Jump to content

User talk:Sitush: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Added a message regarding your recent good-faith edits to Satti.
Line 245: Line 245:


:Thanks for the discretion. That was the last round of IAC nonsense, ending India Against Corruption 0 vs me/WP/WMF 1. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush#top|talk]]) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for the discretion. That was the last round of IAC nonsense, ending India Against Corruption 0 vs me/WP/WMF 1. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush#top|talk]]) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

== Your recent good-faith edits to [[Satti]] ==

I've noticed that with [[Special:diff/635022359|this]] edit you reverted several previous edits, including [[Special:diff/634447041|my addition]] of three categories to the [[Satti]] article. You then, with [[Special:diff/635022454|this]] edit, re-added one of these three categories to the article, clearly showing that at least some portion of the reverted material was reverted needlessly. Please consider reading [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting]] before making any further reverts. Thank you. [[User:Iaritmioawp|Iaritmioawp]] ([[User talk:Iaritmioawp|talk]]) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:43, 22 November 2014



... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Query regarding a FAC

Appeal to the stalkers, most of whom probably do not frequent WP:FAC.

I've got a FAC going on here for an article that I created and that others have been very helpful in developing, in particular Drmies and Eric Corbett. An interesting query has been raised regarding

It was a favourable depiction specifically of the English soldier, somewhat contrary to the official line that tried to emphasise that this was a British war rather than an English one.

The query concerns the distinction between British and English, which is one that may be lost on many readers and in fact is often lost on many people even within the UK. For now, I've linked British people and English people but I'm not terribly happy about it. Ok, @Curly Turkey: is not massively bothered about the issue but I do think it is a very valid one. I'd be grateful if anyone might have any suggestions regarding an optimum way to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you're still misunderstanding me. It's not over the distinction between Britain and England, but why non-English Brits would consider WWI an English war rather than a British one. For instance, in Canada there were different feelings about the War between the anglophones and francophones that led to the Conscription Crisis of 1917. Was there something similar happening in non-English Britain that made the non-English Brits feel it wasn't "their" war (that seems to be the implication from what's in the article)? And if there was, is there an article that could be linked to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I still am misunderstanding, sorry. Can we see what comes out of this, if anything? Or would you consider it some sort of canvassing? The Conscription Crisis link looks interesting - I wasn't even aware of that issue. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider it canvassing, or even an important issue (notice I've already supported)—I just thought it would be nice to have something to link to as it appeared to imply something in the background I wasn't aware of. I'd like to see the Conscription Crisis articles (there was another during WWII) cleaned up, but I probably won't get involved in that myself (interested in reading but not writing about politics). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you have already supported but this is bugging me on a personal level because it is a valid point - it still is even now I've started to understand it! There is a sort of systemic bias aspect to it also. I won't be around to clean up anything, by the looks of it, but those do sound like interesting topics. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Not sure of Scotland and Wales, but Ireland's (and the Catholic Church's) feelings towards participation in the Great War were pretty mixed, especially after an initial shot of brave and patriotic enthusiasm. Ireland and World War I discusses some of this.
@Sitush: I know that "British" can refer to either UK or Great Britain, but in this case is it possible to make clear that the former (actually UKoGB&I, to be pedantic) is the intended referent? Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland and World War I is at the same time broader and narrower than what I was hoping for, but it might be worth throwing that link into a footnate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think the TLS quote already makes it sufficiently clear that British people includes the Irish in this context. Abecedare (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it does. It also mentions the "Colonials". An aside: Gladstone, who was obsessed with solving what was called the "Irish Question" and introduced several Home Rule bills in an unsuccessful attempt to do so, once said something like "The problem with the Irish is that every time I propose a solution, they change the question!" Always made me chuckle, that. Along with the little drawings of whips in his diaries. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That quote describes so many on-wiki discussions! :-) Abecedare (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Got connection problems today & perhaps tomorrow also - won't be around much until they're resolved. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Sir, a half-truth article is a deceptive article. Why not presenters of the statement so removed present a fact in its favor .The whole article puts history in totally wrong and unverifiable way. Please tell user Rajput334 to provide a secondary source rather than using a tertiary source for whole article. He is trying to surpass other contributors. Moreover, as per Policies of Wikipedia, it should be verifiable, which it is not. Truth should be our priority.John811jd (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sir, a half-truth article is a deceptive article. I have provide sources, Please cite themJohn811jd (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the issue to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires review!

