathijidubey ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sir, a living person needs to self-identify his caste but what about the deceased? For example Nanji Kalidas Mehta and Mahadev Govind Ranade. Kindly enlighten. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There is constant vandalism in article Maravar. Please put a Edit restriction on the article. Verified contents are being removed, please help Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Sangitha rani111
Thank you very much Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
Hi Sitush, in the history of this page. I found the removed content interesting and was a real research. Can I add it back. MRRaja001 ( talk) 12:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush. You created both articles which obviously are about the same person. The article G. Chockalingam is more detailed so I propose that the content of that article be preserved. Both articles can be merged. It seems that the kk spelling is somewhat more common. So if the final article about this person should be found under G. Chokkalingam, then the best procedure may be to have the current two sentence stub at G. Chokkalingam deleted and then to move the current article G. Chockalingam to G. Chokkalingam which would leave G. Chockalingam as a redirect. If on the other hand this person is better known as G. Chockalingam, then that article should remain and G. Chokkalingam should be turned into a redirect. -- Proofreader ( talk) 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sir, would you kindly check the recent edits? I've removed the Indic script and re added some content reliably sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
how are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.68.236 ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
a whole lot of reviews (and some more, which are not mentioned), as to the People of India (ANSI) volumes and I guess that's more than enough to grant a stand-alone article to the series. What do you say? Needless to say, the reviews are almost always negative and highlights on a vast range of issues :-) ∯WBG converse 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Fed up of the professionally offended. The likes of Fae should take note of comments such as those highlighted by Joe Lycett here. - Sitush ( talk) 06:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Returning to my opening remark, an apt description is here - "much ado being made by the people who make being offended a way of life". I find it tiresome. - Sitush ( talk) 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Sir, can castes be quoted from personal websites of the subject. This article seems to be using this website for this purpose. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 14:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saranya Bhagyaraj might be dodgy - 2 x delete, 1 x keep, 1 x draft doesn't look like the sort of AfD a non-admin should be closing, whatever the merits of the various comments. - Sitush ( talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello @ Sitush: I great admire you as an editor but noticed you recently made wholesale edits on Idar State rolling back - appropriately so - a bunch of poorly sourced changes. However, your changes also have rolled back a bunch of minor edits I and others have made along the way, which you probably would not have an objection to. For example, your rollbacks now again refer to Idar as a princely state, which it was only during the British Raj. In its long history before the Raj, it existed as a sovereign state or in vassalage to other states like Gujarat Sultanate.
When I started working on the article, it was in very poor shape (and it still is) but I decided to make positive, incremental changes. Unfortunately, your wholesale rollback has undid some of my work.
I wouldn't mind if actively-engaged editors made challenges to my edits in somewhat proximity to when I made the edits, so I can discuss and challenge them. However, you seem to have stepped in long after the edits were made, and unrolled a whole bunch of edits including mine and succeeding edits, so that it is hard for me to actually have an pinpointed debate about one or another change.
I am frustrated because I consider myself a reasonable editor and often ask for and accept your advice and that of other editors. However, the nature of indiscriminate edits makes it difficult for me to trace back my edits and separate the good edits from bad edits. It is discouraging me from positively engaging with Idar State. Deccantrap ( talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
So nice to see you editing, Sitush, and removing so much crap! Bishonen | talk 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC).
Sir, can this and this be used to support that Virendra Sehwag and Vijender Singh are Jats? They didn't self identify explicitly but said it indirectly. I've removed a lot of entries from List of Jats article added recently by a sockpuppet of User:Dahiya1208. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes they are jats
Do you see anything over
this source that supports :- Washuta says she is praised for her numerous essays such as " How Much Indian Was I? My Fellow Student Asked".
?
∯WBG
converse 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete all the reference from British regime book ? You have created lots of spelling mistake in the article ? I've complained about you. And where is it written that citation from British and before can't be given. PerfectingNEI ( talk) 08:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems we got to the end of the 159s, except for the new additions that keep popping up. Congratulations on all the hard work. Reyk YO! 09:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes in the article some part is copy pasted but I give you different references so what is the problem with you I give different sources for this article so how can you deleted it. If you have any problem with peragraph you can fix it but pls do not delete the whole article.
