Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

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

Balija page edited with proper sources but had reverted back again

Hi Sitush,

U had reverted our page again, But we had given proper sources only but u had mentioned that as Unreliable one, whats wrong with my below proof.

By Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar. It mentions an inscription edited by Dr. Fleet, Vol XIII, p.185, in which Turagavedanga (Thiruvenkata ?) is mentioned as the "scion of Bali race" as Kishkinda-puravar-sevara and Bali-vamsa-odbhava. The publication "Genealogies of the Hindus, extracted from their sacred writings, pg. 48-49" mentions.The Epigraphia Indica, by Bhandarakar, Volume 42, p. 37. Yashoda Devi mentions in her book The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.: Administration, literature and society.

The above one is a strong proof and how everytime u r reverting back and we are highly disappointed due to this ,see we are describing our Heritage and its true and not a fake one right.

Not necessary for us to do this and to to edit wrong information in wiki.

Kindly check once again and revert back

Karthick

YGM

Best, Voceditenore (talk)

@Voceditenore: can you resend it, please? I cannot find the thing anywhere but I've had a lot of problems with spam this last week or so, courtesy of an idiot customer trying to use my address as a drop box. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, just now. Voceditenore (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Viability of FILMIBEAT.COM as a WP:BLP source

Hello Sitush. I hope that you are doing well. I recently posted to WP:RS/N regarding the viability of FILMIBEAT.COM as a source for biographical articles and wanted to request your input. Please see filmibeat.com a reliable source for WP:BLP articles? at your convenience should you wish to comment. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap

Since you know a lot about Indian history, there seems to be that they are a lot of issues even I can not fix but I researched a little bit but would you please fully check Maharana Pratap for any issues. Thank you, Gameroffun (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph Crook

The article Joseph Crook has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TeaLover1996 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: what the heck are you doing? The article concerns a 19th-century British member of parliament, as was clear at the point when you prodded the thing? - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Category deletion John Hick (MP)

Hi there, I scanned through Wikipedia:Overcategorization - please point me to the relevant part of the rule in this case? I can add the citations re Hick's art collecting if that is what you are missing? RegardsRstory (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, for example, you had him in:

• Category:Collectors
• Category:Art collectors
• Category:English art collectors
• Category:British art collectors
• Category:British collectors

Since Category:English art collectors is a subcategory of all the others, there is no need for all the others. He's an English art collector, which means he is a British art collector, which means he is an art collector, which means he is a collector. So, if he is in the first of those there is no need to mention the obvious. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, but some might say English is not the same as British, for example 'nationality versus ethnicity' -

some engineers are described as English others are described as British?Rstory (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I really wouldn't get involved in the nationality vs ethnicity thing with categories. I've been here a good few years now and have amassed a shed-load of contributions but I still don't like to get involved with the folks who obsess about categories, and certainly the pedantry that usually comes from that particular aspect is just a drain on my time and enthusiasm. Let them pick over it in their little corner of the project when it suits them and everyone else can just get on with doing something that is as likely as not correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, having studied this issue in some depth recently, I can point out that, as per WP:CAT/EGRS, ethnicity can be an additional categorisation in addition to the primary categorisation, but it should not supplant it. (This is called "non-diffusing" subcategory.) So, Category:British art collectors should be present, even though one might think Category:English art collectors already subsumes that. Diffusing on the EGRS categories causes problems. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And there we go, you see. A pedant turns up <g> This non-diffusing lark is a complete joke, as I've said before, but there is no point in arguing with people who make up rules to suit themselves and baffle everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge journals online

Do you have access to Cambridge journals online? If so I'd be interested in looking at The Scottish Kayaks and the ‘Finn-men’ Richerman (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had but it is not working - says I am not registered! Fortunately for the undergrads, I think they've all sat their exams now. NQ can often rustle up stuff like this and they have my email address, so I could pass it on to you if they can get it. Meanwhile, I'll have a word with the techies. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Good man. If you don't get it someone else who has access may see this - otherwise I'll ask on Eric's page. Richerman (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Check your email. All this modern technology saves me a delivery trip to the pub. I knew there was something objectionable about it. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - I owe you a pint (or two). Can't let technology get in the way of an excuse for a trip to the pub. Richerman (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

