User talk:Titodutta/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

DYK for Sharmila Biswas

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

DYK for Lotika Sarkar

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Titodutta. You have new messages at Dharmadhyaksha's talk page.
Message added 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Can you please help in improving the synopsis for the article Janta V/S Janardan - Bechara Aam Aadmi? Bubaikumar (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot. Please check the article once more. Does it seem okay. Bubaikumar (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the work on DYK on Swami Vivekananda. Appreciate it very much. Sorry for the delay in replying. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alasinga Perumal

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool good. Ssriram mt (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Abujmarh

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shanno Khurana

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For the excellent teamwork that you do to improve innumerable articles, including several for DYK. Dwaipayan (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dekha, Na-Dekhay

Hello! Your submission of Dekha, Na-Dekhay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 07:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please cleanup the following articles if you are free:

Bubaikumar (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Done. Do not Gomolo reviewer's comments. They are general users of the site. Even you can write a review there! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 10:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have nominated Dekha Na Dekha and Chupkatha at DYK, Most probably the first one will fail, since the nomination was not done in first five days. If you inform me about your new articles right after creation that will be helpful. C/O Sir will hit main page on tomorrow 5:30 am (to 1:30 pm). Credit will be posted at your talk page! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 10:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Feeling nice about C/O Sir. We've really worked hard on it and thank you for nominating Chupkatha at DYK as well as making edits on Taaha Shah. As you said, I will inform you as soon as I create an article. Presently, I am working on Arjun - Kalimpong E Sitaharan. I will notify you the momoent I complete it. And please cleanup Janta V/S Janardan - Bechara Aam Aadmi. Bubaikumar (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Use emdash i,e, Arjun — Kalimpong E Sitaharan. Press Alt+0+1+5+3 for emdash in Windows. (press 0 1 5 3 in the right side number pad of keyboard)! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 12:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, please don't mind. I removed the link of Chupkatha. That you placed on the article Somlata Acharyya Chowdhury. She made an album in 2009 with the name Chupkatha, but that is totally different from the 2012 film. Bubaikumar (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For the help and love you gave me on Wikipedia. Bubaikumar (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata

Hello! Your submission of Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warden (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP prod Sabyasachi Sarkar

Can you do anything to fix Sabyasachi Sarkar. It is a complete mess now and BLP proded. Solomon7968 18:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Taraknath Palit

New article of potential interest to you. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Taraknath Palit. Solomon7968 14:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Just add the Accessdates (by the way I do not know what it means). It is ready for DYK. Solomon7968 11:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Otai korchhilam eto khon. Access date means the date you access. Je din apni oi page ta reference hishebe use korlen. Anyway, I think you are manually creating Google Books refs. There is a tool. See the second one [[1]]. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The tool Looks quite good. Solomon7968 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Seen a lot of excellent DYK work from you, keep it up!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

National emergency

Did not notice until now that someone has already picked on our fun part and there they are, throwing various policy links at each others on Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Riots_or_Pogroms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thats for now. Lets hope it remains that way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

List of photographs of Abraham Lincoln

See the page. I am wondering if it is possible to make similar List of photographs of Mahatma Gandhi, List of photographs of Rabindranath Tagore, List of photographs of Swami Vivekananda. Solomon7968 11:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already done this in Commons, see commons:Swami Vivekananda. Do you want a similar copy in Wikipedia? There are many photos! It'll become extremely large! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite impressive! Did not noticed it. Solomon7968 11:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, notice what? If we create a similar article on Swami Vivekananda it'll be so large either we'll create record of longest article in Wikipedia or we need to split that into multiple articles. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Arjun

Created the page Arjun — Kalimpong E Sitaharan. Even checked using Copyvio Detector which found the article okay. You can check it and please cleanup. Bubaikumar (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Titodutta. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Chief Minister (Pakistan).
Message added 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re everything

Tito, I am busy nowadays in work, and have been editing here erratically. So, I might not have been able to respond to your messages/updates. Sorry for that. I will continue to be sporadic for several days, perhaps months. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. :) Thanks for the notification though, I would have missed the update in automated notification system or whatever it is called. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

