Hi Sitush, Hope you are doing well now. Wanted to know why and on what basis did you make changes to the disputed section on "Ethnicity, genes and origin" despite the unresolved discussion on the Iyengar talk page? And that too despite typing out each page of sources (way back in June 2012) as provided by Hari7478 (which he has misquoted to pass off his racist views). Since you did that, Hari7478 now claims "Other users/admin have reviewed & edited the current revision". Am filing for arbitration (on Hari7478) and your explanation (why you edited the disputed section despite the unresolved discussion) will be helpful. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I'm just not up to dealing with this or anything else involving seasoned debaters of content/behavioural issues at the moment, sorry. The back-and-forth demands more time and concentration than I can give it. I'm also using someone else's PC and am unwilling to sign in because of that, and I think there might be a considerable risk that which ever parties disagreed with me would lay a charge of socking.
You'll either have to wait or go ahead. Please be careful of WP:BOOMERANG: I hope that you do not mean ArbCom when you refer to "arbitration", especially since throwing around accusations of racism etc is very dodgy territory. Sorry that I cannot be of any more use right now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Royal College, Colombo".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Dear Sitush, I hope u r recovering well n' fast. In absence of u, there are several pages started being vandalized like Chamar, Jatav, Mahar n there must be many more. For example in Jatav and Chamar they have added Todd's listing claiming they are part of 36 royal races. It is impossible to deal with them, who edit from new ips or freshly created IDs, w/o a person like u watching over these articles.
There is no need to disengage from anything other than time-consuming collation of perceived inconsistencies. I mean, you might have the time to spare but your success rate is very low and it consumes a vast amount of other people's time that could be better spent improving the project elsewhere. None of us are perfect and if you try to compare, say, something done a couple of years ago with an action from last week then sooner or later you will find an inconsistency: people change, policies and guidelines change, sources change etc. It really is not a terribly productive thing in which to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll still be on a go-slow for a bit and it'll take me a while to go through my watchlist. Anyone fancy a wager on how long before I'm reported to ANI for something caste-related? - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to long, I should think. BTW, Blade is giving a talk on 'editing on caste' at a Wikipedia event today that I was hoping to attend but the spouse has stuck me with child care duties. :( --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Although he's likely got a lot of his experience in the Indic aspect via me, I am not going to admit responsibility for any errors! I wonder if he has a transcript - I'd be interested to see it. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here again and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Just wanted to give you the links to decrease your chances of getting in trouble for something :). Very glad that you're feeling better. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that those links will prevent me getting into trouble. In fact, it is those links that cause the trouble: if everyone could just write what the heck they know to be true etc ... BTW, I've never yet looked at Wikipedia:Article development, so perhaps now is the time. Anything to prolong a look at the outcome of the ArbCom proceedings, of which I've heard nothing but really, really could do with avoiding until my blood pressure is nearer to where it should be. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am so happy to see you back! Don't let anything here get your blodd pressure up. It certainly isn't worth it. However, should you ever need assistance with anything, please feel free to ask. I am always willing to help even if we don't often agree. Again, welcome back!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As far as I am aware, any differences that we have had relate to a specific issue that has nothing much to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. It was one disagreement and it was the personal aspect that caused the problems. We'll probably never agree on the relevance of that but it really does not stand in the way of what we are here for and I do very much appreciate your thoughts. I will not be up to full speed for a while yet but have done a bit of editing as a 2.* IP over the last few weeks (I tried to declare it as best I could but probably not as well as I should have done). - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are still with us. That is good news, indeed. I hope that the invisible glass contained actual liquid. Thanks, Orlady! - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sitush, do you have any recommendation regarding a page that i can go to on how to do categories? Also regarding Raju page, not exactly sure what you mean. I'm pretty well versed on the topic as well as other communities from AP and am working to make it a better page, with citations. Not exactly sure what a sockpuppet is but I have not made any changes that would be regarded as unconstructive or unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can it wait until tomorrow? I rather thought that you might ask this question about categories and I'm sorry not to have given you some links in the first place. They are complicated beasties and sometimes seem almost to be in a Wikipedia world of their own. I learned what little I know about them the hard way - by looking at what others do and checking the odd guideline or policy - but they are not my strong point. I do know that your attempts are largely (but not completely) the wrong way to deal with things but I need to find some decent explanation, especially for how overcategorisation is frowned upon. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's major policies is that statements in our articles must be verifiable. Verifiability is ensured by using reliable sources. With some exceptions, there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding what is or is not a reliable source, at least in part because we operate on the basis of consensus and so things can change over time. An example of something that is (and is likely always) going to be considered unreliable would be an open wiki such as jatland.com: anyone can edit that, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia, and thus there are inherent problems regarding the authoritativeness of the content. Similarly, we do not cite our own articles, although that is primarily because it would create a circular reference.