I thought of your recent remarks on my page about cultural differences in national discourse when I stumbled on this userpage description, now deleted. I've redacted the name of the institution and shortened it a bit:
X College, one of the most illustrious tuition centers in Y has always astonished and impressed people with its unique teaching style, better facilities, counselling sections and its way of interaction both with parents and pupils. Since its establishment in 1972, it has taken special care in moulding and transforming students into better citizens, making them a part of a vibrant society and thereby promising them sparkling morns ahead. Not-only does it coach but also instils courage, confidence and knowledge in young ones. […] X College has already contributed a lot and will continue to sustain its glittering victories in the days ahead too.
(Straight off the institution's own website.)
Bishonen |
talk 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC).
South Coast Railway zone was announced officially, but continue to function as South Central Railway zone till date. The page and its railway articles got changed zone name. The references still say south central. What should be done?-- Vin09 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
On 27 February 2019, AP part of Waltair Division, Vijayawada, Guntur and Guntakal divisions were merged into newly formed South Coast Railway zone.I'm not sure what to do but each article in the new zone certainly needs to refer to the move. I'll ping BrownHairedGirl for advice regarding categories. - Sitush ( talk) 05:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As of now, the a new railway division was announced, but it to function completely, it may take some timeis that we may never know when the "some time" is over. I would tentatively suggest that we should change things in accordance with the official announcement that was made but that is likely to present a sourcing issue, as with the AP/Telangana bifurcation. No easy answer that I can see, I'm afraid, so it will be best to seek a wider consensus. You might also want to notify the Railways Wikiproject of the discussion at WT:INB because I suspect they will have dealt with this type of thing before. Sorry I cannot be of more help. - Sitush ( talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Vin09 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 !!
Yes Exactly. I meant to express the same. Thank you very much.
Thank you Sitush :)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Hi Sitush, it looks like we need to review these edits. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:28, 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))
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)
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)
dude just don't erase the pages okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahanjhon ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
Hello status ji..
I have more details for this page ... kindly contact me to my email address
Thank you SakarayShankar ( talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My edits are being removed by user @HinduKshatrana on @Chudasama_dynasty page, he is saying that sources which are in Gujarati are not reliable , is it so ? If Hemchandracharya's Sanskrit sources are reliable than what's wrong in noted poet Zaverchandmeghani's Gujarati sorces , Kindly protect my edits ,please help. Raakuldeep ( talk) 05:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct.
∯WBG
converse 10:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I've seen you comment on the notoriously unreliable caste articles and their sources, and I thought of you just now, as I ran into this, Siege_of_Cawnpore#Bibighar_massacre. It reads like Christian hagiography of martyrs thrown to the lions, and this is the source. Many of the sources in that article are pretty old; I wonder if modern sources exist and if they might not present a more neutral assessment. BTW I got here via Joseph Rooney (priest), which is pretty interesting. Drmies ( talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you (when you're back!), or one of your talkpage watchers, take a look at this article? I raised its protection level on spotting a 3RR report but can't judge the merits of the recent stream of edits that removed/added several kb of content. Abecedare ( talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Im one the guys who added the several kb of content.:) But I'm ever so slightly annoyed at its removal. All the gotra (sub-castes) I added were taken from either H.A.Rose or Noor Arain and Ishtiaq Ahmed. Its not my own conjecture on the issue. I'm wasn't sure if Arain are Rajput or Arab and to that extent I represented both sides of the coin and I also created the infobox currently on the page reflecting both opinions (although someone has recently changed that too). As of recently I have shifted more towards the view that Arain are Suryvanshi Rajput -as Ishtiaq Ahmed mentions this as one of the oldest theories, based on the genetics work of the Harrapa Project which I've reflected on the Arain (delhi) page its also due to this genetics work that I wrote down the Raja Bhutta oral tradition (which is also present in the works of H.A.Rose and not my own conjecture] since it would seem to have the most evidence behind it (but i still added the fact that they had higher amounts of baloch genetics than other punjabi castes in an effort to be as impartial as possible). I also added Arain to the suryavanshi page and put their infobox caste as suryavanshi.
I also think that its crucial to have the "Sutlej vs ghaggar vs hissar arain section". Because previous users seem to be very confused about the status of Arain as either zamindar or market gardening or Malis and i think that the heading is essential to explain the sutlej arain as a landowning caste and all other arain to be occupational appropriations as mentioned by H.A.Rose. Again this isnt my own conjecture. Indeed it makes little sense to declare arain as not being landowning (as the version before me did) when they owned 33% Jalandhar (see gazetteer). I understand other users adding the market gardening reference and compering Arain to Malis but its poor research on their behalf when this only applies to Hissar Arain and Arain of non-sutlej areas as H.A.Rose describes.