World Union for Protection of Life

The Austrian branch is dissolved. --House1630 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I've never heard of the thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it, sorry. You cannot use the Emereo book as a source and a lot of the other changes were completely unsourced, including the claim that the Austrian branch is dissolved. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MIRROR. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocked

I've blocked the new account at Talk:Rajput as well. At first I thought I'd assume good faith, that it was as it might be a friend, but nooo... I'll save that for a better cause. Now we wait four days for the sleepers to show up, I suppose. I'm probably violating WP:BEANS by saying that, but what the heck, that character has been around the block and then some. He knows all about it. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

I noticed. The socks have been hitting that article for years, so a few days will make little difference to them. That's why after I initially ignored, and then reverted and ignored, I decided that in the absence of a block it might be better just to address the point (which was uselss anyway) and then hat things. Rajputs are particularly vain, as is attested in many sources, and I'm afraid we tend to see among the worst examples. I'm surprised that they have left the James Tod article alone since my demolition of him but doubtless they'll return to that in due course because he is the prime example of a facilitator of vanity masquerading as a serious study. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Article : Malik_Jat_clan

Please go through the article Malik_Jat_clan, by contents it simply seems to be copied from an article from promotional site, even the infobox is simply a copy of the article Kadiyan. I am unable to decide the further course of action.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AE discussion

Sitush, you're a person who sees value in User:Darkness Shines' work and you've commented in the current thread at WP:AE#Darkness Shines. But it looks to me that the various attempts to limit him with restrictions so he can do good work without getting into trouble are all failing. As an example, why not check out what he's done since BASC lifted his ban in late March. He was given special permission to work on Female infanticide in India, but his edits there led to a downward spiral and an edit war. That's the article he was proposing to take to GA. Arbcom thought they would give him one more chance and a special list of unblock conditions. If we go by the literal text of the conditions, he has violated them. Can you see any way to resolve the dispute at Female infanticide in India? Read the entire talk page at Talk:Female infanticide in India if you think this is all due to pestering by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. (The GA review at Talk:Female infanticide in India/GA1 is also worth a look, though it may be clouded somewhat by the dispute with FPAS). Should we restore DS's ban from that article, and hope he'll be able to do good work somewhere else? If you or I were arguing whether the baby-thrown-in-the-Ganges image was well enough attested, we'd probably just set it aside and move on. It seems that DS can't do that. It looks like he is running out of places to actually do good work without shooting himself in the foot. I am hoping you will reflect on Female infanticide as an instructive example, because if nobody can see a way forward there, it's unclear how DS can be rescued for productive work anywhere. The topics he likes are usually controversial. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to be personalised: DS reacts when FPAS says anything. A lot of what FPAS says, especially on the GA page, is pedantic grammatical stuff and while they may have a point I can see why it might appear to be needling. FPAS is there because DS is there, and that is a pattern. Then things spiral very quickly.

Specifically, I agree with you regarding the image. I would have given up arguing about it because it is pretty trivial but, again, FPAS is right in the middle of things, and they were as much warring over the triviality as DS. What that article needed was more eyes but less FPAS: as soon as FPAS gets involved, DS kicks back against them and anyone who supports them. Had I known about it at the time then I would probably have stepped in, and among the things I would have said was "forget about the image, it's not worth the aggravation". They might have listened to me, not because we get along (our paths do not cross very often) but because I am not FPAS (and not Robert McClenon either, who is viewed with very jaundiced eyes by a lot of experienced content creators, me included).

I noticed that some of the dispute centred on people other that DS, eg: DS says nothing in this section. I also notice that DS had no problem with the GA reviewer's comments until FPAS stepped in.

