Jump to content

User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Re: POV

Well, yeah -- the original language presumes he had a part in the bombing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's the possessive which bring an inherent POV. I guess you could say "he was convicted for a part in the bombing" but I don't think that's really what the main article on the trial suggests -- all elements of the crime were pinned upon him by the court (motive, means, and opportunity). -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I was quibbling. I don't care for the word "alleged" and it ranks up there with "controversy" as lame fiddle-faddle, but I would maintain that occasionally encyclopedic language must sound stilted anyway, if only because that is a result of the neutral and factual language we must try to maintain while most everywhere else has an opinion (no matter how sublimated) and that's what our ears are used to. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Taliban website

Not that I think you won't have noticed when you are back around, but wikipedia being such a big place, I revel in an opportunity to leave multiple unrelated notes on a user talk page in one fell swoop, and as such, as I mentioned elsewhere I've found another RS mentioning the Taliban website.[1] Although I suppose some might quibble that it's technically a blog, I doubt this all will turn out to be an elaborate ruse at this point. If we subsequently find out this website was actually a viral marketing scheme by now Twitterless Miley Cyrus[2] or some such thing, I'll hang my head in shame for well beyond the thousand milliseconds it will have taken some accountant to remove the incorrect link. Promise!

Mind you, if Taliban were not WP:SEMI'd, I'd have presumed WP:CONSENSUS after that discussion and put the link there myself; semi-protection isn't there to prevent the WP:BRD process and allow accountants to WP:OWN a page -- it's there to prevent vandals. It's a little sad people are putting up a half-hearted fuss about it, when the inclusion of such links are expressly called for by WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Old message

I checked and it has been removed. Someone must have removed it yesterday at some point. Kurgan2001 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

re:

perhaps my posts did sound too much like an advertisement, as i suppose i was adding too many links when the reference alone would have ultimately been enough. likewise, i will try to find a way to give greater variation in wording as i post the different scores various fast food companies recieved.

as for your suggestion that what i post does not add to the content of the pages, i most entirely disagree. on some of these pages, there are already categories for environmental records, so there's no reason why the addition of such on others would be irrelivant.

while we disagree on the usefulness of my additions, i thank you for your input about my links; they were redundant.

--Dweeezil (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

I returned the mention of alcohol in her system at the time of her death with 2 references. The most significant one comes from the book Buried Alive by Myra Friedman, which states "Janis died of an accidental overdose of heroin; alcohol was also present in the blood, and her liver showed the effects of long-term heavy drinking." It goes on to say that various tests for other substances were negative. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just realized that I had forgotten to remove the Sri Lanka dispute resolution agreement templates from the talk pages, and was happy to see that you had done that in the meantime. Thank you! — Sebastian 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the top

My interest isn't in how far apart the edits are. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one telling you that it doesn't matter how far apart the edits are. Kind of funny that now you tell me it was not the point, when you're the one who brought it up in the first place... Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham / Avi

Hello,

I noticed that you expressed concern about the use of primary sources, and I wondered if you could look at these, and see if you feel you can counter sign either (or both) of them?

Newman Luke (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I reviewed your interactions and I can't support what appears to be a very confrontational approach to implementing your changes despite objections from other editors. One of the first places I looked was your examples of trying to work things out. A successful RFC would show a progression of attempts to work the problem out, starting with a talk page discussion in which you (and others) were non-confrontational and met with a less than reasonable response. Your sandbox RFC starts with a Wikiquette alert and goes on to claim a reply to an ANI complaint as an attempt to work things out. (BTW- Most reasonable people would find your request for non-Jewish comments at the WQA somewhat offensive. If a person is biased, that generally is obvious to anyone; assigning bias to a class of people sounds bigoted and does not help your case.) I think your time would be better used making smaller, more focused changes and discussing them on the article talk page if there were objections. If that more reasonable and cooperative approach failed to allow you to add content which most other editors agreed was reasonable, then you could escalate to other dispute resolution methods. Until then, I don't think you will gain much support. Celestra (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

From Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What am I still doing wrong?