Another thing that annoys me is that my addition of Arain being "to a man mohammedan and orthodox" is for some reason always removed even though I've taken it directly from H.A.Rose. But i think that its an important point as it helps differentiate arain from Hindu Sainis and Kamboj to whom they are often compared (although the genetic testing has shown arain to be distinct from them)
Anyway It took me a lot of effort to write down that content and would appreciate if it was kept there, especially due to the fact that most if not all is backed up by sources. If there are indeed legitimate bones of contention then i dont mind seeing it removed but otherwise I find it annoying to see it removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
I welcome the block on the page as necessary but its also locked me out too so i can't revert the edition to my own.
Anyway thank you for your time -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you're not editing content right now, but in the hope that you'll return, I wanted to bring these edits to your attention. I hope they don't make you less likely to return, but I know you've dealt with far worse. I simply don't have the time right now. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know your name is in a sidebar about striking editors for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This opinion piece on the BBC as well as the guy's book The Truth About Us: The Politics of Information from Manu to Modi? I have no desire to dip my toes into caste issues, but do try to stay abreast of most major historical developments... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature"; there's far too much evidence of substantial caste hierarchy from pre-colonial times. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Here are two, both available free on the internet (at least for now), both written by famous historians of India, and both downloadable:
Two others that are slightly older, but also written by famous historians of India Romila Thapar and Percival Spear are also available free:
For what's its worth, while I'm at it, here are most of the remaining currently popular books:
Some popular textbooks on Indian history
|
---|
|
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: I am not contributing at the moment (see section further above) but would encourage you to take a look at some of the suggestions even if you have no intention of editing in the topic area. It's fascinating stuff and, of course, has a direct effect on over 1.2 billion living people. - Sitush ( talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Trying to parse the ideological battle above, it occurred to me that there could be an issue of semantics going on. So, looking up the OED, I found this:
Caste 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; the members of each caste being socially equal, having the same religious rites, and generally following the same occupation or profession; those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another.
- The original casts were four: 1st, Brahmans or priestly caste; 2nd, the Kshatriyas or military caste; 3rd, the Vaisyas or merchants; 4th, the Sudras, or artisans and labourers. These have in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude, almost every occupation or variety of occupation having now its special caste.
- This is now the leading sense, which influences all others.
I have to say kudos to OED for capturing the British POV so perfectly. There are about ten quotations given, ranging from 1613 to 1875, all British, including James Mill's History of British India. (I guess I have to read this book some day.)
The Indian usage of the term is not covered by the OED. But we have other sources. André Béteille writes
The English word "caste" corresponds more or less closely to what is locally referred to as jati or kulam. In addition to jati and kulam, many of the villagers, particularly the Brahmins, are familiar with the concept of varna. Although the terms jati and varna refer normally to different things, the distinction is not consistently maintained. Varna refers to one of the four main categories into which Hindu society is traditionally divided; jati refers generally to a much smaller group (see Srinivas, 1962, pp. 63—69). The English word "caste" is used to denote both, not only by foreigners but also by villagers who are familiar with English. It will be shown that there is no real contradiction in this, for the word jati has a series of meanings, and by extension it is applied to what, according to traditional usage, should be designated as varna. Thus, it is quite common for a person to say that such and such an individual is a Brahmin, or even a Kshatriya, by jati. Within a given context such usage is intelligible, and does not generally lead to ambiguity (see Béteille, 1964). [1]
Béteille gets it almost right except that he jumps to the conclusion that the talk of "Brahmins" and "Kshatriyas" necessarily means varna. But these two groups are also jatis. They have been so from the beginning. Only if they use terms like "Vaishya" and "Sudra" can we be sure that they are talking about varna. A remarkably lucid Christian book explains it as follows:
The one English word 'caste' has long been used to translate two different Indian words. One of these is varna, one of the 'castes' described in the Hindu law-books. ... The other Indian word translated 'caste' is kulam. This is the endogamous social unit usually following one traditional occupation. The kulam is sometimes described as a sub-caste within the varna, but this is a misleading attempt to relate the two terms, for it is the kulam which is the actually functioning social unit, governed by its own 'caste' council, and there may be sub-castes within it. [2]
So the ideological battle is underscored by a battle for language. The Indians want to use 'caste' for jati or kulam and they essentially refuse to use it for varna. On the other hand, the British want to use it for varna and refuse to use it for jati or kulam.
So this seems to be crux of the matter. Even Susan Bayly, who is quoted in the BBC article, is using the term in the British sense when she talks about the "people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance
". She cites "Bengal, the Punjab and southern India, as well as the far northwest and the central Deccan plain" as examples, which are all places where the varna order did not exist.