Ask FPAS to stay away, reset the clock regarding behaviour, point DS to RfC rather than DRN (DRN rarely works for India-related stuff: too many well-meaning but clueless people trying to mediate topics that take years to understand), and ping someone like me or RegentsPark if things seem to be spiralling. The point is, for all their faults, DS tackles stuff that needs to be tackled, where articles usually are already POV messes and/or glossed-over treatments, as is most Indic stuff. That is bound to cause drama but no-one else is willing to do it: people like FPAS only turn up as a reaction.

All this said, DS is going to be sitebanned at some point because they've not got the Teflon coating that some others have and they've working on Indo-Pakistan subjects that everyone despairs of. I can see why putting everyone out of their misery right now might seem attractive but I just don't like the idea that it was brought about because of very obvious stalking. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that SamanthaBooth makes some good points regarding neutrality and sometimes it seems possible the article might be slipping into synthesis. While it would have been better if said by someone other than FPAS, the general flow of the thing is also clunky and not, in my opinion, GA standard prose even if the research were ok. Those are issues that can be addressed. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'very obvious stalking' seems over the top. People can agree that Future Perfect and DS are having bad interactions, but the points raised by FP are genuine content points that somebody would have to address. If Future Perfect weren't there, surely there would be someone else that DS would come into conflict with whenever there was a serious disagreement about content. If Female infanticide in India is too stressful for DS to deal with, where else do you see him able to successfully contribute? In fact, have you and he worked on anything together that came out well? This time I'm serious and willing to listen to any favorable examples. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think he is stalking, sorry. I don't actually know why because I've got nothing but respect for FPaS generally and, indeed, they've just nailed something for me at the Helpdesk today.

I don't think the infanticide article is too stressful for DS to deal with (I'm ripping into it at the moment) but I do think that wherever DS goes, if FPaS turns up then it will deteriorate. I was surprised to see that nothing had happened at the infanticide article from 13 May, despite all of the problems that were being presented. I've no idea what DS can do to get out of this hole and, as I said, it seems inevitable that sooner or later they are going to be sitebanned. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Sitush. I mentioned the aptness of the banner at the top of this page with respect to yet another lame brouhaha at ANI [1]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On a similar topic, said banner also has permanent residence here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, setting aside all the good sourcing stuff that the pair of you have done to the article in question, if PaulB comes after me with arguments such as those used in the ANI thread, I'll put him in his place. That is the sort of nonsense I do not like and anyone who follows me around will know that I gut a lot of articles:. If he wants to be slavish to WP:PRESERVE then he might as well set up his own project and call it Wikifiction. We're an encyclopaedia, folks, not a repository for every statement ever dreamt up: common-sense should apply in both directions. By the looks of it, and some brief past encounters, he wouldn't last 10 minutes in the sphere of caste articles etc.

As for the tag, I make no claim to originality. It has been doing the rounds for a while now, although I cannot recall who originated it (will be in the template history). - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there some point to this rant? I didn't write WP:PRESERVE, nor WP:UNSOURCED. I do object very strongly to editors who gut articles for no reason others than to assert power. It's a form of "macho editing" that I find quite obnoxious. Talk of putting people "in their place" has similar distasteful overtones. You should remove content that you have reason to believe to be false. A lot of cited content is false, especially on obscure articles in which it is often the case that sentences have been rewritten leaving an old citation, or poor references are used, but because of the obscurity of the subject it's not obvious that this is the case. We must always be aware of the basic fact that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the reason for the rant. You talk twaddle and selectively wikilawyer, eg: you have been referred to WP:BURDEN before but only ever seem to mention PRESERVE in situations such as this. I've no time for lawyers but, yes, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not a repository of statements with no support. It is easy to add them back, if you find a source, but the damage from leaving possibly false information in there, for example, is incalculable. If you can't source it, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What an extraordinary post. I selectively "wikilawyer"? I've been here for years and no one has ever accused me of that. You appear to be in a world of your own. I may have previously referred to "preserve" on very few occasions, presumably one of which got your goat once for some reason. You do know that the article under discussion is an inoffensive one about a Scottish village, the content of which is actually disputed by no-one? It's not about how some Indian caste was supposedly responsible for discovering the wheel and a had string of glorious military victories; and anyone who says otherwise is a racist. I am very familiar with such articles and their editors. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You really do not get it, do you? Of course I know the subject of the article - that is an even more basic element than WP:BEFORE. The subject matter, however, is irrelevant. You've not got your way in article discussions involving me for the same reason, and nothing is likely to change because you seem still not to understand. What you should have attempted to do is that which Voceditenore and Ritchie333 did, not just burble some cherrypicked policy that you well know has an oft-cited opposite. If you want to keep something, source it; otherwise, take the chance that it will be removed.