More usually, the reliability of a source often depends on the purpose for which it is being cited. For example, a self-published source would be reliable only for basic facts in an article about a living person: we want independent, neutral sources and not ones that are likely to have bias because they are written by the subject but it is usually safe to accept, for example, the subject's disclosure of when and where they were born (although, yes, sometimes they do mess around with their own ages!) On the other hand, a recent book written by an tenured academic and published by a university press is almost without exception going to be considered prima facie reliable for, well, just about anything that it deals with.
I am unsure of the context that gives rise to your question but hopefully some of the links in this reply will help. We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard for assistance with any protracted problems but even there you will not get a specific answer to your question because there is no context. RSN is also, in my opinion, something of a last resort: issues should first be raised on article talk pages etc.
Feel free to ask a more specific question here. For example, what article are you thinking of, what source and for what statement(s) in the article? I'll try to help you although, as I say above, it is more usual to raise the issue on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your info, Is a court ruling with it's rational for the ruling not considered reliable information. Is the court of public opinion considered more reliable than the court of law? If not by what intellectual logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - glad to help. Court rulings and similar legal documents are primary sources. We are not qualified to assess/interpret them and therefore they are unreliable in the Wikipedia sense of the term. This issue has cropped up on several Indian caste articles in my time on Wikipedia and the consensus has always been the same. In particular, the Raj courts were known for weird and contradictory rulings, among a myriad of cases relating to sanskritisation (or "usually puffery", if you want the cynical term). Find a secondary source of good standing that mentions the ruling and you may have a chance, but the primary source itself is a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1984271/?type=print. It is the court ruling from the Andhra Pradesh High court. It was brought to contest an election petition by a member of the Raju community. It gives a detailed account of the rational for the ruling. You don't have t interpret it, it tells you excatly why they ruled for it. The candidate who did not want to be designated as a Kshatriya used many of the sources wiki deems as valid to argue his cause, yet the court found they were not legitimate sources. It basically states anyone belonging to the Raju caste has to acknowlege themselves as "Kshatriya" for the purposes of procuring an election seat or a reservatio seat. It makes no sense to argue about a castes varna status without citing this ruling. Basically in real life, if a Raju tries to get a seat in school, or run for an election post, he must apply or run as a kshatriya or they will lose their seat for fraud. Now the only logical way to present this is to have a section stating thier legal status and then a section of how they may have gotten thier status using the existing citations that have been deemed "varifiable" by wiki users. Do you not agree? On a side note, do you seriously feel there is a consistant, understandable flow to the existing article, I personally think it is mess.99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read it and it is not reliable. As for the article, well, it is poor. Most caste articles are so precisely because of people using unreliable sources, no sources at all, poor English and all the usual other issues. Don't blame me - go fix it. Provided you operate within the constratins (sometimes maddening, I admit) of our policies. I must say that I am still very concerned that you may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, however much this may appear to be a lack of assumption of good faith. There are some odd things going on around the Raju topic (not just the main article itself) at present and there is a history involving a proven sock. I realise that you have said you are doing your own thing but even in the last hour there have been some peculiar patterns. I really do think you need to take this to the article talk page and gain consensus because otherwise you could get tarred with an inappropriate brush due to the actions of other IP editors who are currently showing up. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From wiki: A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets.
How am I in anyway going to fall in this category. Every time I have made edites i have included sources, we may debate how valid their are in your opinion. Is it your opinion that I am trying to make a puff piece out of this? I have made an effort to show all sides to the story, I haven't removed any of the contrary citations, how can that be the actions of a sockpuppet? As far as having a discussion, you have stated that what is deemed varyfiable and not is arbritary, and even your link about primary sources doesn't deem court rulings as not valid. When having these discussions, who is the final arbritator about what is a concensus, you?99.22.29.198 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