Hi. One single purpose editor has added lot of unsourced content to Kolathur Mani and I request you to have a glance at the unsourced, puffery content. Thank you. -Rayabhari (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about reverting but neither version seems acceptable. The sourced version is just a series of criticisms - is he actually that bad? Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources mention him as that bad. He was repeatedly in news for terrorist funding / supplying explosives / aggressive speech / harbouring out-laws etc., many of them apparently or directly or in guise, for language issue.(?) Further, the images recently added looks like outright copy-vio. - Rayabhari (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk and cheese

It is an odd experience being lectured by Americans on how the English language is used in Britain. I'm considering introducing some other fine expressions to WP discourse: mardyarse, nesh, go to foot of our stairs etc so that I can be instructed in their proper use by people with arsefromelbowitis. pablo 13:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecky thump! - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Demick has long been a favourite of mine, although I think it might be very much a word of northern usage rather than national. There are plenty of demicks involved in the current shenanigans. We may also need to usurp the WP:NOTRIGHT essay ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Happily Richerman is attempting to educatepablo 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although those of a religious disposition might well consider that a case for St Jude. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Scotsman of my acquaintance had no idea what to "mither" meant before he came to Manchester. Richerman (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Richerman: I can believe that, although I've used it here when talking with US people and either they understand or were too polite to ask! Apropos the stuff below in this thread, I find it very difficult to lipread many Scots because there seems to be some genetic thing that causes a lot of them to have extremely thin upper lips. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All my ancestors on both sides are Scottish so we could have a problem :-) Richerman (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had already worked that out. But you talk garbage anyway most of the time, so it probably wouldn't matter! Joke, honest! The system is very simple, should we meet again. (1) You ask me would I like a pint, and I shake your hand saying "Yes, please". (2) At some point later, someone says to me "It's your round", and I say "I'm sorry, I can't hear you". Works every time :) But, bugger it, I've just divulged the trade secret. It doesn't matter too much in this situation but I know some very wealthy people in the House of Lords etc and it would really piss me off if they said "it's your round" when they are getting umpteen hundred £ a day of taxpayers' money just to sign a register and then go away and do what they wish. All of them part of the Oxbridge old boy network, of course, which is something of which I don't take advantage. Which brings us to another obscure word - I am a muggins. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0n an unrelated note ... didn't Amanda Smalls claim to come from/live in Arizona, or am I misremembering? pablo 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, sorry. I don't usually trawl through user pages. I'm not too happy about the IP editing as an IP but I guess the arbs will have checkusered given the potential for stacking. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the antonym for misogynist? There must be one, surely? - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about that for ages and I've come to the conclusion there isn't one in the same way that there is no male equivalent of a slut. Prejudice and inequality can work both ways of course. Richerman (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it is not just me that has been wondering. Perhaps something needs to be coined: if we went a bit Slavic-language then mrogynist might do. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Misandrist. If only there were some place you could look things like that up. – iridescent 17:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iridescent. I was just about to dig around for my old copy of Roget, which I think contains ants as well as syns. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Philogynist. :) NebY (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dangerous territory, that! Being a misogynist or a philogynist does not necessarily infer the other. Still, this tyro's language development is growing apace: two new words in a day. (I had actually come across misandry as a word before, but years ago.) - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that philanderer? As in, many a philanderer is a secret misogynist? As opposed to philandrist, of course... NebY (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a philogynist is someone who admires women then one can be a philogynist without being a misogynist. Am I missing something here? - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I took it that you wanted the antonym of misogynist as in opposite of hating - so I offered philogynist. But now I guess you want a different kind of opposite and I've totally lost the thread. :( NebY (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A thought has just occurred to me. My brother became deaf in his early twenties, caused by meningitis. So he's a hearing person who can no longer hear, if you see what I mean. I have the impression though that you've always been deaf, and I wonder if you "hear" words in your head in the way that those of us yet to go deaf do. Feel free to ignore my question if you feel it's too intrusive, I won't mind, I was just curious. Eric Corbett 19:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed born deaf and I do "hear" the words in my head. But I probably mispronounce quite a few of them. I can't think of an example right now but it is quite common for me to speak a word that I've used internally for years, only to be unsure of its pronunciation. A classic, from years gone by, was "Anti-poads" when it is of course "An-tip-o-dees". - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unusual. My wife does that as well with words she's only ever seen in books, never heard spoken. For me, the cadence of the words supersedes even the grammar, which is why I persist with the arguably incorrect "You and I" rather than "You and me". Eric Corbett 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it is much more common with me than with hearing people. I suspect that is because - to use the example above - people may have heard the word on TV/radio etc even if they have never pronounced it themselves. I cannot hear TV or radio or phone or YouTube videos etc. For someone who is profoundly deaf and was born that way, I have remarkably good speech (apparently) and that is why I'm used so much as a guinea-pig by researchers: they can test things out on me and get a response that utilises a huge vocabulary compared to that available topractically everyone else with my degree of deafness. Most of them are sign-language dependent and if they can speak at all then they lack intonation. I'm a freak, as I'm sure many of you think is the case in other ways! - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, I never went to a lecture at university nor heard much of what went on in lessons at school. Just born with a decent brain and a desire to learn, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, but I was just checking back to see if I was replied to below. I'm hearing, but I'm semi-fluent in ASL. I taught myself at a young age and it's always fascinated me. Sitush have you heard of Amber Galloway? She's somewhat of a celebrity translator for music performers. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've not heard of Amber Galloway. I don't sign at all, aside from the Anglo-Saxon two-fingers type of thing that seemingly would give some editors here (male and female) the vapours. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When my brother went deaf we all learned how to finger spell, until he got used to lip reading. It was much easier than writing everything down on bits of paper, which we had to do at first. Eric Corbett 20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good thing, and I also think that finger-spelling pretty much crosses many national boundaries whereas "proper" sign does not. In fact, there are even dialects of sign language within this country despite BSL. I've just got a mental block about learning it, that's all. It's a long story. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dusti: is there scope for an article on Galloway? I see she also calls herself Amber Galloway Gallego. People like her quite often are interviewed but a lot of Oz media is behind paywalls (courtesy of Murdoch, presumably). - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is. Appears as though there's 35,000 hits on Google including some on MTV and a Interesting news story. I don't see how she wouldn't at least pass GNG, especially with a dozen TV appearances on talk shows and such? Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but, like I said, a lot of it is paywalled. Because of that, this is not something that I can do but it does look like she would easily pass GNG. Perhaps someone with access will see this. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can gather. I created a placeholder in my sandbox. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to say so yet....