Finally, I might point out that OED shows how the British owned up Brahmin fundamentalism 100%, with phrases like "from time immemorial been divided", "those of one caste have no social intercourse with those of another", "in the course of ages been sub-divided into an immense multitude". A Brahmin traditionalist from the 17th or 18th century would not have written anything differently. It is also ironic that this kind of pseudo-history should make it into the OED, because perhaps without the peudo-history, the British sense of the term cannot be understood! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I am aware you’re not editing at the moment but can you or any of your talk page watchers investigate this? @ FlyingSimurgh: is making undiscussed page moves to various articles including The Solar Dynasty, The Lunar Dynasty etc. As you will see, he is adding fake coats of arms and pushing castecruft nonsense. Literally all of his sources are snippet views, Raj-era sources and other wikis. If anyone could take a look, that would be very helpful since it’s getting quite ridiculous. 213.205.240.130 ( talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, The moves were me lining up the khsatriya dynasties with each other and to better correspond with the lunar dynasty which was already called that. Fake coat of arms are indeed fake, but actually if you see the various branches of suryavanshi dynasties they use exactly the same "sun in splendour heraldry" with a face on it and i already captioned the image as "Sun (in splendor) features heavily in the coat of arms of the dynasty and its branches" so as not to mislead anyone. Same thing with the chandravanshi. Honestly it was just my attempt to make the infobox look more comparable to the infobox of western dynasties like bourbon, saxe-coburg etc. I don't think I've ever used another wiki as a source but definitely I'm guilty of using raj-era sources. Honestly I had no idea that raj-era sources are off limits. Sorry for that. Feel free to change the pages as you like. But I don't think the version should be reverted entirely. Because my key contribution of the branches and castes are generally sound. Thanks and sorry for any mess - I assure you it was un-intentional. Regards -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright mate, take it easy, I'm new to wikipedia so honestly I don't know the rules and I've admited as much above. I'm not pushing my own caste agenda, I'm neither Arain not Rajput and really I mostly started off with editing pages for Mughal related stuff and princely states.
I think its completely unfair to call Arain a gardener caste, I think it just shows a lack of research on your own behalf. I can even site peer-reviewed stuff to show you that SUTLEJ Arain have been considered to be one of the landowning castes. After all they owned 33% of Jalandhar during the Raj-era. Mali's of other provinces often appropriated for themselves the caste of arain but as the raj noted these were not real arain (although as you've pointed out raj sources aren't accepted), not dissimilar from hindu sainis (malis aka gardeners) claiming rajput ancestry (and their status only changed during the raj era). I wonder if you guys have a bias because, for some reason no one on wikipedia has a problem with Hindu sainis or even Bhonsle being on that page but everyone is up in arms about Arains . As for Arain being Khastriya the political scientist Ishtiaq Ahmed says and I quote :"It is worth mentioning however that some early Arain accounts claim a Surajbansi Rajput origin". As far as I recall, suryavanshi is one of the major Kshatriyas Lineages.
Now as for being dishonest, that wasn't my intention, Ive tried to provide sources on everything from the genetics stuff to the history stuff on that page. I've gone back to the page but it seems you've made all the edits anyway. On the talk page for Arain, I've registered my opinion and differences and have always been completely objective.
Frankly it was unknown to me that the Indian section of Wikipedia was run as a
Jagir by a clique who's verdict on things from raj-era sources being blanket unreliable to Hindu Sainis being khsatriya but Muslim Arain not, seem quite un-democratic to me and even biased. But anyway I'll make it a point to stay away from the caste stuff incase it rustles "the clique's" feathers. In my eyes its just arrogant snobbery. You guys make swift assumptions like calling Arain "a gardener caste" yourself and seem throughly upset when anyone counters it. I've personally always tried to be reasonable and understanding and humble when it comes to my own faults.
Thank You
-flyingsimurgh
Can i put statements on wikipedia which are based on BOOKS which i have read offline and are a reputable source? i will provide the page number, ISBN no. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikhilPatelReal ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about alienation,
|
... saw your respons to Boing! - the perfect day, Kafka's birthday. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
A plate of Khichdi for you | |
Here is one plate of
khichdi for you. Khichdi is an Indian
comfort food made from
rice and
lentils and was the inspiration for the
Anglo-Indian dish
kedgeree. Khichdi is also thought to be the inspiration for the popular Egyptian dish,
Kushari. Thank you.
