User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 44
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
4/23 DYK
|
On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elbridge Durbrow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
AfD nomination of List of publications by Robert Cialdini
I have nominated List of publications by Robert Cialdini, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications by Robert Cialdini. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OTRS Question
Quick question: Does WP:OTRS handle letters to government organs regarding certain materials that cannot be put on here for copyright reasons? The article for Brindabella National Park was recently augmented by an editor who dumped a boatload of information copy/pasted from the Australian National Park site. Unfortunately, he didn't look up the copyright first and it was only later that another editor had to undo his edits because the information on the Aussi government site was copyrighted, not part of the public domain. A letter would need to be sent to a certain Australian government office in order to ask permission for using the materials on their website. So... I was wondering if OTRS handles that. Thanks --SharkfaceT/C 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
From srirangam99 - copy of my reply to Dinesh Kannambadi
Dear Nishkid64,
No doubt I am making attempts to contribute to correction of what I consider to be glaring errors on the pages of Western Chalukyas and Hoysalas which are indeed very dismissive towards the Cholas, indulge on POV-pushing and are violative of NPOV and represent WP:OR
To give you a glaring example: while most of the times we have proof/proofs of defeats or victory of Chola rulers vis.a.vis their opponents, in the page on Tailapa-II Chalukya ruler, the mere lines are added that in 992 AD he defeated Raja Raja I and secured 150 horses... I am sure the "proof" of this statement cannot be the preferred historian of Dinesh Kannambadi i.e. Suryanath Kamath... there has to be verifiable epigraphical evidence too... pls. also see the Chalukya and Hoysala pages yourself, these are full of references to http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions.html but when I back my statements with these very inscriptions they are sought to be dismissed as "website references." I am only seeking proof of Tailapa-II's victory over Raja Raja I in 992 AD. Besides that here is what I wrote to Dinesh Kannambadi (it is very long indeed, but based on facts) and you can see the same and judge yourself.
Thanks
Srirangam99 (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your unfounded claims and pointing out certain contradictions on Hoysala and Chalukya pages
It is fine for anyone to accuse another person of pushing POV and being jingoistic but going by the look of your post on my talk page (with you seeming to have typed very fast in anger and committing spelling mistakes etc.), it looks like (unfortunately) you are among those who are unable to digest plain facts and would continue to rely as well as quote regionalistic and linguo/state-centric historians and websites like kamath and www.ourkarnataka.com/. Can someone pls. tell me how a historian would come to conclusions like XYZ being the extent of his territories and of which were the empires or kings he confronted and won over or got defeated in war?
The reply to this would be that while any historian would be free to (fancifully, in quite a few cases) go an adding superlatives in praise of his or her preferred dynasties, but when he would be bound to stick to facts, the only "reliable" I repeat "reliable" sources are bound to be the various inscriptions and copper grants left by those kings, their ministers, subordinates and subjects etc.
Pls. tell me who is the reliable authority or source to this piece of information:
As stated (for example) in the Hoysala pages (Vira Somesvara) that after dividing his empire between his two sons, his empire was involved in skirmishes with the Pandiyas with ultimately on the second or third occasion Vira Someshvara was 'killed' by Jatavarman Pandyan (or speaking ever more neutrally, that Vira Someshvara was defeated by Jatavarman Pandyan.
I would answer that a jingoistic (pro-Tamil) historian might add superlatives and describe this war or victory in fanciful terms..... but I agree that is not enough... but what is the authentic and reliable source that wouldconfirm (without a hint of doubt thus making it completely reliable the above-mentioned historical event would undoubtedly have to be a source which, on which even a historian or history expert will have indeed to rely upon..... my reply, Dinesh, is a simple inscription (yeah it helps if it is available in the first place and sure, it establishes facts even more, if it is undamaged or has minimum damages or is in a condition that makes it readable and translatable by established and expert archaeologists.
That sort of source is this: (pls. feel free to satisfy yourself):
http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_24/pandyas.html Let me add once again: that at least I won't be satisfied and definitely on rely on or believe (neither would you, I am convinced) if a historian brings up a story based on tradition, folklore or other forms of what I consider unreliable info that Jatavarma Pandyan defeated Hoysala Vira Someshvara "unless and until" some historical and epigraphical evidence in support of this contention. (It is another matter, that the inscription subsequent to the one mentioned above (those belonging to Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan I at the Srirangam Ranganathaswami Temple also mention about his other conquests i.e. of the Cholas, Cheras, the Kshemas, Konkanas etc. - in fact I have made a list of all these inscriptions and would be forming a team with my brother to go and see this inscriptions personally, not that I may understand them because they too are in old Tamil and Tamil Grantha characters - but just to corraborate whether they are indeed planted or placed on the locations mentioned in www.whatsindia.com/***
What I mean is that when these irrefutable evidences are present, what is the need for anyone to 'rely' on historians to tell us (in any case they cannot say anything new) either about historical events like these or indeed about the contents of these inscriptions.
Now coming to a few pieces of texts on the Hoysala and Chalukya pages that I consider very contradictory....
first of all, while those pages also indeed contain references to www.whatsindia.com/ (south indian inscriptions etc.) to back up claims on Hoysala or Chalukya achievements (indeed with historians like Reu, Kamath or websites like www.ourkarnataka.com), the similar set of verifiable information evidences relied upon by me on Chalukya or Cholas are sought to be dismissed as "unreliable", WP:OR or pushing POVs.... not so I think, especially backed by attribution of 'superlatives' by historians (biased in my view, while you are free not to share my thinking on historians at least) and indeed spreading falsehoods (I don't know by who) such as these:
Hoysala pages (Vishnuvardhana): pls. open the attached link(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnuvardhana)
Part of Text(#1): "The Famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur is attributed to him. He built this temple to commemorate his victory against the Cholas of Tamil country."