Before I started editing I did read the MoS, and the various Wikipedia pages on editing. I come from a background of newspaper editing, using the 'AP Stylebook'. This is a learning experience. Each time I receive a comment I go back to that section of the MoS to better imprint that section in my mind.

I didn't realize I needed to respond to the messages; I thought by trying to incorporate the changes would show that I had read them.

1. As far as abbreviations go, in the MoS I don't see any guidelines. I've looked in the special section for abbreviations also. I do see the long table of preferred abbreviations, which I understood to mean they SHOULD be used. Also I used the comment from BusterD to use the style sheet 'User:hlj'. That style sheet seemed to indicate the use of abbreviations.

Since your first comments, I've made a huge effort not to abbreviate. I'm trying to remember that not all readers are from the U.S. and that some abbreviations (Dem. for example) wouldn't make sense to them.

2. As far as numbers go, yes I had read the MOS:NUM and noted the sentence about the possibility of spelling out numbers that are written in one or two words. I didn't understand that one method was preferable to the other.

In my comments section, I've been mentioning the reason for changed the spelled number for the numeral (taken from the MoS).

3. Other's vs others'. From the text I understood the plural was appropriate, so I changed it.

4. Also, I read somewhere (on Wikipedia, I think) that US seems sloppier than U.S. I agree, that's why I change US to U.S.

Now to comment on the previous-to-you comments:

A. Umrguy42 - Actually that occurred to me a couple of hours before you wrote this. In addition to the editing, I was writing an article - that is a REAL learning experience. Anyway, I finally "saw" the section edits.

B. BusterD - As I mentioned above, I do refer to the MoS and related pages frequently.

C. JimWae - Thank you for showing me the support for capitalizing a title used once with more than one name. This usage makes more sense to me than the AP Stylebook usage. I believe I've been using this hint since I read it.

D. JimWae - Yes, I see that I was careless in where I put the semi-colon. I believe I've been more accurate. The reason I use semi-colons is to help make the sentence more readable (if the use of semi-colon is appropriate). Sometimes I make two sentences. Long, multiple-commaed articles are difficult to read.

E. JimWae - I believe I've capitalized (or leaft capitalized) words such as Senate, etc. since your comments. This also makes more sense to me than the AP Stylebook guidelines.

Also, you commented on me being inconsistant in some of my edits; was that particular article too long and I just did random portions? Earlier I had tried to do an entire long article and the "timer" must have run out. I spent well over an hour on two different articles and the changes were lost. So, until it dawned on me that I could edit a section, I was just doing random edits.

F. JimWae - Actually, the MoS prefers 'percent' rather than '%'. I also prefer '%', so I've been using that.

G. Mason-Jones - I've been trying to incorporate this comment in my edits, especially since the comments from Celestra.

H. Tom(North Shoreman) - I had been taught that only COMPLETE names are capitalized and that portions of names are not. Again, your comments make more sense to me than the AP Stylebook guidelines. I've been incorporating them.

Again, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.

Another question from Bettymnz4 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the policy toward ages? I don't see it addresses in the Dates and Numbers portion of the MoS. AP Stylebook said that ages were always written as numbers. (I just edited Bill Sunday and did not change the written out number to numerals.)

Thank you for your research.

I couldn't find anything in mosnum either. There is a template called age which returns digits, so that's what I'd use. Hope that helps, Celestra (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ilana Mercer

World Net Daily is not a reliable source. Period. Woogee (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Ilana Mercer

I read your 3RR law. Important safety tip, you are almost out of reverts or you'll be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ironic oversight

Pfft; many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) (sic)

P.S. Re. the sper in Talk:Confucianism - quite a few of the folks who hang out in the help channel had had a look at that one; it just seemed a bit 'woolly' - but then again, so does the existing text; I hope that, perhaps, the user will work on it themselves later, and that the 'normal' editing process can take its course. Ever optimistic.  Chzz  ►  13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Older and ... well older. You have new messages at JokerXtreme's talk page.
Message added 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JokerXtreme (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bihari Muslims