Titodutta (
talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) |
-- Titodutta ( talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi just wanted to enquire if you removed nai being Kshatriyas to Sudras interms of their caste category? Out of the 4 options below with 1 highest and 4 lowest ? What are the nai’s Category? Many argue Kshatriyas and some Sudra? Please tell me : 1. Brahmins (Highest) 2. Kshatriyas ( second highest) 3. Vaishyas ( medium highest) 4. Sudras ( mediumish vague lowest but higher than untouchables) 5. Dalits ( lowest) Sam.Johnanderson ( talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Just so that you know: I am not sure whether the people who were citing "Joseph Thekkedath History of Christianity in India" were citing volume 1 of Mundadan or volume 2. And I only got that from a citation in a bibliography in another book, which I think has the wrong year on it. Cleaning up the duplicates shrank the page size by 5%; and there are rather a lot of citations left to clean. "Menachery G; 1973, 1982, 1998; Podipara, Placid J. 1970; Leslie Brown, 1956; Tisserant, E. 1957" for example. And I have no idea what "Chaput, pp. 7–8." is meant to be pointing to. Uncle G ( talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In the Signpost thingy - is Fram's RL id known? If not, he's using a psuedonym and the person remains anonymous, so my position remains unchanged. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. The ArbCom need to determine whether The Signpost might have risen to that level or attacked (there is no disputing that it was personal from the Fram accounts point of view - NPA applies even to anonymous accounts, or at least is routinely treated as doing so). - Sitush ( talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, this is Bowen here. Thank you for your interest in our project again. My colleague, Sensiblekoala and Modestabcd, mentioned here will post our interview questions to you here shortly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Bobo.03 ( talk) 03:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not writing, of course. I thought that you might like a little reading, though. Uncle G ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir, isn't the mention of race/physical features not allowed in Indian caste article? Shouldn't we remove mention of Risley's races from the Kurmi article? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Now that's sarcasm :) —— SerialNumber 54129 16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The DIB also tells us that Edward Kissane's middle name is Joseph and states that xe was born in Lisselton a village next to Ballybunion.
Nothing to do with improving articles here, sorry, but does anyone have access to page 5 of the Yorkshire Evening Post, 28 August 1920. Specifically an article about a bloke called Ford who died in a drowning accident at Colwyn Bay? I know about the British Newspaper Archive but I would have to create a throwaway email address etc, which is a pain. - Sitush ( talk) 11:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant to say "no more infallible" here. (Or maybe "no less fallible".) Bishonen | talk 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
‘we argued that many parents, K-12 teachers, professors and university administrators have been unknowingly teaching a generation of students to engage in the mental habits commonly seen in people who suffer from anxiety and depression. We suggested that students were beginning to react to words, books, and visiting speakers with fear and anger because they had been taught to exaggerate danger, use dichotomous (or binary) thinking, amplify their first emotional responses, and engage in a number of other cognitive distortions . Such thought patterns directly harmed students’ mental health and interfered with their intellectual development – and sometimes the development of those around them. At some schools, a culture of defensive self-censorship seemed to be emerging, partly in response to students who were quick to “call out” or shame others for small things that they deemed to be insensitive- either to the student doing the calling out or to members of a group that the student was standing up for. We called this pattern vindictive protectiveness and argued that such behavior made it more difficult for all students to have open discussions in which they could practice the essential skills of critical thinking and civil disagreement.’ Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind:How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Penguin Press 2018 p.10
anonymity is falling apart, Mrs. Bayly! ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 10:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir, while genetic studies are not allowed in the caste/tribe article bodies, is it OK to add these in the external links section like in this recent edit? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello there. The article Jatland has been deleted, by me. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatland as delete, and removed the backlinks. During that process, this caught my eye in the lede of Sonipat district:
I probably shouldn't remove it, since I can't read those sources and also since I've been sufficiently involved with the whole Jatland concept by deleting the article, but it's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I checked the history a bit, just to make sure the sentence hadn't been recently snuck in before the existing references (it hadn't). Would you perhaps like to take a look at the references, and, uh, do whatever you think is right with the sentence? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
References
Its ok. Tom Johnson edits. Most of my edits were just to reorganize your document and add more headers. I think it is essential to have descriptive headers in wiki documents so readers can find essential information, like when a boxer took a title or lost one. You might a agree with this, and I'm sorry you couldn't see the utility of this approach. You did a great job of sourcing your information, but left out a few details. I don't think the section "background information" is particularly relevant or necessary, but thats ok, so I put it last. It disrupts the document's sequential flow. Good luck, and I hope you like the box on the right which at least gives quick, essential information for the reader. Wish we could have discussed my changes first.