Can you take a look at the article? Does it really justify its existence as all the contents are already covered in Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide etc. Further there is another article titled Anti-Bihari sentiment which is still India centric, can't we merge the article on persecution of Biharis into that one? Or should I AfD it??--Zayeem (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Merging Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh to Anti-Bihari sentiment will make a hotch potch because the India thing and Bangladesh thing are in totally different poles. Merge it to Stranded Pakistanis instead. Solomon7968 20:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Anti-Bihari sentiment was initially titled as Anti-Bihari sentiment in India before someone unilaterally moved it to the current title. That's why I proposed that merge, since the contents of the article are still contradictory to the title.--Zayeem (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, User:Sitush can give a good suggestion.--Zayeem (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that is not fair. If he posts on every talk page about my article, then surely there is something black. Faizan 10:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Funny Tito. Faizan 11:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
All you can do is open a merge discussion per WP:MERGE. I'm not sure what would happen if there is no consensus but if it is like AfD then the articles would remain separate. There might, however, be scope for raising a RfC. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Faizan if Zayeem is canvassing (which he blatantly is) maybe you can alert other users also to this nexus? fight fire with fire I think that is the best remedy 86.151.237.220 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say merge with Stranded Pakistanis and retitle the article to something like "Biharis in Bangladesh". Persecution could be one section. --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I don't agree. The Biharis have been persecuted in Bangladesh mainly, so we should have a separate article for them, thus it is very important. Faizan 15:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This can be reported as canvassing. Faizan 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What can be reported as canvassing? Anyway, since you disagree, someone should probably start a discussion on the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the article is open for anyone. I think that this behaviour of the thread-starting user, of referring the article to others, when already being satisfied at the respective article's talk is not appropriate. Have a look at the article's talk. Faizan 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless the editor's posted on multiple user talk pages, this doesn't qualify as canvassing. The editor is merely asking for help and, in my opinion, expressing his/her reservations fairly. Plus, Tito is such a fair guy that posting on his talk page can't really be called canvassing :) --regentspark (comment) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is merge discussions often take too long to reach a consensus (and often ends up with no consensus), see this article for instance, which is still tagged for a merger since this March. In my view, the article Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is totally redundant, the topic is already covered in some of the existing articles, so I guess an AfD would be a better option. Will it be okay??--Zayeem (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are confident enough, then you can go ahead. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_98#Wikipedia_.22Merge.22_like_WP:RM_or_WP:AFD --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I went for the AfD.--Zayeem (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations.

  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Home Wiki

Hello, Titodutta/Archive 32. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by πr2 (t • c) 02:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Ary Toledo

Hi Tito, how are you? I made this new page of a great brazilian humorist.

I love him, he's smart! I ask some minute of your time to have a little re-lecture, please. Can you? Thank you very much!

Rei Momo (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Grazie mille - Thanks a lot ! Rei Momo (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan Primera División

Following your message on my talk page ([2]), I admit to edit warring. On my defense, I was restoring the original version of the article, and thus reverting Kimur's consistant edition, which I do not agree with. Can the article be protected while we reach an agreement on the talk page?—Nuno93 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching it. Still, thanks for the heads up.—Nuno93 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is useless to keep watching. RFPP for a particular thread. In every few minutes someone edits that page. Hopefully someone'll handle it in next few hours. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have any strong references. On the other hand, FIFA recognizes Peñarol as 49 times champion and you can see in the talk page a whole bunch of links with 48 instead of 49, but that's because Peñarol won a tournament last tuesday, and this FIFA articles were written before.