Why the hell do u keep inventing lies on the article "Bihari Muslims". Do u want to give ammo to the BJP and RSS ?? U know how happy they'll be if they read ur edition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.170.88 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read the edit history for that talk page. Islamuslim had blanked the page and replaced it with a section named "Edit war" with an editsemiprotected template and no request. Removing other people's comments from an article's talk page is not permitted, except for comments not related to improving the article. (WP:TALK). The earlier criticism by 58.96.92.44 seems on topic, so I restored it. The later refactoring of that criticism as an edit request did not. If there is a specific complaint you have about my changes to that talk page, policy based or not, I'd be glad to discuss the with you. Here at my talk page would be better, since this isn't related to improving the article. I'll discuss the other part on the article's talk page. Regards, Celestra (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

what is happening here. we are trying to show the problems being faced by muslims in bihar. still you keep deleting matters to make it look positive. it is a bias you are propagating. i gave many links. in comparison there is no link in your version. does opposing bad elements within muslims society amount to suppporting bjp and rss. are we defined by them. waht about the millions accepting Lord Jesus . in the same vein, tomorrow you guys will delete references of terrorists and osama bin laden saying that it gives a benefit to usa and christian-zionist missions. wikipedia is an open-neutral community. partiality and personal reasons should not be allowed here. we all know that the scrouge of casteism exists in south asian isla; propagated by sufis who tried to give alternate version of caste-system for muslims. Morever I can also ask for many links. For example, where is it written that the foreign muslims are richer than natives? is it not a baised perception? I am myself a native and in fact the poverty level of the two are comparable at 35-58% of population

  • Similarly, where is it written or published that Bihari Muslims speak Urdu? Most of them DON'T! Falsely attributing a language, a lower status and a foreign diet to an unresearched group is a moral crime!! still you write , The cuisine of Bihari Muslims is more Pashtun-oriented and Arab-oriented. tell me where is the proof??

this is a baised article, no doubt! "Bihari Muslims have a rich culture representing a syncretisation between Arab, Afghan and local Hindu Bihari traditions." where do you find that? Arabs presence in Bihar has been minimal/negligible. gimme proof to the contrary! tell me where is it written, The majority of Bihari Muslims follow the Barelwi movement of Sunni Islam. I have already given links to christianisation of muslims. but you keep on deleting. no doubt you are anti-muslim who wants to keep the muslim population in ignorance about the church plantings and evangelism. 

Generally the standard of Urdu declines as one moves down the socio-economic ladder. where did you find these types of info? at the best these are humorous!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.114 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

hezbullahs manifesto

i brought in links and the whole passage . so i think that proves that they had a new manifesto .The article states only the older manifesto so unless you want me to add the whole manifesto . I think it should be discussed. : )--KAWASAKI (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks not really annoyed or anything . i will try to write something about it .oh yeah i cant edit that page.--KAWASAKI (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regional Science High School for Region III, rollbacker

Hi. I was servicing a SPER on this article concerning Jackie Rice as a notable alumni. Since this seems to be one of the edit warring hot spots, I declined the request, but tagged the alumni with {{fact}} tags and asked 203.87.176.18 (talk), who originally added the alumni, to provide reliable sources this month. I see that you also asked him to support those claims in March 2009. Will you be OK with removing these entries at the beginning of May if they remain unsourced? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! I leave this in your capable hands. And by the way, as you seem to be an experienced, trustworthy editor, I added the Rollbacker feature to your account. Owen× ☎ 14:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really?

[3] Woogee (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought as much.  :) Woogee (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi, I inadvertently rollbacked your comment on the Thomas Jefferson piece when I hit the wrong key. I have reverted myself. Sorry for any confusion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken link on Russia article page