Welcome back! :) Should anything happen, remember to sing this over and over :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A query re: tagging of my contributions

Have my contributions from yesterday morning until about an hour ago been tagged with the "mobile edit" thing? I have been saying that I've had connection difficulties but someone seems not to understand that. I've been using a laptop but tethered to a phone's wifi. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. I'm not 100% positive, but I think that tag happens when you're editing using the mobile version of Wikipedia, not when you're just using a mobile device (or a mobile device's wifi). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks, Floq. Maybe I need to find a CU who will verify it because I'm getting a bit pissed off with complaints about me not providing diffs when I've been trying to respond in awkward circumstances. The changeover of ISP has now happened, after much palaver. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Testing my theory; using the mobile version, but doing so on my desktop. We'll see what happens....--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yep. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yours comes up with "mobile edit, mobile web edit". Now, you see, I can understand the "mobile web edit" bit applying to using the mobile version of this site, but not the "mobile edit". - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A CU isn't going to do that, I very much doubt it meets the Checkuser Policy. But if anyone refuses to believe you have had connection problems and thinks you're playing some kind of game, the hell with them anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You can guess who it might be but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice note. You're very welcome, though I'm not sure how much help I actually rendered. However I was glad to try. Take care — e. ripley\talk 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation in my talk page, with all due respect sir, all the other names in that pages have no reference at all, at least I point a article where the subject's father caste, that is same as his own. No problem, I am a newbie to the wikipedia, thanks for pointing to the right direction. :) Regards,

it's me Kristine

Does the category I created Category:People_from_the_Inuvik_Region make sense to you? Can you tell me if it should be deleted? Venustar84 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this question at User talk:CaroleHenson--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look in later. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to, she was banned from adding categories - so it's a moot point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Sitush. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#.5BPlease_read.5D_Wikimedia_and_Right_to_Information.
Message added 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TitoDutta 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read it yesterday, Tito, but couldn't really grasp what you were getting at (were you asking what info the WMF might be legally obliged to disclose about individual editors?). I'll take another look tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally

I wouldn't edit other people's comments, but I have tweaked your "troublesome" priest to "turbulent".  pablo 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. For someone with a couple of history degrees, I should know better than that. It is one of those quotes that I consistently get wrong. With quite a few of the committee deciding not to stand again, just perhaps they'll be prepared to tackle the god-king issue. In retrospect, I should perhaps have pinged the man himself but I'll leave that to the committee now, should they choose to take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope they do, it would be a terrible precedent if acolytes started to think (even more) that the way forward was to interpret JW's utterings and bring tribute of heads on platters to appease. pablo 15:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird science