As per information on the above website, I may add that it has been relied on and mentioned (somehow) in the Chalukya Kingdom page, the text mentioned above is completely wrong, misleading, pushes POV and is certainly not based on any fact whatsoever. However, pls. read this text (http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm) which says:
"""The ruler who built this temple was Vishnuvardhana, who succeeded to the Hoysala throne in the first decade of the 12th century and completed this (temple) in A.D. 1117. He had a specific purpose in mind in constructing this temple. He was a subordinate of the western Chalukyas who later declared his independence from them. By liberating himself from their political authority, he also wanted to excel them in their own field. The result was the remarkable temple which certainly overshadowed the Chalukyan achievements in the field of arts."""
It further adds: (text below the photograph of Salabhanjika)
In one of the first inscriptions engraved in this temple, Vishnuvardhana says that he has "built it from the wealth which he amassed from the sword". He says that the main temple was built to celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas. It was a declaration of his sovereign status.
The above conclusively proves two things: 1. The Belur Chennakesava was not built by Vishnuvardhana to commemorate or celebrate his victory at Talakaud over the Cholas (so the Belur temple has no connection with the Cholas). 2. The Belur temple, as clearly pointed by Vishnuvardhana himself in his own inscription was built to celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas i.e. his being able to establish the Hoysalas as an independent kingdom (this too has nothing to do with the Cholas, for though they were defeated by Vishnuvardhana, surely the Hoysalas were free not from the control of the Cholas but the Western Chalukyas).
The above evidence (irrefutable, you would agree) proves to be completely wrong the contention that The Famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur is attributed to him. He built this temple to commemorate his victory against the Cholas of Tamil country, which are certainly exposed as pushing POV, violating NPOV, being WP:OR, are malafide, derisive and prejudicial in content against people and kingdoms different in socio-politico-cultural and indeed linguistic origins as opposed to those originating from (modern) Karnataka and hence, these lines in the Hoysala pages (both Hoysala Kingdom as well as Vishnuvardhana should be removed without delay.
Part of Text (#2) "The word "strike" literally translates to "hoy" in Hale Kannada (Old Kannada), hence the name "Hoy-sala". This legend first appeared in the Belur inscription of Vishnuvardhana (1117), but owing to several inconsistencies in the Sala story it remains in the realm of folklore.[1][2] The legend may have come into existence or gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between the mythical Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.[3]
To this please see the correct version:
Among the free-standing sculptures in the temple there are several of a soldier slaying a lion. What do they represent? (same source)
"""This is the image of Sala. By virtue of this heroic exploit he becomes the leader of the tribe and gradually emerges as the king. More myths were built around him. For example, he killed the lion, which was ready to pounce on a meditating muni who in turn blessed him by giving him the power to rule. Such myths legitimise dynastic rule. The Sala symbol was Vishnuvardhana's creation and became the Hoysala symbol or crest, from his time."""
Dinesh, in response, you may like to argue that Prof. Settar (as a universally acknowledged expert on Hoysalas) did not rule out either that the Hoysala emblem was indeed symbolic of the Hoysala fighting the Chola (represented by the Lion). Surely one would expect a dynasty and people as knowledgeable and learned as the Hoysalas to be able to distinguish between different species such as the lion, tiger, cheetah, panther etc. and not to mix up the lion with the tiger (which was the Chola emblem). While firstly Prof. Settar did not specifically as well as clearly state that the emblem (whole of it) itself represented the Hoysala fighting the Chola, secondly surely if it was the intention to represent Hoysala vs. Chola then surely the great Hoysalan artists would indeed have shown the Sala as fighting a tiger and not a lion.
Hence, in view of one more irrefutable evidence of the statement that “The legend may have come into existence or gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between the mythical Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.[3]” should be removed without delay as it represents showing the Cholas in a poor light when in fact the representative legend does not anything to have either with Hoysala victory at Talakaud nor indeed the lion in the emblem (as opposed to the emblem of the Cholas, i.e. the Tiger) represents or resembles the Cholas in any manner (especially when the Soldier represented by the Hoysala is shown as slaying the Lion, supposedly interpreted in the Wikipedia page on Hoysala Empire as representing the Cholas. This I am convinced is one more example of content which indulges in pushing POV, violating NPOV, being WP:OR, are malafide, derisive and prejudicial in content against people and kingdoms different in socio-politico-cultural and indeed linguistic origins as opposed to those originating from (modern) Karnataka and hence, these lines in the Hoysala pages (both Hoysala Kingdom as well as Vishnuvardhana should be removed without delay.
Part of Text (#3): "Scholars believe that Vishnuvardhana was originally a Jain known as Bittideva. Under the influence of the Hindu philosopher Ramanujacharya, Vishnuvardhana converted to Hinduism[6] and practiced Vaishnavism. Numerous Vishnu temples were built during his reign at Belur, Talakad and Melkote."
Pls. see this for yourself from the same source:
There is a popular belief that Ramanuja came to meet Vishnuvardhana and brought him under the influence of Sri Vaishnavism. What do the historical records say?
Myths have grains of truth but most often they hide the truth in such a way that it is difficult to uncover it. Historical records do not support this, although the myth has become deep deep-rooted. In fact he never met Ramanuja seems not to have met Vishnuvardhana although he certainly visited the Cauvery-Kanva region,, and there is no evidence to show that he built this (the Chennakesava temple) exclusively for Sri Vaishnavas. The myth says that Vishnuvardhana built five temples for Narayana all at the same time, for which too there is no evidence. As he said in his own words, he built the Kesava, Lakshmi and Vijayanarayana temples to celebrate his victories and not to mark his conversion. In the same year he patronised a Siva temple in Halebid. But later on, it is true, that in his very first grant after constructing thisthe temple, Sri Vaishnava priests, along with the garland garland-makers, temple servants, artists and other members of the establishment, are also provided for. This, however, does not prove anything. It is only in the later part of the 12th century and in the 13th century that Sri Vaishnavas consolidated their position here. There was a settlement of Sri Vaishnavas in the region near Bangalore a hundred years before Ramanuja, . It and it is likely that he Ramanuja came to meet them as a religious and spiritual teacher.