His argument, so far at least, relies on the fact that two of the tournaments that Peñarol are not official to AUF (Uruguayan Football Association), but that doesn't mean they are not Uruguayan Championships. Official is a relative term, official to whom? As you can see, they weren't official to AUF, but FIFA does consider them official. At least they are included in the count they make.—Nuno93 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not allow original research. Statements must be supported by reliable sources. If he does not provide any and continues edit warring and does not pay attention to any comment too, WP:ANI should be the destination. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason for this "edit war" is very simple. There are two large controversies concerning C.A.Peñarol's Primera División number of titles won. The first one, and the one most open to debate, since it is more open to different interpretations of whichever facts one choses to take into consideration, is the matter of the "deanship" of Uruguayan football (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decanato_en_el_fútbol_uruguayo). C.A.Peñarol was founded in 1913 by a majority of associates of another club, the C.U.R.C.C., which continued to exist till 1915. The fact that Peñarol took the C.U.R.C.C.'s place in the Uruguayan Assocation is taken by Peñarol's fans as proof enough that both were the same, while others see facts as when in 1915 the C.U.R.C.C. finally disappeared, the club donated all its trophies not to Peñarol, but to the British Hospital. Those state that the fact that C.U.R.C.C. was known as C.U.R.C.C. Peñarol even before the second club's foundation is enough, but it works the other way round: the new club took the name of the place were it was situated. Even more, that a club has the same name that a previous one had does not necessarily mean they are the same (cfr. River Plate F.C. and C.A.River Plate [Montevideo]). There is, however, a consensus that be it that Peñarol is a continuation of C.U.R.C.C. or not, it emerged from it in a way that allows both clubs to be taken as a unit, their titles counted in a single count, etc., as long as the necessary notes are added to any article in Wikipedia. This is why in the "Champions by season" of the Amateur Era, the first ones are counted as won by "CURCC(1)" "CURCC(2)", and Peñarol is not mentioned until after 1913, but the first championship won by that club continues C.U.R.C.C.'s count (1918: "Peñarol (6)"). Even though I might not agree ideologically with accepting that continuity, I agree that it is best to accept it for clarity's worth, and I believe that it is historically accurate to say that both clubs ARE a continuity. The fact that this continuity should be evidenced any time that facts or numbers including it are mentioned is corresponded in the section "Amateur Era" ("In the amateur era, five clubs won a Primera División title. Nacional is the most successful club with 11 titles, followed by CURCC/Peñarol"), and in the "Amateur titles by club" ("CURCC/Peñarol >>> 11"). However, whoever edited the page last chose to forget this need for clarity in the last list ("Total Primera División titles by club") where C.U.R.C.C.'s existence is passed through. The second controvery is the one that has fuelled most of what happened in this article and its talk page in the last days. You will excuse me for extending myself a little bit here, but I intend on explaining why I think that contrary to the first controversy (C.U.R.C.C. & Peñarol being the same or not) is open to interpretation and may never reach a point of real consensus as to which interpretation most resembles the truth, but only a consensus as a way to reach a middle point halfway both interpretations (this is, a 'false' but necessarily invented truth), this second controversy is not open to interpretation, but just a result of mistakes taken as truths and different things taken as equals:

In 1922 was expelled from Uruguay's hitherto only official football association (the Uruguayan Football Association, or 'AUF'), and together with other clubs (most of them small clubs and reserve teams to AUF clubs) formed a parallel organisation, the Uruguayan Football Federation (FUF). This entity ran two championships in 1923 and 1924, the first won by Atlético Wanderers (a subsidiary reserve team for AUF's Montevideo Wanderers) and the second one by Peñarol itself. In 1925 the Uruguayan national government intervened the situation, both AUF and FUF championships were suspended, and the next year a tournament known as 'Consejo Provisorio' (Provisory Council) took place, with its 'A Series' being won by Peñarol. After this Provisory tournament, which had qualificatory characteristics, both entities reunited under the old AUF's name. The issue is as follows: Peñarol's supporters understand those two championships must be counted in the same list as regular championships. I understand otherwise, since the FUF was a dissident entity, its titles not being recognised by AUF, not then or now, and to the extent that when Uruguay participated in the Summer Olympics in 1924, FUF club's players were not allowed to be part of the Uruguayan National Football team. Another of Peñarol's fans arguments is that FIFA numbers the clubs titles as 49. However, a not necessarily too close look at FIFA's webpage concerning this [3] will show clearly that it only portrays whatever information the clubs themselves send to FIFA, and that they do not particularly care about that information (to the limit of making a mistake in C.U.R.C.C.'s name, which should be "Central URUGUAY Railway Cricket Club", and not "Central UruguayAN Railway Cricket Club"). However, Uruguay's official Association does not and has never counted those titles, not only the FUF championships but also the Provisory Council. Just looking at a few links in AUF's page (http://www.auf.org.uy for example http://www.auf.org.uy/Portal/FileViewer.ashx?id=2601&download=yes ), it reads perfectly clear that Peñarol can not have 49 Uruguayan Primera División Championships, and that Wanderers can not have 4: if the championship that just ended was the 109th edition of the Uruguayan Primera División Championship, there can be only 109 champions; if we add the two 1924 and 1926 titles to Peñarol's OFFICIAL count, and Atlético Wanderers' 1923 title to Montevideo Wanderers' OFFICIAL count, the number would rise to 112 champions. Both FUF championships should be taken into consideration as what they were: championships organised by a dissident entity, not official by any means, and the 1926 Provisory Council tournament shoold not be counted as an OFFICIAL Uruguayan Primera División Tournament either, since even though it was organised officially, it was not inteded as a Primera División Championship (as can be read unequivocally in the spanish language talk page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Torneo_del_Consejo_Provisorio_1926 ), and as -again- colleague Nuno93 has continually tried to prevent from having clarified in the articles themselves, with the result of many articles concerning the history of Uruguayan football containing mistakes and internal contradictions (e.g. not only between one article and another, but INSIDE a single article), and most or all of them with the sole reason of defending a partial posture.

As you will be able to see with just a look at the talk page of Uruguayan Primera División, I have tried to revert some particular contradictions: - first, regardless of if we count 47 titles or 49, the continuity C.U.R.C.C./Peñarol should always be visible (except, of course, when C.U.R.C.C. is not included, e.g.: when counting professional championships). This continuity appears when the theme is the Amateur Era, but has been erased from the total figures by user Nuno93, as if C.U.R.C.C.'s achievements stopped being taken into consideration. - second, F.U.F. championships should be included in the article but aside from official AUF lists and total numbers. I included some faulty paragraphs and lists in the article, that were immediately erased by user Nuno93 even though he claimed to be in accord with the idea, and he only included lists with the F.U.F. and Provisory Council specifications -arguably much better achieved than the ones I had tried days before- when the warning about the 'edit-war' appeared. Had this warning never occured, very probably the article would not include these lists.

Summing up, I can do nothing else but to ask you to carefully read these comments and take action in the way you consider that best suits Wikipedia in its search for bringing better and more accurate information to its readers. As you will see if you really dig an interest in this topic, most or all of the sources presented by user Nuno93 to support his views are such that can be changed according to the opinon of the club involved (particularly in the case of the FIFA web page). Also,RSSSF web pages which he also cites as reference (such as http://www.rsssf.com/tablesu/uruchamp.html ) note that neither the FUF championships nor the Provisory Council tournament are part of the Uruguayan Primera División championships' count. As other users have already shown user Nuno93 in many a talk page, the fact that FUF championships were 'official' TO FUF ITSELF does not make them official for the rest of reality. As has been noted, if any other club decides to create a parallel league today, whatever titles that parallel league give will have to be disregarded in OFFICIAL countings, unless the original official league disappeared and the only remaining was the parallel one. Moreover, the argument that Provisory Council tournament was of official character is not enough to count it as a Primera División Championship either, since (as has also been told in various talk pages), the Uruguayan Football Association organises many tournaments, simultaneously or not, and that official character does not make them "Uruguayan Primera División Championships", but only Official titles organised by AUF (such as Torneo Competencia, Torneo de Honor, Liguilla Pre-Libertadores, Uruguayan Segunda División, all them were or are organised by AUF, and yet none of them counts as Uruguayan Primera División Championship). There is no reason whatsoever to count different things as if they were equal, there is no reason to count a tournament that had qualificatory characteristics as a Primera División Championship, and more personally -and I realize that making this comment implies that I do not believe in user Nuno93 good faith when these topics are in discussion- there is NO reason to force a faulty version of reality shielded by one's being a Wikipedia user for longer than another person, or even worse, disguising one's partiality in a pretended acceptance or defence of Wikipedia's protocols. Finally, as I have already stated, the only reason why user Nuno93 finally included some information which I had tried to include was because of the edit-war warning, and he chose to leave aside most of the second controversial points. Ergo, the fact that some of the information that I had included in my edit has finally had its way in the article means in no way that there is a consensus being reached, since most of or all the points that user Nuno93 did not mend remain contradictory to other information in the article itself or in other articles, remains dubious to me at least in the intentions behind his edits, and only contributes to Wikipedia being stopped from improving.