Broken link, article cannot be read[4] referring to: "NATO and the invasion of Georgia: How to contain Russia. There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks" The Economist, August 23, 2008. If there is not readable link to source this article for reading it should be removed. I cannot read the article and I cannot search for any open source to read this particlar article anywhere; even the author of the article or even the references on the article. It only refers to [5] which cannot not be used as article when it directs only to The Economist that contains no such information on the referring source. I have tried to Google, Bing, Yahoo and nothing opens the source link or finding another link to this article. So I am suggesting to remove this article as the link source is not readable and The Economist link is a misconception on the reference. --Globalstatus (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, do you see what I mean though as the link[6] is broken? It does not go to the direct source and if you want the source it is for subscription members only. So I have searched on Bing, Yahoo and Google to find a free source article but this article"NATO and the invasion of Georgia: How to contain Russia is only available at the [7]. There is no quick fix but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks[8] only. The editor who added this says just pay for a subscription to read it but for people in foreign countries like Mexico, Nigeria or South Affrice or etc that is not possible even if they have libraries or no libaries you still need the subscription database. Anyway as this remains a broken link it is my opinion the article cannot be used as it only links to Wikipedia Economist page which is doesn't discribe anything. To make the article convenient the sources should have active directive links. I simply have never posted a source with an unactive link. Anyway how do I go about this to question this in the right venue to challange this with Wikipedia Adminstrators this error?--Globalstatus (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Sun

removing that tag on the sun article deleted a vandalism sentence in the beginning of the article, I don't know why. When I visited the article 8 hours ago it started with "the universe was created when the God Elmo farted, etc." before the first actual sentence of the article. But when I tried to edit it out, this vandalism sentence did not appear so I couldn't delete it! Very strange! So I assumed it was a tag that was introducing the vandalism, but I guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopcwiki (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Ethnicity

Hi, thank you for your message. In May, I encountered this: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." in this page: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) and then posted a question on its talk page asking if that also applies to the infobox and people there agreed with me. Even though I can't find that discussion in the talk page anymore, since then I have been removing ethnicities from infoboxes. They told me, it should only be mentioned in the infobox or the opening paragraph if it has a crucial connection to the subject otherwise it is usually mentioned in the first section which is usually early life/childhood etc. -- And Rew 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bihari Muslims

I have deleted the following segment of this segment of the article. Makes a huge amount of claims, but does not back it with references.


“The Muslims of Bihar are divided along Caste lines, with Sunni Ashrafs tracing descent from Turkish, Afghan, Mughal and Syed Arab gentry; a prominent middle group comprising of descendants of Muslim soldiers, merchants, artisans and settlers from Central Asia and converts from Backward Caste Hindus; and a lower class both in rural and urban areas, mostly comprising of Agricultural and Artisan Castes, converted to Islam from the lower strata of Hinduism. The unique feature of this Caste system is its emphasis on foreign ancestry which alienates both high and low caste Hindus from Islam. The segregation is not based on economic status as the poverty levels of all three groups are similar at 38%.

A large number of Bihari Muslims, about 1-2 millions have converted to Christianity in recent years owing to multi-dimensional evangelism and church planting by Christian missions. The massive conversion is also attributed to the poverty of Muslims in the region and the widely held bias against native converts by the foreign origin Muslims which is the basis of rigorous caste system in Islam. Moreover the fact that most converts are Muslims is attributed to the fact that the Ashraf Muslims deny the existence of Casteism in Islam in Bihar and no therapeutic measures have been taken to heal the casteism in Islam like Hinduism. Most importantly, the fact that both high and low caste Hindus are considered ineligible for marriage and assimilation in Muslim society due to the concept of Kafaa has led to negligible conversions among the society. This situation is similar to that of most other Muslim societies in India and partly explains the resistance of Hindus to Islam. Most amusing is the fact that only three waves of Arabic immigration had happened to Indian subcontinent; the largest being of 35,000 people. But the number of Muslims claiming Arab origin is disproportionately high and millions claim direct descent from Prophet Muhammad.