Someone recently said that I am adept at using TNT on articles. They're right, and they did not mean it nastily. Retaining unsourced statement is a very slippery slope and we've got enough problems with the wider world taking pot-shots regarding our unreliability etc without encouraging it amongst ourselves. I must remove tens of thousands of characters every month here and I'm not fussed about doing so because all we have lost is uncertainty that can be rectified if ever it can be sourced. Uncertainty about something that is not sourced can persist for ever if we adopt your approach. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What's to get? My approach exists entirely in your imagination. I've deleted tons of stuff. The only article discussion involving you that I can remember was Dasa, in which you stopped responding having demonstrated remarkable ignorance of both who Parpola is and the fact that Renfrew was his opponent. If you think you "got your way", I'd love to know how. You seem to have a great capacity for rewriting history. I know of no other "article discussion" in which I've even interacted with you that I can recall, or any in which I invoked PRESERVE. As for what I did, I responded to a query in ANI. The policy was not cherrypicked. It was the one that was most relevant to the query that was asked. I have many times gone to actual articles to help improve them, and do so every day. Your blustering does no good to anything or anyone. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, as you can see, several very experienced editors agree with my comments at ANI. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, I believe you may be mixing Paul Barlow with somebody else (or possibly relying on some isolated experience/comments). I have edited with and seen both of your editing for several years, and both of you are in the "remove junk information; use solid sources" camp. The discussion above seems to have simply polarized the rhetoric to the point that it does not really represent what either of you (or I, for that matter) do in practice. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, in which case I apologise. On my phone away from home excuse any types

I've reverted you at Eric's page.

I've reverted you at Eric's page. It just seemed to be a very weird comment: didn't make a lot of sense, came from someone who hasn't been editing much and almost certainly isn't known to Eric, and who professes an interest in the gender stuff that is at the heart of recent problems.--ChristopheT (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice

What do you think about this newish article?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: sorry, I saw this yesterday when on my phone and forgot to respond when I got to a keyboard that is actually worth using. The article will go nowhere: it is destined forever to be an unreferenced stub and a source of disruption. The best that could be hoped for is that it redirects to List of people called Sethi but that would potentially be a violation of WP:BLP because there is no certainty that people on that list would in fact be Sikhs, let alone members of the Sethi gotra. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Turns out it was a cut and paste of this article by the same user, constituting both copyright and OR violations. The editor has already been given a discretionary sanctions warning, so we'll see how it goes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please

Do whatever you believe is right in your heart of hearts, my friend, but please be careful about drawing in someone previously uninvolved, who has been a dedicated and kind and helpful content creator for many years. Attacking her for a single comment to get at the other editor would be highly unfortunate and inadvisable. Please do not go there. Thank you for considering my words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You do follow that mailing list, don't you? She does, and she comments there so should be aware of the situation. However, the person you are referring to is not the centre of attention in the discussion that you are referring to and I have no problem with her. The centre of attention is Callanecc, and it really wouldn't surprise me if Callenecc did what they did because of another "run to mommy" exercise - can't prove it, of course, but I'm pretty familiar with how the system is being abused. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not read any mailing lists or participate at IRC. I never have. I am Facebook friends with a few Wikipedia editors but do not discuss Wikipedia controversies there. I keep emails to a bare minimum. I try to be as open as possible, all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you do not read it then you are not really in a good position to judge what goes on there or how it works, I'm afraid. Reading is of course not the same as participating: they wouldn't allow me to post there if I tried and have bullied or moderated various other reasonable people off in the past (ErrantX being the example that you will know of). There is now a completely private mailing list also, which is worrying from a meatpuppetry point of view, especially given the echo chamber nature that ErrantX noted.