I suppose it would be best if a third party or the community would look at these issues. K. Kimur (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

List of songs sung by Shreya Ghoshal

The article List of songs sung by Shreya Ghoshal is getting longer day by day as regional songs are being added to the list. It has already become excessively long! Do you think that separate articles for each regional song are needed? I feel its urgent. Please comment. And forget about merging it to Shreya Ghoshal discography, it itself has already become so long. Bubaikumar (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The article has multiple issues. --Tito ↂ Dutta 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice efforts. But to make it more encyclopedic, you can add few more columns. Eg: List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf6) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 6, and to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 10. It will be enabled on all Wikipedias on June 13. [4]
  • An alpha version of the VisualEditor was enabled on all Wikipedias on June 6. Please test it and report problems. [5]
  • Several VisualEditor bugs have been fixed; users can now add, edit and remove categories using the editor's "Page settings" menu.
  • Wikimedia error messages will no longer link to the #wikipedia [[<tvar|meta-irc-chans>:m:IRC/Channels</>|IRC channel]] on Freenode. [6]
  • The logo of 16 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a fourth group of updates. [7]
  • A test instance of Wikidata is now available at test.wikidata.org. [8]
  • Users can now patrol the first version of a newly created page if they visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges. [9]
  • Translation pages will no longer include edit section links (bug #40713). [10]
Future software changes
  • A report on mobile upload errors was published, and software changes to reduce their number will come soon. [11]
  • A request for comments on updating MediaWiki to use RDFa version 1.1 was started on MediaWiki.org (Gerrit change #67608).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

20:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For bringing an issue to attention at WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I very much liked your step by step investigation and answering. Nice job. --Tito ↂ Dutta 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Request on Kahaani FAC

Hi! I will be travelling for several days (about two weeks), with very limited access to internet. Although I'll leave a note on that in the FAC page, if something important comes up there, can you please take a look? I am requesting the same to Bollyjeff and Karthik. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Okay. --Tito ↂ Dutta 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. What happened to your signature? I hope it's a temporary experiment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rituparno movies

I recently saw some of his post-2005 films. Earlier ones I had already seen in theaters in Kolkata. I saw Dosar, Shob Charitra Kalponik, and Abohoman. Have you seen those? Even to me, who does not have any reading on cinema, clearly his style had matured since his earlier plain stories such as Dohon. Especially Shob Choritro was a very complex and difficult one. It's psychologically demanding. Abohoman is much easier to appreciate, and is somewhat a tribute to the artists freedom:apon moner madhuri mishaye tomare korechhi rochona ,sreemati, the muse. Watching these three films, definitely I was very impressed. Well, he was already well known for details a and character building etc. But I did not see major experimentation in previous films. I hope scholars would write at length about these films.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No, I have not seen most of the mentioned movies. --Tito ↂ Dutta 13:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to wait till it's available online. Sometimes they are legally released online as well, that makes it easier; but sometimes they are not.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Harrison Road