The caste segregation among Bihari Muslims is worse than their Hindu counterparts. The society has remained static and new converts to Islam are virtually non-existent due to widespread discrimination. Indeed due to these combining factors and the so called Arab Machismo ; the rate of Christianization seems to be increasing with the continued alienation between the native Muslims and the foreign Muslims, the former's oppression and discrimination purely due to their descent and Kafaa and the general poverty of Hindu and Muslims in Bihar. Marrying a Sayyid girl to non-Sayyid boy is considered against Shariah while marriage of Sayyid boy to non-Sayyid girl is permitted and encouraged. The same logic is extended for Ashrafs and Ajlafs. Moreover no appreciable steps have been taken to stop and decline Arab and foreign ancestry discrimination among Bihari Muslims. Neither there seems to exist rich, powerful, native high caste Hindu-origin groups of Muslims in Bihar like Muslim Rajputs and Baniyas in Pakistan who were decisive in winning Pakistan to Islam. The economic situation of the Ashrafs and Arjals are similar; poverty being around 35%. But a large number of about 1-1.5 millions of Bihari Muslims numbering 15-20% of Bihari Muslims, mostly Chamar and Bhangi Muslims have accepted Christianity in recent years.[1][2]

There are also many Muslims converted from the Untouchable Hindu castes such as Chamar, Bhangi, etc., who are regarded as Arzal by the rest of the Bihari Muslims."


Makes a huge amount of claims, but does not back it with references. I am not denying the existence of caste among Bihari Muslims, but to say it is worse then among Hindus needs sources. The only real academic study of rural Bihari Muslims is by Peter Gottschalk in his book Beyond Hindu and Muslim Multiple Identity in Narratives from Village India. He specifically looks at relationship between a community of Divani Pathans (converts from the Hindu Rajput caste) and Ansaris (Muslim weavers). At no time does he say that discrimination is worse, and accepts that there is no restriction of food or entry in mosques. So unless there is academic research to the contrary, these are simply statements.

Secondly, I cannot see any independent evidence that there is large scale conversion to Christianity. The census of India over the last 130 years have always shown a slight increase in the Muslim population of Bihar, which is concentrated in the north east in the Purnia Division. If there was large scale conversion to Christianity, it would certainly have an impact on the percentage as a whole.


WALTHAM2 (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Largest_cities_of_Brazil

Thanks. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

URGENT NOTICE

RealitySHowsROCK has come up with a briliant idea called total drama roleplay where people on wikipedia act as characters! Act fast and message Realityshowsrock to choose who u want to be!Duncan is taken!--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hi. It's ok. Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry if I felt offended. I was just trying to give an opinion and right at the start i felt like I had no right to do that. Anyway, It's all good. Thanks again for your comment. Best Regards. LadyGreensleeves (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hi... Sub: Mahatma Gandhi

Would you please see my comment on the discussion page Pakistan titled Mahatma Gandhi and tell me what u think about it?

Regards,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad Holocaust Denial

There is a controversy regarding his holocaust denial statements. I'm interested to know, on what basis did you remove the word "alleged"? Eyalmc (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

see right here(especially the quote) - there is a controversy on the translation, and several sources have been known to take his words too far. also see this Eyalmc (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tupac Shakur

I went ahead and made the change you turned down as there were plenty of references already on the article referring to his real name. The article itself said that was his real name, but no one ever updated the info box on the right. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Crazysane (T/C\D) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I generally don't look for references if they aren't included (or at least alluded to) in the request. You're more than welcome to take the additional steps if you like. Celestra (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson

I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Poseidon

It is possible to merge the new text into the existing one.Do you want to improve the existing text or not?94.65.249.249 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest one way or the other about that text. In general, when I service edit requests, I find certain thing to be red flags. Outright replacement of a section is a big red flag for avoiding consensus. Looking further, I could not easily make out from the history whether this replacement was a return to some earlier version in a long term edit war. Merging it into the existing section lessens that concern. There are also red flags for WP:OR, and I see threads in the talk page on the same subject, but consensus will take care of that as well. Celestra (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of iSCSI Targets