I've never got the hang of IRC and do not use either TwitFace or Bookter. There are some emails, often to do with tracking down sources or just venting about the craziness of this place. No canvassing etc, although there have been at least three instances where, for reasons of outing/oversight/legal, I've had to deal with things behind the scenes - one instance is the long-running India Against Corruption thing, which WMF will only deal with off-wiki for what should be obvious reasons. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand the need for private communication regarding the IAC matter and am very sympathetic about the harassment you have received. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:

And what relevance is this to anything here, Tutelary? I'm very much a proponent of software solutions to common issues on Wikipedia. I have a large amount of items on my watchlist, and I generally don't look back to the day beforehand even if I skip a day due to real life stress or other real life factors. As a result, I can sometimes miss the 'X administrator blocked Y person' on my watchlist. With that userscript, however, their user page and talk page and their username where they've signed is greyed out and crossed out because they are blocked. It is useful for that purpose. Have you ever been in that particular situation? If not, sorry for it being of little relevance to you. I also meant absolutely no ill will by posting it on Eric's talk page. If you need further clarification or explanation, please ask. Tutelary (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but why is it so important to know who has been blocked, and why do you need to tell Eric that you have him marked as blocked - if it does indeed do that for temporary blocks? Can't you see that it would be insulting to tell someone they have been more or less erased from Wikipedia, even temporarily? Richerman (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see--after explanation why it could be deemed as insulting. It was taken in the context of Eric being 'blocked' and 'marked' as blocked as if some sort of shame marker. That was not the intended context. The intended context was to offer the ability to see whether someone has been blocked or not without seeing the 'X administrator has blocked Y person' (which can be missed). This is a mistake of mine and I will remain out of the matter further. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Tutelary (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Any image clean-up experts out there?

Hey stalkers, do any of you know of someone who could clean up the image here for use at Hulme Hall, Hulme? There is some quite severe bleeding from the scanning process. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go - NQ (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, lateral thinking. I'm impressed! Thanks very much - now uploaded and in the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanniyar trying to do create false history

Sitush need your help. Vanniyar is trying to create a false history. Many articles seem to be their caste propaganda and false history. Kindly monitor these article and guide me further. I have made edits. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Kadava dynasty ‎ Malayamān Chozhanar Udayarpalayam ‎ Mazhavaraayas Vanniyar ‎

most of these articles have references which are not verifiable or mention something else. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

It has been going on for a long time. I have recently managed to get hold of a source that should help to resolve a lot of the issues but I've only quickly read the thing and need to digest it properly.

If you see something that is supposedly in a source but in fact is not then I suggest you remove the citation and add {{cn}} for now. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I need to answer this. The above mentioned topics by Sangitha rani111 are well sourced by well known authors and hitorians (ex: Karashima Noboru, McGilvray, Burton Stein) none of them Stated that present day Vanniyars are differ from early days Vanniyars or Pallis. Instead they accepted that Pallis and Vanniyars are modern day Vanniyars. If you People have any proofs/ source that states those Vanniyars are differ from Pallis please provide them before editing them with Biased intentions. Premthanjavur (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We have been here before. Unless you begin to demonstrate an understanding of WP:NPOV and less of a shoot-from-the-hip style of editing, I'm afraid you are going to find yourself blocked again at some point in the future. Worse, given this from Philg88, it might be an indefinite block. You can't just keep misrepresenting sources and ignoring what other contributors think. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush I have made the following additions in vanniyar article "the Vanniyar filed a claim in Pondicherry to prove they were not a low caste as traditionally considered"

https://books.google.com/books?id=tDN0MinxMigC&pg=PA445&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXZqVamIEIzXoASa64DYDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20low%20caste&f=false

Rise of the Plebeians?: The Changing Face of the Indian Legislative Assemblies

edited by Christophe Jaffrelot

https://books.google.com/books?id=GZwD7EqLcAUC&pg=PA24&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXZqVamIEIzXoASa64DYDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20low%20caste&f=false

Rural Society in Southeast India

By Kathleen Gough ( cambdridge university ).