Could not find the origin of the name. My guess includes George Harrison (Lord Provost).--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ek citation ki kimat tum kya jano Ramesh? --TitoↂDutta 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

COI TV serials

Check this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Keech. It seems that Keech has written to Wikipedia in which she confesses that her production company was puffing her article. So the practice surely does exist in Indian entertainment sector. No surprise if TV guys also follow it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

All Ravi Kinagi films have this problem. Solomon7968 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
There may be /may have been some (or a lot) of coordinated self promotional editing of TV articles, but what I have seen is from dynamic IPs (so it is unlikely to be someone working from either a particular office or home), with horrendous grammar and gushing sentiment, that if indeed were from people being paid to promote, should instead cause the individuals to be fired because it just makes the shows look bad!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom I saw your name and thought "The red pony of doom". I hate horses, so that is something that is terrifying. Did I mention that before? Argh, my memory. Tito, that is one obnoxious signature. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

DYK for Mathura rape case

The DYK project (nominate) 03:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Your issues were addressed at the fac. Please, talkback at the fac page.—Prashant 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Do not send me email. --Tito☸Dutta 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I told not to email me. My email notice mentions not to send email for canvassing. And talk politely, in case you don't know how to talk politely, stay away from my talk page too. --Tito☸Dutta 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For all the DYKs you have created recently, you surely need this..all the best. Ekabhishektalk 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eugene Chelyshev

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

DYK for Taraknath Palit

The DYK project (nominate) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Taraknath Palit

Hi Tito, I have a question. When the DYK says that in 1912 Taraknath Palit donated money and property worth 15 lakh (US$27,000) to Calcutta University for the establishment of University College of Science and Technology?, are you considering 1912's foreign exchange rates? -sarvajna (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No sarvajna US$27,000 is by contemporary foreign exchange rate. Solomon7968 15:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good question. No (as Solomon said) it is just a conversion of current amount. When I expanded Ajit Singh of Khetri, I had this thing in mind, please see the third paragraph of Ajit_Singh_of_Khetri#Assistance_to_Vivekananda.27s_family. But, forgot the issue here. Need to keep this in mind for future works. --Tito☸Dutta 15:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, Tito! A good signature, yours. But would it not look better if you replaced that awkward symbol (ↂ) in the centre to something like this →☸ (U+2638, navy-blue coloured)? Hope it renders correctly on your device...—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Testing Tito☸Dutta --TitoↂDutta 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. --Tito☸Dutta 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    Just a heads up that you might want to reconsider the signature entirely. Search Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Addshore for 'signature' and you'll see what I mean. --regentspark (comment) 19:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I can not understand that RFB properly. Whoosh. I spent three days and tried 7 designs before finally selecting this one. --Tito☸Dutta 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    I guess the point is that searching for "titodutta" on a talk page will not return any results with your current signature. I've seen signatures become an issue on other RfAs as well. Sometimes, simpler is better! --regentspark (comment) 19:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not applicable here. Addshore replaced a character "s" of his username with "§". But, I am not replacing any character. The character "·" is widely used in Wikipedia like Example  (talk • contributions • email). IT is like that, working as a separator. --Tito☸Dutta 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Perhaps I'm getting too conservative when it comes to RfA !votes! --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
RFA votes don't matter. Adminship gives access to few tools. And after few days each and every tool loses its initial excitement. If you notice my editing trend, you'll notice I am attempting more and more on WikiProject India. See my recent template Template:WikiProject India welcome. I want to be a WikiProject India contributor at this moment, RFA is not so much important. So, if you had told my signature is disruptive at WT:INB, I would have changed it immediately. I am physically not very fit at this moment. If you can suggest me another good signature, I'll change the current one. Addendum: I sometimes badly miss RFA tools. For last few days I am thinking to add an editnotice at WikiProject India member's page "Add your name in alphabetical order using {{User}}", but, I can't add one without having admin rights. --Tito☸Dutta 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break

Please create section break here so that I can comment. Edit box limit problem. neo (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done --Tito☸Dutta 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In future I will include sub-section markers while posting some message some where. neo (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Dil Se