Hm. We have a 100% success rate in landing something on a comet nucleus ca. 490 million kilometres from Earth but letters sent to me by my doctor, who is about 2 kilometres away, regularly go astray. I quite like astronomy but I'd rather know when my next hospital appointment is happening before the date has passed. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjeshwar

FYI, WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurjeshwar. Regards, kashmiri TALK 15:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again ... Thanks for that. Wouldn't surprise me if they are a returning sock from ages back but I'm not trawling the history for it. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added User:Rana the warrior and User:49.202.60.236 to the stable. Seems the guy is a Wikipedia addict who can't survive 48h without editing. kashmiri TALK 23:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sitush :: BE Polite

'Mr Sitush, you are doing what you think right? Why? have you given any references that, why you are deleting other writer's content. You are reverting the stuff from various wiki pages including this, by saying no? This is not good way. You should present the concrete reasons before to revert.

Now complaining me as a puppet user. I have my own identity and forced myself to write on wiki after viewing your forceful editing on Gurjar. I have no time to argue with rigid writers like you.

There is lots of wiki writers whose work are really appreciable. But here the writers like you are not doing good work to improve Wikipedia. Nothing is going wrong as you are removing and reverting the contents from various wiki pages. I hope you will be able to understand that being a human you also can not be right every time as You do not own this wikipedia. Be polite and prove that you are doing in right way. BE Polite & more concern on text grammar & phrases rather than argue & reverting existing texts thanksRoyalGurjar (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the discussion to a more appropriate venue

I have tried to post this to User:Bishonen/Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard but I see it is on hiatus. Regarding your comment:

I would be pleasantly surprised if you got your article space contributions above, say, 50% rather than the 24% or so that they are at present. When you get above the 80% mark, and that includes more than just tinkering with things, I'll treat you as my equal. Oh, was that a pig that just flew past my window?

In a word: no. Just as you are on strike Monday, I am on strike every day, since February 2013. My only exception to editing is to try to change the circumstances that lead to my retirement. I don't really feel like going into it any further than that, but if you are all that curious about something that most people would find boring and overly convoluted, there is a link on my talk page somewhere, and I have enabled the script that allows you to look at my month by month edit history as well.

Since you seem to thrive on caste warriors, perhaps I could interest you in a slightly used article about Buddhism, that is only slightly watched by Islamists and Hindus?....I have been looking for someone who can do something with the POV and COPYVIO issues, but it will be difficult to find someone with level of skill needed to handle it. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sense buying a pig on a poke, this is what you would be getting into. Bodu Bala Sena It's much more stable than it was a year ago but it has been blanked and replaced several times with a copypasta text, that is most certainly COPYVIO. [1] [2] [3] From what I have been able to piece together, Sri Lanka has three main ethnic groups, the Buddhists who are in the majority, the Tamils, who are Hindu and politically aligned with India, and who seem to be in control of the article POV, and the Moslems, who are an emerging minority and whose edits have mostly consisted of drive-by vandalism on Friday afternoon, Asian time, although they have been quiet lately. OH, and google translate doesn't do Sinhalese language yet, so much for world peace. —Neotarf (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look, I have a feeling it will be deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODed the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Bargurjar

Hey Sitush (whoever you are)!!!

I have found that you are deleting the real comments and creating myths about this topic.

kindly stay honest and read the real scriptures without having a myth of fabricated and self-designed books. We have a legal work that has done years ago and you are deleting the ancestors comments and their real histories.

Why don't you say the origin of your ancestors from where they came from, so just start with about 500 years ago at least. So the world with come to know the origin of Jaat/Gujjar. Sitush describe your identity of your ancient ancestors first then come to discuss with this topic.

You may have expertise in all sections but the truth is truth whatever you may change or delete to hide the originality.