Please add these references. I am still learning how to make references in article. Thanks Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Burton Stein himself considers the vanniyars as low peasant caste.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Fxqtx8SflEsC&pg=PA19&dq=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fm9uVeicG8epogTxzYPABg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20caste%20burton%20stein&f=false

Please read bottom of page 19 Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=xjoeAAAAIAAJ&q=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&dq=vanniyar+caste+burton+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fm9uVeicG8epogTxzYPABg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg THE INDIAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY REVIEW by Burton Stein

Kindly add this reference for "the Vanniyar filed a claim in Pondicherry to prove they were not a low caste as traditionally considered" Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I gone through the links you provided, all of them are not clear and not supporting your Opinion. they are mentioning that pallis or vanniyas were laborers and agriculturalists. It does mean that they are low caste. And one of your link compares Vanniyars with Brahmins, which doesn't make sense.

And I Want this discussion over Talk:Vanniyar, not here Premthanjavur (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh ... It seems that you still not listening Premthanjavur. If you don't start playing by the rules very quickly, your next block will be for a week or longer.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Shocked

Did you see this? I'm genuinely shocked. No way I would have imagined that so many of the users I had been interacting with all over India/Hinduism pages, esp. User:Bladesmulti, were all socks of User:AmritasyaPutra. @RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3: did any of you have prior suspicions of sockpuppetry (not just some POV editing)? Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing here. I was also shocked, especially with Bladesmulti. The "master" is OccultZone and this entire mess has been part of an arb case. Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone is the most prolific, while AmritasyaPutra is the oldest. Given that the latter had been editing since 2008, it is almost certain there were/are other socks who were not caught by CU because they were inactive in recent months. We should keep an eye out for newly resurrected accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At least the following discussion can be closed now. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled - NQ (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That was overdue for a closure anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dismaying. OccultZone isn't the oldest, but the case was given his name due to the Arb case. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Never suspected. If they were all the same individual then I must say it was very artful socking, especially with Blades and Amritasya taking turns on JJ's mentoring. Perhaps they are room mates using the same IP address? Even that would be pretty amazing! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly surprised. I've long had suspicions about OZ, Blades and Amritasya - they've been backing each other up in somewhat peculiar circumstances over the months. But, as you know, unless I put the legwork into investigating I'm not really supposed to say it ... and I often can't be bothered putting that effort in and so bringing a shed load more problems in my direction. It isn't helped that nowadays I tend to forget more than I remember: my solitary brain cell, which answers to Cedric, is full. I wouldn't have connected the others named in the case; in fact, I think I may only have had significant dealings with one of them (Delibzr).

We know that we get a lot of socking and meatpuppetry in India stuff and we know that some of them are pretty clever. This isn't the biggest sockfarm ever, nor did it necessarily do a massive amount of damage. I think that admin who got caught out for COI stuff re: the Indian college was probably a far worse case. There will be others out there. In fact, I could name one right now that has looked odd for ages but I can't make my mind up whether they have had some Damascene moment, the account has been compromised, they are sharing it with someone else, or they are socking. At one time I thought they might well have been a sock of the long-gone MangoWong but I never did do the work.