The above lines help in appropriate placing in perspective several points:
That in the conversion of Bittideva into Vishnuvardhana (or indeed exhorting him to fight the Cholas), Ramanuja had no had either direct or indirect. It is also strongly suggestive of the fact that Ramanuja did not either have any role to play in the support of supposedly Vaishnavite kings like the Adigaimans or Adiyamaans – as called in Tamil in instigating them to fight against Kulothunga I by siding with Vishnuvardhana Hoysala.
That the visit of Ramanuja to the Cauvery-Kanva (Kannada-speaking areas??) certainly did not have any connection with the supposed persecution of Vaishnavites in the Tamil country by the Chola Kulothunga I. I wanted to emphasize here that realization of this fact, immediately influences the view that Kulothunga I was a persecutor of Vaishnavites and propped up Saivism at the expense of Vaishnavism in the Chola kingdom. (It is another matter that both Kulothunga I and indeed Kulothunga-II who is considered even more fanatical and opposed to Vaishnavites than Kulothunga I have both left quite a few inscriptions at the Sri Ranganathaswami Temple, Srirangam considered the most important Vaishnavite temple by Tamilian Vaishnavites, one of which is dated 1099-1100 that authorizes two Ministers of Vikramaditya VI to that temple in Chola country, which belies the existence of animosity and enemity between Vikramaditya VI and Kulothunga I.
The above correction of (wrong) views and notions immediately resurrects the hitherto sullied and wrong characterization of two Chola kings at least Kulothunga I and Kulothunga II.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the lines attributing the supposed influence of Ramanuja on Hoysala Vishnuvardhana are misleading and pushing POV, are violative of NPOV and hence must be removed without delay.
Srirangam99 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] One more point from srirangam99
Dinesh, one more small but glaring error:
In the page on Western Chalukyas, the following lines appear, very erroneously in my view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Chalukyas
“”King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[61][62] “”
Against this, pls. see what Prof.Settar says:
That is why he called the deity Vijayanarayana, a name later changed to Chennakesava. Later myths suggest that he built this temple after he was converted to Sri Vaishnavism by Ramanuja. But the records do not support this. He built three temples in this complex - the Vijayanarayana, the Kesava and the Lakshminarayana.
Also see what he has to say further:
As he said in his own words, he built the Kesava, Lakshmi and Vijayanarayana temples to celebrate his victories and not to mark his conversion.
I leave it to your wise counsel to retain or remove the lines suggesting that to mark his conversion from Jainism to Hinduism, Vishnuvardhana Hoysala built three or five temples.
I would repeat, as Prof. Settar unequivocally and unambiguously states as an expert on the Hoysalas, Vishnuvardhana Hoysala certainly did not build the Vishnu temples to mark his conversion, but definitely built them to celebrate or commemorate his victory, but (here comes the very, very fine distinction) --- he certainly did not build at least the Belur Chennakesava to celebrate or commemorate/mark his victory over the Cholas at Talakaud.
It will be in all fairness I think if you initiate the removal of the lines objected to by me in the Hoysala and Western Chalukya pages without any further delay.
I would like to emphasize for information of one and all, many contents of the Western Chalukya, Hoysala (and also the Rashtrakuta pages but I will come to that later) either are erroneus are indeed pushing POV, violating NPOV, are disrespectful and derisive to Tamilian Kingdoms, but that is not a worry to me at all. I am more concerned about the way these contents would wrongly influence and misguide a neutral visitor to these sites and leave him completely confused (in actuality) by leaving him with all sorts of wrong impressions. Even more concerning to me is that because of such inaccurate and in turn controversial content, it is the quality of the Hoysala and Western Chalukya kingdom pages of Wikipedia that is suffering of which I think the Western Chalukya page definitely is an FA page.
Thanks.
Srirangam99 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Banglapedia
Thanks. And, oh, I like that "make articles, not love" thingy. Very nice. Could also be "make articles, not drama". No? Toady was a strange day, though. First an experienced editor moves the admin noticeboard, and then you block yourself. Crazy...
BTW, one more thing about Banglapedia - I have not been able to find a proper academic review of the work. Called the publishers, and they couldn't help either. Sad. But, what isn't there can't be produced for a GA. Right? So, it may not be a problem. Please check the last GA review on the talk page before you go. Most issues have been addressed, but the tone thing still be slightly skewed towards fancruft. I am a fan. Couldn't help. May be you can. Thanks again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clean up. But, I also need your advise. Jbmurray, the person who did the last review, is kind of busy and would prefer another party to do a preview (as opposed to review, as I'd prefer to cut down of heart-breaks and get it right "before" I take it to GAN). Please, let me know what more needs to be done before it is submitted again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry I just got back into my groove. I haven't been extremely active I am going to go and read everything you added now. Again sorry for not replying sooner or being around often. Rgoodermote 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Answered them, they are little bit on the personal opinion side though. Rgoodermote 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok added block types to the below. Forgot to tell you earlier. I had to re-read the block policy but didn't have time that night. I had just forgotten hard and soft blocks for some reason. Rgoodermote 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
NYT PDFs
I don't know what happened to my email pref. I had been receiving emails for a while. I just reset it. PDFs would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR by Srirangam99
I have gone through his verbose comments. So far, I dont see a single book source, ISBN/OCLC number, page number etc. All his opinions seem to be based on web pages. I believe it is ok to use web pages in some places so long as the content is not controversial. For all other views, book sources should be balanced. He seems to be jumping from one article to the next and just throwing up a large gamut of ideas/opinons and self percieved views with no book sources to even argue with. Statements such as these reek of WP:OR,
- What I mean is that when these irrefutable evidences are present, what is the need for anyone to 'rely' on historians to tell us (in any case they cannot say anything new) either about historical events like these or indeed about the contents of these inscriptions.