I would appreciate if you weight-in with your view here. Thank you and regards--Isaacsirup (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for your message. It's happened once before, and I can't say I understand why. I clicked on something else, and suddenly I get the notice to say I've rolled something back. If I follow your instruction, what will it do? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It'll hide the "rollback" link from watchlist. If you give me some more details like where you clicked (watchlist, edit diff), I can try to guess what happened. --12:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I understand. I've done that. It's probably a good idea, as I don't want it to happen again. I'm not sure where I thought I was clicking, probably a diff or article history. I was going through my watchlist to check on edits made during the night. It's possible I just missed, but unlikely. Thanks for doing that, I appreciate it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious lower back pain — status off and on

like this. Now, I am feeling pain in neck and shoulder too. It happens for sitting long time before computer. Status: off and on. --Tito☸Dutta 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a break ! I hope your break goes well, and that it doesn't indicate any problems. Hope to see you again soon !
- Ninney (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Update 1:28 am, I am suffering badly. Can not even sit properly (and even sleep too). --Tito☸Dutta 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tito☸Dutta 12:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, all the best for you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Caterham F1

Sorry it was Caterham F1 that the edit war was. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Titodutta! Since coming to Wikipedia a few months ago, I have been working hard to create articles about missing highly wanted Classical Greece and Rome topics. I would be upmost grateful if you would consider nominating me for the Executive Director's Barnstar. User:Sue Gardner sometimes gives it out to "promising new editors, and sometimes to people who have been making a significant contribution for many years." Best. Way2veers 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Where is the nomination page? If you want any other barnstar, select one from WP:BARN, I'll see if you deserve it. --Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Please nominate me at User:Sue Gardner's talk page. Best. Way2veers 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually he has been notified already by new notification system. I'll add a note --Tito☸Dutta 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the nomination! Best. Way2veers 21:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Titodutta. You have new messages at Talk:Dil Se...
Message added 21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Vivvt (Talk) 21:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Do you have time? to reflect back at the fac. Your comments were resolved. I request you, please talkback at the fac. Thank You.—Prashant 04:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Done. --Tito☸Dutta 13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

World's last telegram message will July 14 somewhere in India

Interesting article. I know this will be a hardship for you seeing how the telegram is faster than your internet service. Bgwhite (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Good one. --Tito☸Dutta 09:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Congratulations on reaching the milestone of fifty of your articles featured in the Did you know... column of the main page. Your efforts, on Indian and other subjects, are on the record and are greatly appreciated. Moonraker (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Tito☸Dutta 08:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 13. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 17, and on all Wikipedias on June 20. [12]
  • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions were successfully replaced by Universal Language Selector on June 11. [13]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor was temporarily disabled on Wikipedia sites on June 14 due to an issue that inserted a lot of HTML code. The issue is now fixed and VisualEditor works as before.
    • Users can now use VisualEditor to add images and other media items from their local wikis and Wikimedia Commons. [14].
    • VisualEditor also allows editing references. [15]
  • The new Disambiguator extension, which was previously part of MediaWiki itself, was enabled on test wikis. It adds the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages. [16]
  • The newly enabled Campaigns extension allows Wikimedia Foundation data analysts to track account creations that result from a specific outreach campaign.
Future software changes
  • Universal Language Selector will be added to the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias on June 18. [17]
  • Starting on June 18, VisualEditor will be randomly enabled by default for half of newly created accounts on the English Wikipedia to test stability, performance and features. [18]
  • Two new webfonts (UnifrakturMaguntia and Linux Libertine) will be added to wikis that use Universal Language Selector. [19] [20]
  • It will now be possible to hide the sidebar while using the Translate extension to reduce distractions (bug #45836). [21]
  • A patrolling link will now be visible for un-patrolled pages, even if users don't visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges (bug #49123). [22]
  • A request for comments on enabling a new search engine for MediaWiki was started.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe. 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_32&oldid=1168309128"