Be honest...!! Jay Hind... M Singh 18:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukt ash (talkcontribs) 18:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry means nothing around here. Only reliable sources.Charles (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[page stalker] Mukt ash, You may want to look at the edit summary. Your comments don't synch up with the reasons for the edits: content not covered by the source, Wikipedia:BLP violations, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fights on at least two articles at the moment, one being Bhargava and the other Bargujar. Obviously, I'm in the right in both cases. Just another day in wacko-land, then. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot: it is three, not two. Gurjar has also blown up (yet again). And with the disappearance of admins who used once to help out with the excesses (Boing! said Zebedee, Qwryxian, SpacemanSpiff, PMDrive1061 etc), this is getting more and more difficult to keep in order. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the recently reverted stuff here was an attempt to draw my attention to this as a source. The Amazon blurb begins "India Treasures is a monumental work of fiction covering the sweep of Indian history." A bit like a lot of our caste articles, then. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mukt ash is blocked as sock, but who was the master? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for meatpuppetry, I think. Ponyo did it and is a checkuser, so we may never find out. There were several IPs knocking around before the semi was put in place, so perhaps they decided to register and rack up a few edits to circumvent the protection. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No master, the account just reeked of meat. Anyone who's first edits are to your talk page yammering on about truth and honesty and using "we" can safely be assumed to be socking or canvassed. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Next time you want to make a comment like that do it on my talk page. You took a kind sentiment from me and made it into some sort of fucking drama. I don't appreciate it. Chillum 03:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that Eric doesn't appreciate your comments and is liable to react badly to them. You are now also informed (although I'm fairly sure that I've told you before) that I do not appreciate your comments either, so go away and stay away please. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I open up to a person in an attempt to console them and you shit all over it. Consider for just one second that just because a person and I disagree that perhaps we can have common ground in some circumstances. How about you stay away from me and think about how you have acted? Chillum 04:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piss off. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there was no need to follow up with a thank notification to me either. Are you completely bonkers? - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just happy the conversation is over. In respond to your request I am only slightly mad. If you want to talk to me further please use my talk page, I don't feel welcome here. Chillum 04:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit of "piss off" did you not understand? A rhetorical question, of course. I've long thought you were a bit of a wind-up merchant but this is ridiculous. How the heck people like you get the bit is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the "bonkers" bit was rhetorical as well :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was. That is the only way to read it, given my earlier comment. I'm not Eric's protector but I'll do my bit to limit potential flashpoints where I can, and in my experience Chillum is a high risk in that regard. Doubtless, plenty of people will disagree with me but Eric can tell me himself if he so wishes. If Chillum wants to make up with Eric, it would probably make more sense to do so by email rather than chance it on-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I already knew your question was rhetorical, as was mine. Heh. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Ever-decreasing circles. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Language

There is a new section opened in Kannada page and some vandals are removing entirely sourced section (please verify all links) so that I reach 3 reverts and block me. Also talk page contains a huge number of anti-kannada and pro-tamil comments and are derogatory and racist in nature. I request a protection tag for the article and also cleanup of talk page. If these things are not taken care of it may amount to cyber crime and racism and wikipedia may well reach Indian police. Please take care Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that you will be blocked before much longer. Assuming that is not an indefinite block, please take the time to read some of our policies and guidelines. Among the relevant ones are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:3RR. The essay at WP:BRD is also very relevant.
However, my suspicion is that you may have already fallen foul of our policy regarding legal threats. Are you actually saying above that you will take it to the police unless you get your way? I hope not. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the "will", see [4]. I've taken it to ANI. Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, damn. I suppose that they might back down after reading WP:NLT. And a pig just flew across my window ... - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ: Out of sheer curiosity, are you arguing that a crime has been committed on Indian soil? What do you think Indian police will do to Wikimedia Foundation? Send it a chalaan by post? Sorry I can't keep serious, lol. kashmiri TALK 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. That's three so far today. I must be infectious or something. If you don't want to be blocked, it might be best to avoid me until 23:59 GMT. I've got the feeling that there are going to be at least two more, maybe four. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special treatment for groups or just one.

It's not workable, because a list of editors for such special treatment would need to be setup & there'd be an endless dispute over who belongs on that list. The community won't accept special treatment for just one editor. If a group of editors or one editor is already getting special treatment? codifying it will only cause trouble, as opponents will jump up & holler "we knew it, we knew it". GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in knowing where you buy your crystal balls from, as I could do with a new one. Eric Corbett 17:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have the only one. Anyways, here's hoping that nobody gets banned over that GGTF stuff. IMHO, bans should be limited to vandals and/or cronic socks :) GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much point in telling me here, is there? I doubt many (if any) arbs watch this page and without elucidation your comment will just be treated as a throwaway remark, just as the unsupported, illogical hyperbole of Djembayz etc will be so treated. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, arbitrators will either take note of my response to Adjwilly's proposal or entirely ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Sitush. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discretion. That was the last round of IAC nonsense, ending India Against Corruption 0 vs me/WP/WMF 1. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent good-faith edits to Satti

I've noticed that with this edit you reverted several previous edits, including my addition of three categories to the Satti article. You then, with this edit, re-added one of these three categories to the article, clearly showing that at least some portion of the reverted material was reverted needlessly. Please consider reading Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting before making any further reverts. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]