- in fact I have made a list of all these inscriptions and would be forming a team with my brother to go and see this inscriptions personally, not that I may understand them because they too are in old Tamil and Tamil Grantha characters - but just to corraborate whether they are indeed planted or placed on the locations mentioned in www.whatsindia.com
- The above conclusively proves two things: 1. The Belur Chennakesava was not built by Vishnuvardhana to commemorate or celebrate his victory at Talakaud over the Cholas (so the Belur temple has no connection with the Cholas).
- Hence, in view of one more irrefutable evidence of the statement that “The legend may have come into existence or gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between the mythical Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.
Making it short, I really think this user needs to slow down, take one article at a time, one question at a time and one step at a time. In addition to edit warring, this user may have strong ethnic feelings based on some comments he has left here asking "how to become an admin" [1].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --Elonka 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
re: University Mall FAC
No problem, my pleasure --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
New user issues
Sir, a new user User talk:Srirangam99 has been causing a revert war on a few subarticles for a few weeks now. I have tired to explain to him and so have a few others (like user:Sundar) that he needs to source from WP:RS books and cant use original research. Srirangam99 has now moved to the FA Western Chalukya Empire and [citation needed] tagged right next to a citation in adddition to adding content without citations. He is ofcourse not aware of wiki rules and policies and hence innocent to an extent. Perhaps if you leave a message suggesting that he source from real history books, especially on controversial issues, it would help, rather than he taking a confrontational stand.thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- An update. user:Aadal, an actively involved opposer on the Kannada literature Rfc (Rfc against me from which he withdrew) is now encouraging this newcomer by reverting when the new comer really has no book sources to go with. Clearly I see an intent to "spread the fire". Please lock up this article untill an experienced user can explain to the newuser Srirangam99 about RS rules and etiquette.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will surely keep away from revert wars. I hope Aadal also realises that it does not help to flare up a simple situation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the subarticles that were being reverted by srirangam and myself are Tailapa II and Satyasraya, in addition to the main FA.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- And the unreliable WP:OR web link (The web link only provides a translation of an inscription which no wiki user should interpret by himself) that Srirangam was using and Aadal re-inforced despite admin Sundar asking them not to use ([2], has also found itself in the locked article Satyasraya. This is sort of unfortunate and encourages Aadal to swear by that web link now.thanks anyway.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on edit warring and I fully understand that it is futile, and I don't usually do it. I'll also keep your note in my mind. At best, I've reverted two times, only because I felt something was removed without adequate discussion or something was worded in an unfair way reflecting POV. If tags are added, they are immediately removed by a group of three editors. One can see the behavior of these editors in Kannada literature. There another editor User:Fowler&fowler had to repeatedly try to have some extremely well researched material to be included and to prevent POV pushing. What could be done in less than 5 minutes by a simple wording (accommodative and accurate), had been dragging on for several weeks now. In any case, please be assured, that I'll take care of your cautionary note and am sorry that you had to issue a warning. --Aadal (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, looks like Srirangam, now encouraged by Aadal is continuing with POV edits. Please lock up the pages concerned, Western Chalukya Empire and Tailapa II. Being a new enthusiatic new user, it is not going to be easy to convince him that he "cant" interpret inscriptions on his own. With Aadal egging him on, it make it more difficult. Please lock up these two pages for now. I will surely look into his griviences and see if it is valid.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I encourage you or any one else to look at my comments and suggestions to Srirangam99. I'm not encouraging him in any bad behavior. What Dineshkannambadi is doing here is based on bad faith. It is true I feel the write up in Western Chalukya Empire is biased and with a strong POV. But that doesn't mean Srirangam99 or I or someone else can go and alter the text without providing WP:RS sources. I don't understand why Dineshkannambadi removes a fact tag placed by Srirangam99, questioning his statement "Western Chalukya empire convincingly eclipsed the Cholas". There is no evidence provided for this strong statement in the article. I think it is unacceptable to remove tags when someone questions it. The bottom line is Dineshkannambadi is not paying due attention to genuine questions. He can surely discuss the issue in the talk pages and then based on the consensus remove the fact tag. I believe some senior admins should examine the behavior of Dineshkannambadi and his cohorts User:Sarvagnya, User:KNM and how they resort to reverting as a group. Some of the comments and edit summaries are quite rude and violate civility rules. I truly hate to bother you with these matters, when we ought to be doing pleasurable constructive things. Regards --Aadal (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, looks like Srirangam, now encouraged by Aadal is continuing with POV edits. Please lock up the pages concerned, Western Chalukya Empire and Tailapa II. Being a new enthusiatic new user, it is not going to be easy to convince him that he "cant" interpret inscriptions on his own. With Aadal egging him on, it make it more difficult. Please lock up these two pages for now. I will surely look into his griviences and see if it is valid.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact tags were removed because Srirangam99 was adding them right near existing citations. As such, the rest of his inputs continue to be WP:OR, or from websites. Book citations from hsitorians always get priority, unless under exceptional cases. If Srirangam99 has to bring in inputs, he needs to do a lot of homework, not original research.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Dinesh. From what I understand, Srirangam is essentially adding analysis made by non-historians. These people are not authorities on these matters, so websites with their work is considered to be unreliable, and cannot be used as a source. Furthermore, I don't understand why he added {{fact}} tags to material that was already cited? If Srirangam wanted to contest the source, he should have added {{dubious}} or some other template of that nature. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact tags were removed because Srirangam99 was adding them right near existing citations. As such, the rest of his inputs continue to be WP:OR, or from websites. Book citations from hsitorians always get priority, unless under exceptional cases. If Srirangam99 has to bring in inputs, he needs to do a lot of homework, not original research.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The best thing for Srirangam99 to do would be to have a discussion. If one goes back in his history of edits, back to Feb of this year, all his inputs have been POV or WP:OR. I am confident that most, if not all my citations will hold ground at the end. Srirangam99 just needs to step back and question one issue at a time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain how the study of inscriptions go. No doubt, the analysers of these inscriptions themselves "may be" epigraphists of repute. But their analysis cant be taken directly unless published as "broad" and "generally" acceptable views in a books by historian. When I worte this article, Venu62 (himself an author of some FA's such as Chola, Tamil People) was involved in balancing out opinions of multiple scholars. One can't judge the result of a major battle between two kings, by just reading the content of one inscription. Historians balance of opinions of several epigraphists, several inscriptions, even contemporary literatures and manuscripts to finally arrive at the conclusion as to who won a battle and who lost. Political propaganda is not a new human invention. It has existed for ages. Even after loosing a battle, ancient inscribers could well down play a defeat or overplay a victory for propaganda reasons. This is why historians use various sources before deciding on the outcome of an historical event. Srirangam99 has found one web site, (From ASI) and is using that to decide on his own, the outcome of a event. This is WP:OR.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-->Copy of my message to Srirangam99 on his talk page, (for the sake of records).