Best of luck to you..............you did some great research. And no, I very rarely do large edits on other peoples work, particularly those as well researched as yours. I wrote the boxing bio Abraham Jacob Hollandersky, which you will find well written and researched, though I would prefer you not edit it, other than to add information. I recently added quite a bit of info to Daniel Mendoza, which I think you will also find well written, although I do tend to favor more headers than you. Dcw2003 ( talk)``` Dcw2003 ( talk)
I would advise you to find a more descriptive header than "Consolidation"; It is not clear what is consolidated, nor what the section contains.....Two headers for this large section might be advisable. My writing is simpler, and my sources not always beyond reproach, as are yours, but I believe the reader can more easily identify critical information due, in part to frequent use of headers. I added 5' 9" as height to Johnson, and listed him as a heavyweight..........I hope you can keep this information.
Again best of luck...your work and research are exceptional, David
there's a post at the bottom of my talk page for which your expertise may be fruitful. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sir, I had posted a request on help desk with a caption "To check about reliability of website". An user suggested me your name to ask about the answer of a particular question which she couldn't answer. She told that you can help only. Please! go on the help desk and answer that query (caption provided above). Thank you. ( 223.230.143.123 ( talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC))
∯WBG converse 09:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
as it sickens me, but when you wrote this, is this what you were thinking of;
So again, I am curious. What did you mean by this? PackMecEng ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
social club or a venue for people with special needs[3] is just people respecting the principles of the encyclopedia. Just an aside here, the special needs comment is rather unbecoming. Also everyone forced out will be replaced and the pedia will be just fine. I do want to mention though I was not referring to you specifically, I try not to guess motivations of people I do no know. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup I was referring to civility, which is why I linked to that one. If you think our conversation here is just as civil as the things Corbett has been saying I think you need to re-calibrate what civility actually is. In regards to losing integrity, I think we will have to agree to disagree. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It was voluntary. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to know that website "Knowledge @ Wharton" exist really or it is fake. Can I trust on the content provided on that website? I found some important information on that website and want it to add in one of the article. I checked about it on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but I couldn't find this website name there. Please! tell me that this website exist really and can I trust fully on its content. Thank you. ( 223.230.145.170 ( talk) 16:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC))
Hey sitush plz add notables which you removed right now Xxxxxxxxy ( talk) 05:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear sitush I m new here Where to find your edit summary plz explain Xxxxxxxxy ( talk) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Dcw2003 ( talk) I think it is essential to say when a boxer wins his primary title. The critical aspect of online documents, even short ones, is to find essential information quickly. This can't be done without titled headers. THe dates in the headers may not be necessary in some cases, I suppose. The most critical event in a boxers life is what title he took, and when he took it. I have written professional bios for many years. The only way to find information in wiki is with section headers. I can make them shorter if you like. All the top articles in wiki, the A and B articles have effective section headers. Readers don't want to search through a document to find essential information. This is a base element of all online documentation. We don't use indexes. I hope you don't modify my work, but I will discuss it with you if you wish, even by phone. Can a reader find the most essential information in your articles quickly? Thanks............I'm not intending to be critical
If you don't want to use headers, you're free not to use them. Thanks
SITUSH=== I will make my section headers shorter, fair enough. But if you check the revision history, I'm writing most of these English boxing bios and adding many, many references. I average an additional 20-30 citations per article. I see your logic, and hope we can reach an understanding.
Please try not to use insulting language,.................like "you're making a hash" of these bios..................I 'm writing most of them, and they are much better with what I've added, I think You'll agree. I'll keep the section headers small.
Dcw2003 ( talk)Please do not revert my articles. The work was lengthy, and really better than the articles were when I started. Most of the articles I started on were STUBS............several sentences. I've done a few of the American fighters who were bareknuckle champions. At least two were only stubs when I started. I would be stunned and disappointed if you reverted these. I have gone back and am trying to make the section headers fewer and shorter. They do match the sections. Please please please do not revert my articles. You will destroy nearly all my work. Please assure me you will not revert these articles. Please stop following my contributions. Please assure me you will not revert my articles.
I've rolled back most of this on Talk:Ghirth, but what does he even want? To put it all on Ghirth (horrible thought)? I've written to Utcursch to ask him to have a word, but I don't think he's around. And probably you aren't either. Oh well. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
Hello, I'm seeing a strong resemblance here and here. What do you think? Tracy Von Doom ( talk) 04:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)