(edit conflict) I didn't know anything about mentorship: JJ = JoshuaJonathan? What brought that about? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this makes sense now. I did wonder why someone whom I had never really heard of turned up and did that. Not that I had a problem with them doing so. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL!!! Yes, before I'm going to read any further: I've stated right in the beginning that I suspected Blades to be a sock. And OccultZone has also been mentioned more than a year ago already in connection to Blades. And I noticed, when Blades proposed some of my stuff to be deleted, that OccultZone joined-in right-away, which really surprised and annoyed me. I've also written oce - or did I just think that? - "Blades, if you're ever going to be blocked, don't come back as a sockpuppet." I've also wondered why Blades was so interested in sockpuppets. So, I'm going to read further now. Did I really read "OccultZone" here? By the way, I've had three menties; the third one was a sock. Blades too? Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Delibrz! He too? Or do I have to read further? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This started the mentorship for Blades. At SPI, there is some case in which Blades and OccultZone were connected, if I remember correct. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord, in the few months that I've been away the sock drawers have gotten more complex! I think Blades was a no-brainer early on with the sort of "needling" and "teacher's pet" sort of posts he did at different places; I've never come across the others (or never noticed them), so I guess I never figured out who it was. But again, AGF has been taken to such extremes now that regular and good content contributors don't get the benefit of it, it's only used to protect trouble makers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Spiffy. I notice Callanecc was the person who turned down the CU request at the original Blades/OZ SPI. Not slow to (over-)react more recently, though. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice something else again: OC's English is much better than Blades. Is this one person? Or two? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Along the same lines, one thing odd I had observed about Blades: sometimes their posts were in barely understandable English, while at other times their English was highly fluent and idiomatic. Wonder if teher are more than one person behind these accounts... Abecedare (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have observed the same with some of OZ's edits. - NQ (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The master, if he is the editor I have suspected for a long time now, has a habit of varying his english to avoid suspicion. There still might be more than one person behind the whole sock farm though. There is no way they could have lapped up so many edits so quickly even if they were using AWB. Amitrochates (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit I've had extensive interactions with both Blades and AmritasyaPutra, and while I have suspected off-wiki coordination on occasion, but I've also seen blatant on wiki canvassing, and they spoke (typed?) different varieties of bad english, so I really did not expect this outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I feel that there have to multiple people behind this. Blades and AP have tag-teamed far too often, without any slips, that I cannot imagine one person doing that. Look at this page, and the associated article revision history, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to read this discussion again Talk:Hinduism/Archive_30#R_f_c_:_Should_we_revert_to_a_former_version.3F. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And this Talk:Hinduism/Archive_28#Recent_edits_by_Joshua_Jonathan_in_the_lead_of_the_article may have been him as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I am not the only one who is shocked. But he is the actual sockmaster as his account is earliest.

1, 2, 3Cosmic  Emperor  05:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Blades is now requesting an unblock on the grounds that he was never a sock. Does somebody more experience than me know how this will play out? How set in stone are CU findings? I seem to remember that Yogesh Khandke was unblocked even though a CU stated he was socking.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom blocks are set in stone (appeal only to Arbcom, who would take some convincing having only just sitebanned OZ etc). CU findings are less firm but not often overturned, and I think we can be sure that the evidence has been reviewed by several CUs in this case. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, err, I mean Cedric. There is a case even worse than OccultZone's and the admin who got caught out for COI... Certain IAC socks and their terroristic actions towards editors. That's putting you and others thru hell. The username Cedric is free for use. It wouldn't be sockpuppeting because Cedric and you don't communicate too well. Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol! Me and Cedric don't communicate well with each other, or with everyone else ... or both? Interesting that Anonymousbananas was blocked as a sock yesterday and this user has turned up. Not editing the same stuff but clearly familiar with how we do things. Hopefully, just a converted IP. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what I find most shocking is how one person could manage all of these accounts, even if he were in school. I mean, I don't know how OZ made over 200K edits in less than two years much less edit as other sock accounts. And it doesn't seem to have had any big agenda beyond occasional support for each other. How does one person juggle all of this? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to Liz; I haven't interacted with OZ, the supposed master, very much, but both Blades and AP have had quite a tendency to push a hindu-nationalist agenda, particularly in their disregard for scholarly sources in favor of "what they know." Now I don't know if that was the primary purpose of the sockfarm, but the bias certainly exists, and has been noted by people besides myself. I also am fairly certain that there are multiple people involved here, just because of the numerous varieties of bad english that they employed without people getting suspicious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There might not have been just one person and there might have been some financial motivation to do this (like it could have been their day job). However, there is no way they could have raised their edit count to 200K without automated editing. I think some of their other sockpuppets, who this CU check might have missed, will show a similar pattern- an obsession with raising one's edit count through automated WikiGnomish edits. Two very wise editors had the foresight to oppose Wifione's RfA for similar reasons. Amitrochates (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cedric?

