User talk:Sitush
 | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Jimmy White
Hi! I just wanted to commend you for taking a look at the Jimmy White article. It's been on my list for a long time, but it's in terrible shape - and I never get round to it.
I should let you know that the Snooker Scene blog is deemed RS due to it being written by David Hendon, who also writes Snooker Scene (the magazine). Not that it makes a great deal of difference, but just a heads-up in case it's on any other articles. Have a great night. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Vellalar Origin of Nairs
Kindly opine on the possible Vellalar origin of Nair here Talk:Pillai_(Kerala_title)#Vellalar_Origin_of_Nairs. I believe the vellala origin tradition and the various examples of naturalisation of various tamil groups as nairs must be mentioned in the Nair page. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Review
Hi I'm Sumit banaphar, I have recently participate on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask that is the source I'm providing to make changes is reliable or not. So can you please review my request, if you're interested. Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Misuse of power
Mr. Ekdaliyan is misusing his power and deleting everything what I have given. Please come to baidya talk page for Your guidance. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 I have used it as a source but according to Mr Ekdalian "Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim." But whatever he provided has proper citation itself. For example He said about census report in page80 and it is true as I myself checked it https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022 You can also check it. He told about T.P Russell Stracey's view about vaidya. In page 81.It is also valied https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up You can also check it. Each and Every point has proper citation. He also talk about what other says about Baidya. Sir Reliability should base on facts not on title. Please consider it.
Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The article of Baidya would not complete if some neutral authors of Raj era is not allowed as very few Post Raj Era sources available for this caste. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I want to use those information that is cited in this journal after checking reliability myself. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
And those which are available online either in googlebook ot Archieved form or any other online form for which the reliability can be checked by you also sir. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Waiting for your interference on baidya talk page for consensus as any other vaidyas I also have no Reliability on Mr. Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
What is going on here In wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswat_Brahmin Page they added vaidya saraswat brahmin and it was their from the very first day of the page. Vaidya and Saraseat Brahmin know their tradition. Now Mr. Ekdaliyan deleted it from saraswat brahmin page also. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Abhishek Sengupta 24, read WP:OWN. Who added doesn't matter; and I have removed not just Baidya but also other stuff, which appeared unsourced at a glance. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok I understand it. This is most unfortunate for vaidya that after independence none(as far I searched) of the non vaidya writers take initiative to write properly the actual history of Vaidya. They always stands with the Mythological origin of vaidya. Vaidya themselves are minor among Brahmins and Kayastha on Bengal and not exist outside Bengal. Most probably thats why not much source available.We have folklores about how our forefathers migrated from the bank of River Saraswati. I am trying to find relevant sources. Thank you. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Even none(Non Vaidya)have interpreted our Kuluji texts also. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It is also not reliable source but still giving you. There so many sites available but very les books available https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Saraswat_Brahmins Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Like this http://gopalakri.blogspot.com/2013/01/saraswat-brahmin.html?m=1 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The above block was written on 2013 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Some Raj Era neutral sources available as I have given you but that are still not accepted as per consensus as you told me. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
hello Mr sitush.please do something to stop ekdalian,who is misusing his power to promote his caste and demoting vaidyas.check the talk page of baidya.we gave enough neutral sources to prove that vaidyas are saraswat brahmins.but that hypocrite ekdalian removing them saying they are not valid ,even they are from a neutral and well known auther.this guy Ekdalian does not deserve to be an admin of Wikipedia.
- I don't know why those caste glorifiers all think Ekdalian is an admin? (He isn't.) Perhaps because he edits properly and neutrally? Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
- We are not Mr Bishonen. Baidya community has all Brahminchal tradition since ages. I have given some individual sources based on which the Journal was written Go Kayastha and Brahmin page. All those have written Book are based on the previos sources from a Kayastha or Brahmin writers. My point is only mere a title Should not be a measure of Reliability. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Abhishek Sengupta 24, you are right about that, indeed. I was commenting on the (unsigned) comment by Bengaliwikipro immediately above mine, where they say "this guy Ekdalian does not deserve to be an admin of Wikipedia" — I wasn't talking about you. My impression is that you are editing in good faith, even though your comments on Ekdalian are also inappropriate. Please only discuss edits — not editors. Also, Sitush is clearly taking a break from caste subjects, and I don't blame him. Bishonen | tålk 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
- We are not Mr Bishonen. Baidya community has all Brahminchal tradition since ages. I have given some individual sources based on which the Journal was written Go Kayastha and Brahmin page. All those have written Book are based on the previos sources from a Kayastha or Brahmin writers. My point is only mere a title Should not be a measure of Reliability. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I am sorry for that.Please excuse me Mr. Ekdaliyan and Bishonen. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Bishonen for your kind words; it means a lot to me!
- And Abhishek Sengupta 24, I also believe you are editing in good faith only, and there can be differences as far as reliability of your sources are concerned, especially since you are really trying hard to find acceptable sources in order to prove what you strongly believe. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes absolutely.thanks Mr.Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of T. Natarajan (politician) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Natarajan (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Clog Wolf Howl 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sivakasi Riots article bothered by a sock?
The contents of the Sivakasi riots of 1899 article are being deleted by a new user called Vendsoil. Based on the way he edit,s he is most probably the sock of EruTheLord. I have filed a complaint accordingly here. Please go through this issue when you find the time. I hope you are doing well. Thank you. Mayan302 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)