- As we handle one point at a time (and one article at a time), it has to be done on the talk pages. No content can or should go on a FA unless proven with reliable citations. Again, personal interpretations of inscriptions are not accpetable per WP:OR. The theory has to come from a historians from a reliable source. All book sources must come with publisher, page number, book ID number (ISBN/OCLC). And most importantly, the theory has to be a world view, in other words, a popular view. If three historians make one claim and one sole historian makes a different claim, the majority view gets credibility. So long as you follow Wiki rules, you have a chance of getting your inputs accepted and into the articles. Remember, no amount of etnic jingoism can help on wikipedia, only hard work and research (not original research) helps. Hope you keep this in mind. Eventaully, any source you bring will be examined by more users then just you and me.Thank youDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this diff where the first fact tag is valid. There is no citation for that claim as mentioned above. I agree there are other places where he had added material without using WP:RS. I have pointed out these on his user talk page. So, I hope you will see that DK had removed the tag without valid reason (no citation was given there). The statement is a strong claim. Srirangam99's placing of a tag there is a valid one. --Aadal (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- One of his tags already has a citation in the main article (#26) to which I have added #27. One has to read the whole article before throwing tags. The other tag added by Srirangam99, tags a citation itself which is not acceptable. The rest of his edits are POV.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added quotes for both citations #26,27. The problem that hard working wikipedians face is that we are answerable to a few drive by wikipedians who complain no end with no sources on hand, throw tags but never study a history book. Then it is up to us re-visit already well cited articles, refurbish citations and open up ourselves to more and more trolling. Eventually these drive by wikipedian have nothing to loose because they really dont care for the topics they "pick" on. Just a though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, Srirangam99's POV edits from the web page are continuing. It has now spread to other articles as well. Today's effected articles are Western Chalukya Empire and Vishnuvardhana. He continues to refer to that web page where he makes self analysis. How do we stop this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- More articles under new user edits, Veera Ballala II. Looks like he wants to clean sweap. I really dont think this new user has any intention of producing book sources and having a discussion and it is impossible to discern his long Phd. thesis like messages which run into several thousand K of data, constantly jumping from kingdom to kingdom, era to another, connecting issues across centuries-all in WP:OR. How long are we going to watch this show?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, Srirangam99's POV edits from the web page are continuing. It has now spread to other articles as well. Today's effected articles are Western Chalukya Empire and Vishnuvardhana. He continues to refer to that web page where he makes self analysis. How do we stop this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added quotes for both citations #26,27. The problem that hard working wikipedians face is that we are answerable to a few drive by wikipedians who complain no end with no sources on hand, throw tags but never study a history book. Then it is up to us re-visit already well cited articles, refurbish citations and open up ourselves to more and more trolling. Eventually these drive by wikipedian have nothing to loose because they really dont care for the topics they "pick" on. Just a though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47
Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Fowler
Hey,
Fowler&Fowler has been adding the Toda image into the Indian image rotation without accepting that there was clear consensus not to have it in the rotation when the last vote was taken. He was the only one for the image and there were 9 people against it. Still he has insisted on keeping it in the rotation, even after I tried explaining to him. He called me a liar and described me as "deluded" and has kept doing it. Nikkul (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter
Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins
Hello Nishkid! How are you? Nish, I want to promote the article Richard Dawkins to the FA status. I want you suggestions. You are a very good editor and your suggestions will be very helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sassanid template
Hi, can you please at this to the template?
- Area 3.5 million km²[1] (under Khosrau II in 626)
Thanks Mallerd (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing Mallerd (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Signature
Shouldn't it be Make articles, not war?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which in turn is a reference to the slogan of the Vietnam War protesters (mostly hippies) "Make Love, Not War." In any case, unless you are against making love you should change your sig, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your sig is a joke that says everyone should put their condoms back on the shelf and sit in front of the keyboard. I think it would be better to tell them to stop making war or warcrafts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am against drama, so I like that better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your sig is a joke that says everyone should put their condoms back on the shelf and sit in front of the keyboard. I think it would be better to tell them to stop making war or warcrafts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
DYK update
- is late if you're active. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
J. R.
Got your message; I hope your busy days are a good busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to get to it tomorrow. My own Jack Kemp FAC just got a ton of comments that I have to run through.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to switch Lee Smith (baseball) to the same type of table I am suggesting at Richard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(copied from article talk page:) Regarding this edit. It seems mistaken, as in fact Richard's minor league career is also covered in later sections. Hence I put "Early minor league career," to make that clear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my reply to user Dinesh Kannambadi - objections to text in Hoysala and Western Chalukya pages
Respected Sir,
I have been away for the past 4 days because of personal urgencies and came back only on Friday.