Hey Celstra, you have already succeded in getting RisingTide Systems and my personal page removed from Wikipedia. Now you removed a reference to a free, open-source implementation of the Linux standard iSCSI target (LIO) from an iSCSI comparison page. Can you please explain why you did that? That starts looking a little personal to me. Sincerely, Marcfl (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Celesta, btw, I should mention that OpenFiler also uses LIO - do you want to remove that too, now? Sincerely, Marcfl (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Celesta, I just noticed that you had removed IET (Linux iSCSI Enterprise Target) from the same page earlier. First, please note that I am unaffiliated with IET. Second, this demonstrated lack of knowledge: IET is still the most widely deployed target, for sure open-source, and probably even including non-open-source deployments. People are just recently moving away from it, as it is unsupported, and starting to lack "modern" features. Why did you remove IET from the iSCSI comparison page? To anyone who has any clue about this, it would seem pretty clear that it belongs there. Btw. Are you employed by an ISCSI or storage company? Thanks, Marcfl (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Celestra, you didn't answer my question on my talk page: Why did you remove IET, which is the most widely used Linux iSCSI target? That makes no sense at all. (Again, I am not affiliated with that at all.) Secondly, are you affiliated with a storage or iSCSI project or company? Thanks, Marcfl (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the iSCSI Comparison page that you have been "watching", let's e.g., take the Open-E article and its references:

So, really, shouldn't this one be AfD, too? Probably like many others? Looks like you picked RisingTide rather randomly. Regards, Marcfl (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On a quick second pass, the FreeNAS references look equally broken and/or without substance, and Nimbus doesn't even exist (the link refers to a disambigation page). AMI is a well-known BIOS, but StorTrends in the article lacks references (besides, most of their storage technology has been sold to LSI, which you don't seem to know). You say you have beem watching that article, Celestra? It seems in really bad shape, yet you didn't bother to address any of the other ostensible issues, casting further doubt on your objectivity. Regards, Marcfl (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Those other companies

"Some of those article are poorly sourced, but I don't think any of them were obviously lacking proof of notability" in ["Celestra (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)"]. Just to pick the painfully obvious case, non-existence (e.g., no article on "Nimbus") is not sufficient evidence of non notability?! Per your offer: (1) why don't you nominate the obviosuly broken articles for deletion (or at least remove the unsubstantiated columns from the comparison - I am a bit reluctant to do that and then have them put back by you for some new obscure reason) and (2) yes, who here could explain such apparent imbalance on Wikipedia? To stick with your strange example, you are overlooking that in the real world, at least civilized countrys tend to have have judicature that can (and many times does) correct mistakes by their executive. Best, Marcfl (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So how about you do something useful and fix the other mistakes and non-notable entries (on that page). Finally, just for your illumination - IDC projects iSCSI storage alone this year to be a $6B market with 70% CAGR - so you might be a bit off overall: "I have always considered it to be part of Cisco's strategy to delay FC adoption until they were better positioned to profit from it." Right. Best, Marcfl (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Celestra, (1) I have no interest in offering AfD nominations and arguing those with people like you. (2) As you keep insisting in your objectivity, I suggested that you actually finish the job and _fix the iSCSI comparison page_ (not AfD it): remove Nimbus (reason: missing article, broken link!), remove AMI StorTrends (IP ownerchip partially changed), and fix or remove FreeNAS and Open-E (reason: broken references and links). Your evasive maneuvering only confirms your lack of interest, lack of objectivity and/or ulterior motives in the first place. (3) To your speeding analogy, going as fast as most everyone else around you rarely gets you a ticket; your point that there are plenty more flawed articles here that have no relevance on the process is thus a testimony to the community review model and/or your logic being broken. (4) The IDC stats I quoted are the ones I have (from last year, sorry), and even if the 2010 iSCSI market is now "only" $2B instead of $6B, it doesn't really change its importance or my argument. (5) Sure, Cisco started iSCSI, or something like that, whatever. And finally, (6) Sure, cows and tulips... another terrific analogy... it's all good, Celestra. (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mammooty's age nowhere comes above 60. There are various sources indicating that when he appeared in a malayalam movie in 1971, he was a college student of age 18, If he was born in 1949, his age would have been 22. As you mentioned abiut some IAS officer's interview, in those days some ppl might have joined school at a late age, that may be one of the reason.

  1. ^ http://www.centralwesleyan.org/globalthrusts/menu-id141.html
  2. ^ http://rsdstudy.com/Kimmel/Powerpoint/Church%20Planting%20Movements.ppt
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Older_and_..._well_older/Archive_2&oldid=863973717"