User talk:Sitush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Je Suis Ikea bloody.jpg
Jag är Ikea.
This user stands with Sweden.
Je suis Ikea.

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

Oiniwar Dynasty[edit]

Hi Sitush Why are you removing other references from Oiniwar dynasty . I see you have removed Geneome Mapping , SN Singh History of Tirhut , Recasting the Brahmin in Medieval Mithila: Origins of Caste Identity among the Maithil Brahmins of North Bihar by Anshuman Pandey

You have made the page dependent on only one book thats not Ideal . Please revert your changes and use the authentic reference like History of Tirhut etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:500B:164B:B961:E230:6CED:C38A (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The explanations will be in my edit summaries or in the recent discussions on the article talk page, which is where this conversation should be taking place. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As an example, see the summary for this edit. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • THat's Burbak up there, Jakichandan can you check where else there's been contribution/disruption? —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Please take a look at 2409:4064:386:7414:0:0:19E3:A8AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
2405:204:C004:BA24:0:0:C58:18A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
2409:4064:40C:A8D3:0:0:2A05:E8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too. MADHEPURA2018 also seems to be linked. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
2001:630:E4:42E0:150B:FFB1:6C:E22E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may also be. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, is this the Bihari nationalist thing? MADEHEPURA2018 was indef blocked for constant disruption and claims of racism. NB: Damien2016 was a self-admitted sock of Burbak (long since blocked). I know that there has been a lot of problems relating to Maithila stuff but never made the connection. How much crap have they got away with? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this "Jha, Makhan (1997). Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd." even remotely reliable? The article leans a lot on that one reference. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
And is Suyasham, the creator of the article, possibly related to MADEHEPURA2018?--regentspark (comment) 15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Makhan is very poor. I've said so in my edit summaries and at Talk:Oiniwar Dynasty. I' now cleaning out Gajendra Thakur which is just fancruft. There are masses of this type of thing in the Maithili topic area. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush and RegentsPark: Jha might not be highly reliable but he is reliable to a certain extent. Some other authors also seem to cite his books in their own books. For example this. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Also Burbak sockfarm seems to be related with Mithila regionalism, on the other hand, MADHEPURA2018 seems to be pushing Bihar regionalism (i.e. pushing POV on both Mithila and Magadha related articles). Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: I think Burbak is again block evading as Gandhawaria Rajput. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the same, but I'll let better minds such as Ponyo be the judge of that, I've blocked as NOTHERE based on some of the edit summaries and content changes. —SpacemanSpiff 11:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, on deeper look, I think this needs Ponyo's attention, there's the puppy from down below on this page as well as that Glory account, all of which have been created in the past few days and are adept at edit warring. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you. That puppy account (Good Puppy Heaven) looks almost certain. I am not too sure about the Glory one (I guess you are talking about Suyasham). But as you say we should let Ponyo decide on these. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I am more than happy for the admins to investigate me but I find it odd that anyone who takes an interest in the history of Bihar is automatically assumed to be a sock. Can you please give reasons as to why you suspect that I am a sock account? Bare in mind that I have barely 10 edits. Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23 has blocked some socks including Good Puppy Heaven. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two sock farms at play here, one is Burbak (talk · contribs · logs), the other is Barthateslisa (talk · contribs · logs). If someone can spend time on comparing the edits then we can match the socks easily. The two farms have a long history of edit warring with each other. —SpacemanSpiff 01:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff and Bbb23: I am also thinking that there may be two sockfarms and 2405:205:A047:4F6E:0:0:DF3:50AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is almost certainly a part of one of them. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad and RegentsPark: may also like to help. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Please take a look at 2405:205:A0E1:5B7D:0:0:8DC:8B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you for page protection of Mithila (region) and History of Mithila Region pages. I think Raj Darbhanga and Oiniwar Dynasty pages are also in urgent need of protection. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to impugn you[edit]

Hey there, as I mentioned at talk, my concerns about canvassing have to do with the volume of pings going on here. I don't know we've really crossed paths before much so I wasn't concerned about your involvement per say so much as an editor with a pretty clear POV calling in a whole bunch of other editors who aren't in the edit history for this article talk by name. I spotted this article off the WP:3RR board, and honestly my curiosity was piqued by the whole "ritual cannibalism" claim, which seemed rather extraordinary. I'm... not overly impressed... by the quality of the sources being used to support this as more than hearsay, but I'm also not overly impressed by the general combativeness of either party here.

Anyhow, in the spirit of WP:AGF I thought I'd drop you a line and provide a bit more explanation than really belongs at article talk. I've taken two of the sources to WP:RS/N for review, including the most sensational of them, a book about royal ritual that appears to have been written by an expert on car races from Ireland, and I've provided some notes on the other sources that have been provided. I don't think the edit that was removed should go up, with those sources, as it was. In particular, I don't think it provided proper context surrounding the ritual, it ignored the regular mention that the "eating of flesh" is probably about as real as the Eucharist, and it was far too general. In addition I do have some WP:DUE concerns about a ritual that's conducted less than once a decade getting a rather sensationalist paragraph in an article that describes either an entire caste, an entire ethnicity or a caste-subset of a specific ethnicity. Once we've hammered out the sources, I hope you'll support me in having a civil discussion of these issues so that we can build appropriate and due language for this interesting ritual practice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think you were impugning me. I don't have much to do with Nepali stuff, although it bears a lot of similarities with things I am more involved with. I only glanced at the discussion and article because, as I said, I'm unlikely to be able to do much before Monday anyway. Thanks for the note. - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Digital copy of Bihar Puravid Parishad[edit]

I have a digital copy of the Journal of Bihar Puravid Parishad that goes into detail about Gandhawaria Rajputs that verifies some of the claims made in the article. I can either email it to you or somehow upload a copy here. Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Megan Boyd.png[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Re "looks like someone has copy/paste this tripe": Well, yeah... along with the rest of the EB1911 article that served as the basis for the WP one =P[edit]

I noticed your edit comment "/* Biographies */ links (looks like someone has copy/paste this tripe)". The line in question ("The letters between Gibson and Mrs Henry Sandbach, granddaughter of Mr Roscoe, and a sketch of his life that lady induced him to write, furnish the chief materials for his biography. See his Life, edited by Lady Eastlake"), along with all of the initial version of the Wikipedia article (as with many articles on pre-20th C. figures), was copied from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (in this case from a 19th Century article article by the same Elizabeth, Lady Eastlake.) The 19th C. source also accounts for the much more subjective language throughout the article than is encouraged in Wikipedia. It's good, of course, that you modernized and linked the names. But copy/pasted, outdated wording is hardly surprising, given the common practice on WP of copying EB1911 articles straight-in to start an article, so I wouldn't get too outraged when coming across things like "Mrs. [Husband Name]". :-P

Btw, cute cleanup spoof at the top of this talk page. :) —Undomelin (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


Ambattar is in the back of the NPP queue, could you review it? Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)