Well user Dinesh Kannambadi thought it wise to separately complain to you about his suspicion of my having strong ethno-centric links. To this I would only reply that a neutral observer or admin like you should take a look into the Western Chalukya and Hoysala articles in which he has 'contributed' material with strong ethno-centric leanings as well as material completely and absolutely prejudicial to people and culture not originating from Karnataka. Anyways, file this user finds it fit to spread lies and attribute false motives about other new users like me and indulges in character assasination with impunity, not hesitating to even make false accusations like leaving the remark "new user unwilling to discuss" which is false because first of all he does not bother to reply to our genuine points and tries to take the escape route by saying that others should present verifiable proofs etc. and in the process has tried to misguide neutral historians like you in saying that I have located a website of the Archaeological Survey of India and am trying to "interpret" the inscriptions unearthed by them all over the country. All I want to say in reply is that while historians belonging to a certain region or state could indeed be prejudicial in portrayal of history and culture of their state, in the process portraying the contemporaneous culture and history of other states and regions especially of those of their neighbouring states etc. in a relatively poor light as has been observed by me in this very website. On the other hand, a body such as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), is part of the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (Department of Culture), now this Department is rechristened as the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of which the ASI is a very vital part and in fact, its status is not even that of a body subordinate to the main Ministry of Culture, rather ASI has been deservingly accorded the status of an attached office as is borne out by this link.. kindly feel free to click on this link: http://indiaculture.nic.in/indiaculture/attachedoffices.htm. This ASI has worldwide affiliations with organizations, bodies and even noted historians with regard to preservation of ancient artefacts a major portion of which is formed by the inscriptions. ASI relies not only from noted historians, readers of scripts within India, but noted historians from all over the world in order to unearth many nuggets of history from all parts of the country so as to reveal to the world what the history and culture of our country says and also with regard to the achievements and failures of various ancient kingdoms of India through deciphering of ancient scripts and the old forms of languages like Tamil, Kannada, Sanskrit, Grantha and their varied forms, among others, which helps to build them a sequence of chronology of the progress of history in various parts of India by study of relics (among others), such as these. The text of of historical relics in the form of copper plate grants, pillar grants and other stone inscriptions unearthed, their contents translated for the benefit of every lover of history are displayed in its affiliate website www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions (this particular link is useful for seeing the chronology of historical events during the times of various dynasties that ruled South India). Pl. feel free to go through this link.
While we have a body serving the world through such efforts, user Dinesh Kannambadi has thought it fit to make the accusation against me that I am resorting to using "POV" websites and interpreting those very inscriptions. I submit with all humility that is is not so and user Dinesh Kannambadi is unable to face the truth and digest the fact that many claims made by him are either false or are matched by equally strong claims on behalf of empires that went to war with kingdoms like the Western Chalukyas. Even while saying so, I am only emphasizing that a truly neutral perspective should be taken while portraying history as it happened. I objected to (for example), his relying on an inscription from Hottur, which proclaimed that Chalukya king Satyasraya defeated Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola. I first started by pointing out that Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola have also extensively issued stone inscriptions in various parts of their Chola empire proclaiming their victory in the war against both Satyasraya and his successor Jayasimha-II, the most major of these inscriptions by both Rajendra Chola, his father Raja Raja and other succeeding Chola kings like Virarajendra, Kulothunga, Vikrama Chola are all found in the Big Temple at Tanjore as well at other places like Konerirajapuram and Tirvarur, Tamil Nadu.
So ASI is a POV website according to this user. If so, Sir, may I kindly request you to go through the various Hoysala and Western Chalukya pages to which user Dinesh Kannambadi has contributed and you will find that to justify the actions and deeds of these kingdoms, user Dinesh Kannambadi has extensively quoted from that very link i.e. www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions only.
Let me repeat Sir, that I did not stress of emphasize that the claim in support of Satyasraya was false, but said that in case reliance is placed on the Hottur inscription, equal importance should also be placed on the inscription from Cholas especially the Big Temple, Tanjore inscription. My point was simple, display both the claims on both the Chalukya and Chola pages, so that it leads to a friendly and stimulating intellectual discussion between Chola and Chalukya history lovers for an amicable solution to emerge, in case this particular point remains unresolved. Because of the unreasonable attitude of user Dinesh Kannambadi, this small but significant difference of opinion has remained unresolved.
Now Sir, allow me to point a second example, which brings out a complete contradiction in the attitude of user Dinesh Kannambadi. For this I request you once again to go the page on Western Chalukyas (pl.feel free to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Chalukyas. On this page the user Dinesh Kannambadi (DK in short), has quoted thus: "King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[62][63]" Sir in support of this claim through source No. [62], user DK has quoted the following link:
"King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[62][63]"
Sir, the above link pertains to the reputed magazine from The Hindu group of publications, namely "Frontline" that is widely respected for its content and is also an internationally distributed magazine. This particular link carries an interview with Prof. S. Settar, (who, as per the contents of the article itself) is "a distinguished scholar of the social, cultural and intellectual history of ancient and medieval Karnataka, and a specialist on Hoysala history, answers some of these questions in an interview to Parvathi Menon at the Belur and Halebid temples. Professor Settar, who currently holds the S. Radhakrishnan Chair at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore, was Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research and former Director of the Institute of Art History."
