User talk:Gurubrahma/Archive07

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 January 2006 and 24 January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Gurubrahma/Archive08. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Gurubrahma 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:New DYK template

Adding the talk template with a day or so lag seems like a good idea. Thanks again.--nixie 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiscore: 331.86

I wouldn't worry about having a score like that it's when you reach the 1,000 mark you should be worried. I really need help, my score is beyond 1,200. You shouldn't worry because I think the person who made the scores probably didn't think the score would go past 500. so he made the 300 range "fatal". If 300 is fatal, than what am I?, lol.

Just don't commit a question #238 (on the test) or you'll end up like me. :-) — Moe ε 02:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heds-up

Fair call and good spot. Francis Birtles moved as suggested. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 10:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indians in Australia

Hi Gurubrahma, even though I am an Indian living in Australia, if I was to write an article about it without using any sources, I would only write a bit more than a stub. In general, there are not too many famous Indians here because of the following reason. Most of the Indians live in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne but within these cities, there is no "Indian dominant area." (unlike most immigrants to various countries the Indians in Australia are spaced out throughout the city).

It is stange to note that the Indo-Fijians in Australia are much more closer together and a stronger community.

However, I still know a couple of singers, and could definately write on Multi-chain Indian restaurant companies as well as A.H.I.A. an Indo-Australia organisation! DaGizza^Chat ^(c) 10:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, your username and userpage suggests that you are interested in Hinduism. WikiProject Hinduism needs as much help as possible and you are very much welcome to join. Thanks! DaGizza^Chat ^(c) 10:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi

Sorry for my misinterpretation of the changes to Mahatma Gandhi and for reverting them. By the way, is there a convention whether we should use American English or British English? RexNL 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. RexNL 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar for DYK Updation - moved to Appreciation --- smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on categorization policy

Hello Gurubrahma and thanks for your help.
Talking about category structures, should I remove the business schools from the main category page because they are already listed in the country pages? It more or less follows the tree structure idea to think it out like that. Do you think it's doable and interesting to do so?
Reference quote: "Articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software." (cf.Wikipedia:Categorization)
ciao, Rdavout 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your confidence in me

Hi there. I'm really flattered with your suggestion, but to tell you the truth, I'm not fit for admin duties. I'm opinionated as hell and I like to express what I think in plain words, while an admin needs to be much more balanced and no so irascible. Editing such controversial subjects as I do, after 20,000+ edits you get so many enemies that RfA becomes out of question. As Wetman says, I do what I can to keep Wikipedia upright and afloat, without being an admin. Thanks again and let's work together to make Wikipedia a better place. --Ghirla | talk 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award moved to Appreciation

Thanks for the nice comments on my talk page. I really appreciate it. I used to think that everyone around here would be really young, but it seems my perspective is wrong. Have a barnstar for your great work around here.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know of the guidelines. Those links were already there before I corrected the links. I only rectified the wiki pages they were directed to. As you correctly said, each unique word should be linked only once, I will strictly follow the guidelines in my future edits.

Regards,

Santosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshmaharjan (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the information

Hi. Thanks for the suggestions and positive comments about my contributions to wikipedia. :) Thanking you... Cookie90 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Sr. and Roshan Jr.

It is extremely naive to say that Roshan Sr. did not launch his sons. OK, not mollycoddled or browbeat the industry into taking them in, but both Rakesh and Rajesh Roshan wouldnt have got their first breaks if they hadnt had Roshan Sr.'s initial reco.

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India's most wanted

OK I accept that "popular" would be a mild POV. But I actually intended to remove the adj "tabloid" used to describe it in the earlier version. Thats a gross POV.