Sitush!!

	Cedric!
	Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as an explanation- the dog's name is Cedric. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The dog probably has more life in it than I do, and the name makes a change from Fido. What is that thing? A miniature schnauzer? - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thing? How dare you! Yes. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We had one of those for a while. We returned it after a year, cause of excessive peeing in all the wrong places and a blatant refusal to learn. There's a professorial metaphor in there somewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush what happened?

Sitush what happened to the Article "Cheramar Christians"I ave written? Why didn't you write to me n talk page if the article was not good or violated or anything. I just what to know what happened to Article "Cheramar Christians?"--Peter Thomas Olickal 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• The previous brought to you by Olickal Peter Thomas. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Olickal Peter Thomas, I can't speak for Sitush--well, I can, and I will, though I shouldn't. Please see the history where Sitush has given many explanations for reverts he made to the article; I had a quick look at the article and Sitush's edits and I agree with them. For instance, the content was not well-written, and the references were not acceptable; no doubt Sitush can explain that in more detail. The article is now redirected to Pulayar.

  Also, please see Wikipedia:Signatures--your signature needs to include a link to your user or talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Let me ask you, the article "Pulayar" What is the reality or information regarding the actual Pulayar caste people of Kerala? No historical lineage, existence, evolvement, present status, reformation, Pulaya kings, the different clans of Pulayas, names, Conversion to christianity about 85% of Kerala's Pulayars took place during 18th to 19th centuries, no information about it, real pulaya culture/songs/sorcery/beliefs nothing. Really check it one time and then compare the Article I wrote I wrote. As you asked, it was written by me. The information I got from web, was given links. And I read the books which I mentioned in references, they are there in my shelf. YOu know.

Now I understood one thing, the articles which are entered by your team are "reliable", for your are a group. I checked the page creator of "Pulayar" from a foreign country. How much information that person can get about a group of people who are far from there living in south India? Impossible!!! When I wrote the first Article Rajamudy, your team said no much reference, I added. Now when I added enough and real references and links, you bare saying "too much", what is the point of truth. At least you could have talked the deletion of the article to me on my talk page, but you did not. Sorry the Wikipedia, I thought really trustworthy and truthful source of information. Thank you very much a hundred times for keeping my two articles in Wikipedia, really thanks, if you need please delete that also.You said that you cannot verify the article, si ti the reason deleting the articles? And simply saying sorry. If Wikipedia needs resourceful, real, reliable and descriptive articles, you might have kept my article. So May God bless you and your efforts in Wikipedia!!!

Appreciating "Houn" an editor of Wikipedia who edited, corrected and guided me with politeness and also to whom I shared about my article "Cheramar Christians", I may stop adding articles to Wikipedia.

Sitush, please I humbly request you that please don't redirect "Cheramar Christians", please because it is utterly wrong, you may redirect "Cheramar" no worng it is correct, but "Cheramar Christians are not Pulayars. Since you look forward for truthfulness and reliability, please don't make mistakes. You may delete "Cheramar Christians" words, it will be more good than keeping a mistake. You may check or ask to anyone what I said is correct or not. Or else please check my article "Cheramar Christians" if you have a copy, Castes of Kerala, as per Govt. of Kerala, you will see the mistake. Thank You.

--Peter Thomas Olickal 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)