Sir, it is very interesting to see what information user DK has quoted on the Western Chalukya page, which is that : "King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[62][63]" Sir, first of all King Vishnuvardhana was a Hoysala and not a Chalukya, and while I do not question mentioning his name in a Chalukya page, the second part of the statement that he build many temples after his conversion to Vaishnavism including the Belur Chennakesava is quite significant - may I add, Sir, that it is absolutely false. Also absolutely false, constituting POV and emerging clearly and transparently as material prejudicial to people, culture and historical figures including kings from places region with a linguistic and cultural orientation different from those of Kannada-speaking lands, are further statements added (by either user DK or by other etho-centric chauvinists) on the Hoysala architecture pages and indeed the history page on Vishnuvardhana, which are as under:
The Famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur is attributed to him. He built this temple to commemorate his victory against the Cholas of Tamil country.
How and why? You may be very much interested to ask. Exactly, Sir and this becomes clear when you go through this link: "King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[62][63]"
Let me point out Sir, that an expert like Mr.S.Settar who was Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research and is an acclaimed and acknowledged expert on Hoysala history with an added capacity of his of being able to read both the modern and old (Hale) Kannada languages has reveleaded in his above-mentioned interview with the Frontline magazine of what the inscription of King Vishnuvardhana Hoysala himself, and that too at the Belur Chennakesava Temple itself, says:
Pls. feel to go through the entire interview in the above mentioned website, the relevant points of which are as follows:
What is the historical context in which the temple was constructed and how did this influence its architecture?
In Belur in the 12th century was initiated a new style of temple architecture, which was new to the Gangavadi region, that is, the southern part of Karnataka. With the construction of this temple, Belur entered the history books, I mean, the history of architecture, religion and design.
The ruler who built this temple was Vishnuvardhana, who succeeded to the Hoysala throne in the first decade of the 12th century and completed this (temple) in A.D. 1117. He had a specific purpose in mind in constructing this temple. He was a subordinate of the western Chalukyas who later declared his independence from them. By liberating himself from their political authority, he also wanted to excel them in their own field. The result was the remarkable temple which certainly overshadowed the Chalukyan achievements in the field of arts.
May I point out Sir, that the above excerpt belies the notion or the self-serving theory (hopefully not of user DK) that the Belur Chennakesava was built to commemorate his victory over the Cholas at Talakaud. I will also show in subsequent lines what in specific (as per the reading and translation (but not "an interpretation" as user DK loves to express) of King Hoysala Vishnuvardhana's own inscription, which is as under:
In one of the first inscriptions engraved in this temple, Vishnuvardhana says that he has "built it from the wealth which he amassed from the sword". He says that the main temple was built to celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas. It was a declaration of his sovereign status.
That is why he called the deity Vijayanarayana, a name later changed to Chennakesava. Later myths suggest that he built this temple after he was converted to Sri Vaishnavism by Ramanuja. But the records do not support this. He built three temples in this complex - the Vijayanarayana, the Kesava and the Lakshminarayana.
The above lines Sir, once again bring to light the fact that Vishnuvardhana built the Belur Chennakesava to "celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas" and that there is no mention of any connection whatsoever, of the Belur Chennakesava, with his defeat of Cholas at Talakaud. Sir, also feel free to kindly go through the second portion of the above excerpt about myths suggesting his building this temple (among others) after his conversion to Sri Vaishnavism. Sir, these lines now debunk the second theories about Vishnuvardhana as mentioned in the Chalukya page about his building Vishnu temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism.
Sir, so now two theories, that Belur Chennakesava was built (first) to celebrate Vishnuvardhana's victory at Talakaud and (second) it was one of the many temples built after his conversion to Vaishnavism are both rendered false. This is what I repeatedly requested user DK to delete as they are prejudicial to the history of Cholas and the Tamil speaking people. Especially dragging the name of a historical edifice a pious place such as a temple like the Belur Chennakesava and dubbing it as having been "built to celebrate his victory over the Cholas at Talakaud" is Sir, (I hope you agree) not only false but reeks of vicious, regionalistic and ethno-centric propaganda which should be deleted at all costs to maintain the truth and present a neutral perspective of historical events surrounding either the Chalukyas, Hoysalas or indeed the Cholas. More so, Sir, the justification for this plea is because these very theories are being negated not by me and you but by a recognized, established, acclaimed and acknowledged historical expert and that too one on the Hoysalas and a person capable of reading and translating (not interpreting) historical inscriptions for everyone's benefit, like Prof. S.Settar, formerly Chairman of the ICAR, who was also associated with the ASI.
Now Sir, I come to the last part of my submission, in that what was the context of building of most of the temples of Hoysala Vishnuvardhana which further clarifies the position of the building of the Belur Chennakesava temple: Pl. go through this excerpt:
There is a popular belief that Ramanuja came to meet Vishnuvardhana and brought him under the influence of Sri Vaishnavism. What do the historical records say?
Excerpt of the answer is very illuminating to say the least, Sir:
In fact he never met Ramanuja seems not to have met Vishnuvardhana although he certainly visited the Cauvery-Kanva region,, and there is no evidence to show that he built this (the Chennakesava temple) exclusively for Sri Vaishnavas. The myth says that Vishnuvardhana built five temples for Narayana all at the same time, for which too there is no evidence. As he said in his own words, he built the Kesava, Lakshmi and Vijayanarayana temples to celebrate his victories and not to mark his conversion.
I guess I need not repeat anything further Sir, and leave it to your wise counsel or that of any other neutral arbitrator.