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki School input

I saw your invite, but the whole RfA thing has alerted me to a whole new range of Wiki toys. And as all good election candidates, I am breaking my RfA election promises, and doing what I said I would do if I did get elected, that is the Wiki School. Be a good chap and fill it out a bit would you? It really needs a more experienced person than me on it already. I will, I'm sure, 'release it' when it is a bit more honed to a wider audience, but for now, I'd be grateful for your input on it. Be bold with your changes! Brusselsshrek 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Hi Gurubrahma, these are points I never thought about -- actually, these are the first stubs I ever made, normally I don't create articles that I am not going to fully fill in, and in fact I am one of those who 'takes pride' and tends to even guard my articles. But I have been seeing that many other people (eg. Bhadaniji) make stubs for others to fill up, and I thought maybe this is regarded as helpful. Also, I was recently asked to participate in a project where many people were making stubs based on 1911 encyclopaedia, but I missed out on that (because I did not realise that the whole project was only about stubbing) and so when I came across this other film-project, I jumped in and tried to help. Anyway sorry and it won't happen again as I have actually no interest in stubs. Regards, ImpuMozhi 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a message from Sri Dore Chakravarti on my talk-page (just below your message) regarding a problem he is facing with his edits. He is asking my help but I have no idea what is happening with him -- can you please check it out? Do let me know asap if (or NOT) you can advice. Regards, ImpuMozhi 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Is it you who is deleting those pages already? I had just finished tagging tham, and had not even begun writing a note to you!! ImpuMozhi 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! The Durga Khote thing is in the DYK section today!! I had a message from someone else to this effect, but I am sure you did all that was necessary -- congrats to you on this and also many thanx from me -- something I wrote is up there!! ImpuMozhi 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw -

Did you rewrite the Durga Khote article so that it meets some set guidelines on style? Or did you think my wording was not up to notch to get featured?
Just to mention that I have not been translating any atricles into Telugu -- maybe later, but presently I am in a very busy period and cannot do much Wikiwork

plagiarized or plagiarized from

You mentioned in my talk page:

"plagiarized Pakistani industry - it should be plagiarized from"

Plagiarize is a transitive verb, in most cases. Which means that it needs a Direct Object to complete context, something that is an answer to a question ending in "what/for what", or "whom/for whom". So when I say,

"Many people have plagiarized what"?, the answer is "(the) Pakistani Industry" and NOT "from (the) Pakistani industry"

That my friend is British English!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright problems

Hi Gurubrahma You had placed an article posted by me on the topic "Arbit choudhury" under copyright problems. I had replied on the "copyright problems" page that I myself am the author of the article present on the link http://mastishk-nitie.blogspot.com/2004/10/making-of-arbit.html Therefore, the article I posted on Wikipedia regarding "Arbit Choudhury" does not infringe on any copyright. But the copyright infringement case on my article has not be lefted till now. In case you require any further clarification on this issue, please let me know. Otherwise, please republish the article in Wikipedia. Regards Shubham Choudhury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamchoudhury (talk • contribs)

comment

First, I never said that nepotism is NOT alleged. It might be or is - that can be taken care of while the section is being written. The imp fact is that we need to atleast have the decorum of using the word, so as not to be judgemental. I reiterate here - may be Bollywood resorts to plagiarism, but no one from the industry has ever been penalized for it, for reasons best not discussed (read it as - the crappy judgement against the charge of plagiarism on the producers of a certain tele-serial involving karishma kapoor). Exactly for this reason (a ZERO conviction rate in a court of law), it is prudent that the word alleged be used. The day someone is convicted - fine - go dump it.....I wouldn't agree more. Till then please use some sense of decorum.

As far as your argument about the usage of the word plagiarism, if you start basing your knowledge of grammar on Google, then God help you and your research skills. I am not implying that everyone is wrong - may be they are right, may be they are wrong. But when I see the explanation in Wren and Martin's Grammar (re. transitive verbs) - I think I have put up that expl on yr talk page, I know better to believe W&M rather than Google - sep since you so pithily remarked that we need to use 'British English'.

SATISFIED?????

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about IMW being tabloid

I harped on the physical form of the paper so that Zora can atleast know what IMW is. Anyways, please check the meaning of the word tabloid

(taken for contextual puposes from [www.dictionary.com])

tab·loid n. A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material.

adj. In summary form; condensed. - the content of IMW was not a summary of news items, or crime news - it specifically chose cases and pursued the details. I am not getting into the details of intension and final result - thats judgemental.

Lurid or sensational.

tabloidism n.

tabloid

n 1: sensationalist journalism [syn: yellow journalism, tab] 2: newspaper with half-size pages [syn: rag, sheet]

Everywhere, there is one common thread tying every use of the word tabloid - SENSATIONALISM. And thats what I dont think we should do - implicitly use a POV like sensationalism. Just mentioning what the show did or aims to do (the facts) and the final result (again facts) is more than enough. If popular is POV, so is tabloid - just more implied.

Understood???

