"

 Sitush you are a menace to Wikipedia as this conversation from the page of another editor shows - Are you a 15 year old kid trying his hand in editing academic articles??? 

First Lilit Shastri writes to Jonathan. This is because Sitush has just vandalized his article about Singahi Bhiraura and reduced it to four or five lines, via numerous reverts, here is the letter. Later you will see that  Sitush interjects and gives some lousy reasons for his numerous reverts to the article which are academically illogical, but  ever trigger happy with the revert button Sitush|talk]] goes about his business as master referee. Its the same story with other articles Sitush has edited on Wikipedia. Some long standing editors have got impatient with him.

Dear Jonathan

I agree with WP:OR but if you read the sources on the article carefully and compare it with the guidelines to quote ""The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed""

Here is the list of attributable reliable sources of the article which were republished and meet the guidelines:

There are Papers from the AN Seely Collection: This a a British Library Publication 1972, which is a reputable Publishing House. AN Seely the author was a fellow of Trinity College Oxford, and a scholar in Persian Studies. He compiled these from the original sources and they were published.

Title: Caste in the Subah of Oudh Army by AN Seely Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/L/MIL/14/223 Creation Date: 1890-1895 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 volume The India Office Records are the repository of the archives of the East India Company (1600-1858), the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), the India Office (1858-1947), the Burma Office (1937-1948), and a number of related British agencies overseas. The focus of the India Office Records is in the territories now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh and their administration before 1947. The Records also include source materials for neighbouring or connected areas at different times, covering not only South Asia, but also Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The official archives of the India Office Records are complemented by over 300 collections and over 3000 smaller deposits of private papers relating to the British experience in India. The India Office Records are administered by The British Library as part of the Public Records of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation.
Title: Caste in the Subah of Oudh Army, AN Seely Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/L/MIL/14/223 Creation Date: 1890-1895 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 volume
Title: Pasi, Chamar and Low Caste caste,under Brahmin Land ownership ,Oudh Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/Z/E/4/25/C516 Creation Date: 1854-1855 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 entry Related Resources: See entry at IOR/E/4/825, p986

NOW HERE SITUSH GIVES HIS CLASSIC REASON FOR DESTROYING THIS ACADEMIC ARTICLE. ITS CLEAR THE FELLOW HAS NOT HAD ANY RESEARCH EXPERIENCE OR AUTHORED ANY ACADEMIC WORK 

It doesn't matter who published the papers: the underlying content is primary material. For example, there have been similar issues regarding the works of Henry Miers Elliot, who basically reproduced ancient Indian texts. I know some members of the Seely family, as it happens, but diaries, letters, office reports etc are not reliable sources. Someone needs to write a book about them, not a book containing them. Furthermore, Raj sources generally are not deemed to be reliable, and especially not for matters of caste and history. - Sitush (talk) 

""(The above is classic Sitush)""

MY COMMENTS REGARDING SITUSH'S REMARKS

Sitush you are an ass. I do not know who let you loose on Wikipedia, NCRT textbooks are writtin from the sources in the India Office Archive. Every historical work including that of Seely depends to some extent on primary sources that work has been published and the authors of the Singahi article have cited from it. These are spurious and non academic grounds of objecting to the article. Its just making mischief, I invite anybody from a higer academic background to examine all Sitush Sitush (talk) edits.

Examining Sitush|talk]]) edits all over Wikipedia as I have done establishes he is a menace and taking wikipedia backwards. Sitush I suspect you are just a 14 year old kid treating wikipedia as a toy.

  "