Thanks
Srirangam99 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Srirangam, Please stop layng waste to this talk page. You have not produced a single worthy source to date. Stop vandalising Veera Ballala II.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
NBA WikiProject Newsletter
|
|
|
| The NBA WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 1 • April 9, 2008 • Written by: Basketball110 | ||
Project and league news:
|
Featured NBA articles of the week: |
|
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
NBA WikiProject May Newsletter
|
|
|
|
| The NBA WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 2 • May 5, 2008 • Written by: Noble Story | ||
|
|
Magic Johnson has been chosen to be our very first Collaboration of the Month article. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. The goal is to improve this article by the end of May so that it can be nominated for Featured Article status. In particular, free-use images should be found for the article, all Manual of Style guidelines should be followed, and a neutral point of view should be maintained throughout the article. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out. |
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
Concerning MMMMMM whatever his name is
I don't want to contradict you in front of a new editor, but the wording of the exact policy you linked to him specifies "If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion." Suggesting that it was, in fact, inappropriate to automatically block him without some attempt at discussion. Trusilver 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bhindranwale
Hi, Mr Bhindranwale was known to be rather unacademic at the best of times! Its well known he couldn't pass beyond 4th class (approximately 7-8 years age group) Indian education system; and its a well known fact he could NOT speak or understand the English language but these facts are constantly deleted. Its information like this that gives a real insight of the individual, sure enough there are the usual terrorist apologists that claim he was nothing short of an incarnation of Einstein plus God, but the truth is that he was a bit of a fruitcake, and there is ample evidence for this despite the opposing propaganda literature on offer to disprove he was a fruitcake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.1 (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bhindranwale's intelligence or lack of !
Hi Nishkid64
Here is a link of a discussion of the BBC Documentary about Indira Gandhi.
There is a discussion about Mark Tullys reference to Bhindranwale intelligence.
HE DID CLEARLY STATE THAT BHINDRANWALE "WAS CLEARLY NOT AN INTELLIGENT MAN"
Now that is proof it was not concocted by myself, even his supporters admit online that this analysis was made.
Thank you
http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=14559&st=24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.1 (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I approached you the last time I needed another page merged with this which you successfully did. I just discovered an perculiar happening iwth the abovementioned page where it seems to have been blanked except the infobox, but no record of it appears in the history section. You are the only experienced editor I know and am hoping you could shed some light on this and revert it to its original state. Thank you. Reqluce (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you but now it seems the Japanese Version alternate cover which is in the infobox does not show up even though its there, could you kindly fix it please? Reqluce (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, that didn't go well... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, well, TenPoundHammer and SynergeticMaggot told me about it on IRC, and I guess I accepted to hastily. I reckon I'll have another go when you say I'm ready. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does that mean you're withdrawing? If so, you might want to state so on the RfA.Balloonman (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yea. Good point, I'll mention it on the RfA. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
User:SynergeticMaggot and I co-nominated User:Juliancolton for a second run at adminship. Thought I'd drop you a line since you were Julian's admin coach. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your coachee
Are you aware that your coachee, Juliancolton, is running a live RfA at the moment? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Benn Newman (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)--Benn Newman (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I still thought you'd want to be notified (and I didn't notice how long the message was, yeesh!) --Benn Newman (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.
- Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
- Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
- Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
- Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!
For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
I notice that this portal has been abandoned for some time. Since you appear to be one of the only contributors, I thought I'd bring that to your attention. I'd be happy to lend help when I can (if needed of course), but right now I'm busy getting ahead on Portal:Weather.-RunningOnBrains 07:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Iron Man film protection level.
Please consider reinstating the semipro for Iron Man. Within 2 hours of your lifting of Semi, three vandalism hits occurred. More are likely as the weekend progresses. Perhaps another 48 to push through the weekend, and then reassess? With it being the #1 movie going, and Speed Racer unlikely to... outpace... (sorry) it(no, not really, that movie deserves bad puns), it seems likely to be a target. After two weeks, Isuspedt, however that most of the immature kids will have seen it and their 3 second attentions spans will move on. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
DYK--Can you please update it???? 10 hrs...
DYK hasn't been updated for 10 hours!!! Could you please save us all from the same old facts, if you're not too busy? Gratzi. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 02:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations
I did not get to give my support before the final promotion. BTW, you might want to add a similar table to Lee Smith if you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Buddha hook
I notice you added a second Buddha hook. I know it's Buddha's birthday, but don't forget we have four updates for the day and the Buddha hooks have to be spread out over those four updates. I don't know how many Buddha hooks we have, but we've made the mistake of using up all our special day hooks in a single update before and it's something we now try to avoid. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- We've still got seven on my USB stick at least! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to say hai
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Sorry I forgot to look at the page. I have had a lot of thing running through my mind in the last few weeks so I kinda got sidetracked. Anyways. You got anything you want to throw out at me? How about WP:AFD work? <sarcasm>That is a lot of fun I hear.</sarcasm>. Rgoodermote 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A favour (whenever you have time). With an effort to further improve the quality of citations in this FA article (especially in the "architecture" section) I would like to provide here on your talk page, book citations from well known architecture experts (of Chalukyan arch); Henry Cousens, Adam Hardy and Gerard Foekema. These book citations will replace my own web citations which I had used before these books became available to me. I will provide the citation number that should be replaced and the citation that replaces it. There should be some 6-7 replacements. Hope this is ok with you.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Bachelorette - Season 4
Can you possibly unable it so I can merge what I've started with to that page then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeisu (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Gilberto Gil FAC
Responded to your concern at the Gilberto Gil FAC—culturebase is a joint project funded in part by the European Culture 2000 program. If there is still doubt as to reliability, I can probably source its claims other sources. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: User 90.196.3.1
Hi Nish, this fellow is causing me real problems. He is continously Vandalising my personal page and seems to be putting very pro-Khalistan spin on a lot of articles. Is there anything we can do to desist this fellow from such actions?--Sikh-history (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)