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Nest time you have something to say, please use your NAME.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Should have figured it was you!!! jus' kiddin'

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

Just so you know, that after a full year long recovery from the tse tse immune defective virus, The Hardest Questions in the World Section is back on my user page!! Don't be too quick to tire the section out too quickly, but make sure you pop round to make sure you get a good score on the leader's board.... Spawn Man 04:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbit Choudhury

Hi Gurubrahma,

I do not wish to release content of my article on "Arbit Choudhury" under GFDL. I would be grateful if you can create the article again in yor own words.

Regards Shubham Choudhury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamchoudhury (talk • contribs)

Jimbo Wales block

Nah - no need. I totally agree with you that you should let somone you block know and I did but I did on IRC. Thanks however for your concern. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INCOTW

You voted for Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India, this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tips

Thanks for the tips... I tend not to use the edit summary when I'm just repeating my last action on the page, just thought it looked messy... but the point on the show preview is probably more than valid...

Not Indian here, but thanks for the invite.

Khushi

Heads-up

Thanks for the heads up. I usually try to begin the test templates over when I know it's a shared IP though, unless there been a steady stream of vandalism from the IP. --Shanel 07:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Oh well, the IP appears to have stopped, so it's all good :)--Shanel 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is expansion of the Did You Know project possible?

Hi. I noticed you are somewhat active in the Did You Know template project. I couldn't find a discussion page for that template, as it looked like the default talk page was being used for operations. So I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly...

One of the concepts being explored at the Main Page Redesign Project is expanding coverage for both the Picture of the Day (POTD) and Did You Know (DYK) to seven days per week. One of the Main Page Redesigns we have produced already has support for displaying both of these features separately. POTD is already produced 7 days per week, and so is being displayed in that Redesign every day. Note that users may start adopting the Redesigns for use on their user pages, even if they don't become the new Main Page. DYK is currently only produced 5 days per week, and so its display remains static on weekends.

We have just started a new round of voting, and of course I'm championing the version with the most upgrades, including DYK.

The reason I am contacting you is that this version has unexpectedly taken an early lead in the race, and so it is possible that it could be adopted as the new main page. I thought I better start looking into what needs to be done to get it fully supported in case it does win, and heck maybe even boost its chances during the voting session (which lasts until the end of the week).

I was wondering if the DYK team would be interested in and up to the task of keeping the DYK project active on weekends? Perhaps even this weekend? Would you like the Main Page to support your feature 7 days per week?

I invite you to become familiar with our project. Come take a look at what we've accomplished so far, and feel free to join in on the fun. And of course, everyone with a user account is eligible to vote.

Sincerely,
--Go for it! 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Award category

Hi. I've noticed you've made a new category for the National Film Awards. I think that's a good idea. However, rather than make the category title long by saying National film awards (Government of India) can I suggest you rename the category to just National Film Awards, (all words beginning with a capslocked letter) and then on the category page specify that they are given by the Government of India. This way, it follows how the categories have been made for other film awards. What do you say? Thanking you...Cookie90 12:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the response. I suggested the capitalisation as that is its official name and the way it is spelt on the awards' Official site. Like Academy Award and Screen Actors Guild Award are capitalised on their categories, and that's their formal name and how its spelt on their official sites. I understand the Telugu people capitalisation as that is the protocol used when making categories on people, to keep the p in the lower case. Besides I thought it might look better and more professional :):) ~~It's ok. It doesn't matter anyway. :) I will write a user page bio in due course when I have time.~~ Thanking youCookie90 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jayanthv86

Ok i will withdraw,but it doesnt mean i can ever get back to being a admin again right?cos i did it just for the sake of seeing how the procedure is,and i dont have enough experience anyway.--Jayanthv86 14:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category continued....

Ok. :) I will explain this rationally. The article National Film Awards is NOT a super parent category. It is an article. Please refer to other awards articles like the Academy Award. That is an article which describes the award in detail and also has links to the different awards, and the winners, as you scroll down. It is not just sub categories that are added to Categories. It is articles as well. If you scroll down the Film awards category you will see a subcategory for many of the awards, as well as articles for the same awards. The articles that appear are more informative hence they are listed as well. I have read the categories section on wikipedia Thank you.Cookie90 17:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Thankyou for the information on how to list a category without it appearing on the page. The blanking on your pages was unintentional as you have pointed out, and my apologies you took them personally. :)Cookie90 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Please refrain from swearing on my talk page. ;) Thanking you Cookie90 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon

hello im curious why you removed on the Cammy page the words United Kingdom, i feel they are relivent in proving the point and also correct as scotland and england are part of the united kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.24.93 (talk • contribs)

am not sure what you are talking about; I can't see any edits from the IP you've posted. Please register and get an account so that I know who I am talking to; if you are not interested in getting an account, please direct me to the talkpage of the article you are refering to. I do not wish to engage anon IPs in conversation on this talkpage in general. --Gurubrahma 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

You've created many interesting articles that are fun to read. I'm glad you liked my articles about Movva and Mullapudi Harishchandra Prasad, but the only reason I know so much about them is because I'm related to them! Anyway, keep up the good work :D - Samhita, 12:33 p.m., January 22, 2006

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Gurubrahma, for your support of my RfA. I am glad you liked my answer to question one. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada chauvinist

Hey, will look into that soon. Was too busy with work, but probably will find time soon to do some editing and some maintenance. Rather, will do more of the former and only necessary bits of the latter.--Pamri • Talk 00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??!!!

A Barnstar?? Really?? It's decidedly a superlative day -- when I am not exclaiming aloud, I feel moved to spill double interrogatives around -- I think I'll go lie down!! ImpuMozhi 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words. I try to put the {{test}} messages up, but I forget a lot... It's probably about 50/50 Liamdaly620 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jodhabai: incorrect information

Dear Gurubrahma:

The statement that Jodhabai was Akbar's first wife and that she was Jahangir's mother is false. I realize I should have deleted it rather than commenting it out.

Jahangir's mother was Mariam-uz-Zamani, a well known fact. You can search for Mariam-uz-Zamani on the web. She was the real Rajput princess, her name was changed after marriage.

Akbar did have a very minor wife with a name similar to Jodhabai, who was not a legitimate princess, but daughter of a concubine.

I had checked the the related Rajput geneologies to confirm the facts.

--Malaiya 07:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey..Thanks for the barnstar. Your kind words are a great encouragement for me to continue to contribute here. - Ganeshk (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rani mangammal

I saw your talk on ganesh page,and i will give you the same reply.i havent written the article,i have only wikified it.please dont accuse me.i request you to see the history and then decide for yourself.about that wikipedia india cinema project,what else should i do other than adding templates at appropriate pages?--Jayanthv86 09:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from jayanth

Thanks for the links,hope to learn more about wikipedia from you.--Jayanthv86 09:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Munde

I think that it is a fit case for deletion. What is your opinion. In case, you also agree, kindly put up for AfD, Thanks. --Bhadani 15:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are really fast, and take perfect decision. --Bhadani 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India related pages

I actually wanted it (article mentioned in above section: Sandeep Munde) to be deleted, and you did the correct thing. Now, let us identify some india-related pages for improvents. --Bhadani 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, and I shall surely try to do something, a little at a time. As regards Operation Duryodhan, in case no one creates anything, I will try to create few paras by 26th January 2006. And, enjoy your wiki-break! But, can one enjoy life without wiki? --Bhadani 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operationalized Operation Duryodhan. --Bhadani 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living people

Sorry about that - it seemed like a useless cat to me, but I stand corrected. Wizzy…☎ 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin(air)

Battle of Berlin (air).It is a copyright violation of http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html. So please look into it.--Jayanthv86 17:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, Gurubrahma/Archive07
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. Thanks for your votes and kind words. If you have any comments, please say so here.

FAC

Hi Gurubrahma - after a very productive peer review, Political integration of India is now an FA nominee. I understand you're gonna be on a break, and I request that you spare a bit of time before you go to consider this article and give it an up or down vote as you see fit. Thanks! Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the peer review. In the "Conflicting Agendas" section, I've added the perspective of a Pakistani historian, Ayesha Jalal, to balance the viewpoint. I've also cleansed the article of possible Indo-centrism...whatever that is. Rama's Arrow 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

battle of berlin(air)

yes,it is a copyright violation.the entire article is found on [www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html 1].it matches it word to word.that was another one of those articles,i wikified yesterday.But i ran a string search as you said,and i have placed a ppropriate copyright tag on that page.I am absolutely sure.--Jayanthv86 09:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]