User talk:Gurubrahma/Archive02
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 19 October 2005 and 19 November 2005.
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/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Gurubrahma 10:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for translation on Bollywood
[edit]I don't speak Hindi -- well, I know a lot of words of movie Hindi, but they're of limited use in real life <g> -- so I appreciate the translation. Various people kept changing it, and their English versions were all a bit ... weird. Yours is just right. Zora 08:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Need help with Harprit at Bollywood -- please!! Zora 09:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
More DYK
[edit]|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article E. Sreedharan, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Scimitar parley 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]Hey there. Thanks for that note, and do accept my apologies for this unconventionally tardy reply. You make a good point, I hadn't noticed that that was what merge tags did. It does seem as if the offer to discuss things was not taken up, however, such that I'm not sure much harm came from the redirect. Having read both articles, I don't see much that was encyclopedic in the shorter article that could have been added to the longer one. However, one thing I did notice was that the shorter one was written in significantly better prose—it pained me to redirect. If a knowledgeable editor is willing to do it, I think the remaining article can do with some rewrites along the lines of the short one. Kind regards encephalon 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Clarification and Apology
[edit]Hello Gurubrahma,
I'm writing this to say that you were right - it was me giving you a little headache with the Purushottam Das Tandon article. And yes, I didn't have the stomach to get through the edit wars on Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhism. Furthermore, it was me removing your fancruft notice on the Gandhism article.
Its true that I've had my problems with you. I wasn't man enough to admit that your spirited and aggressive participation in Wikipedia was actually scaring me, as if there was something mentally wrong with me and my outlook on the world, and ability to communicate with other people. I think I got into Wikipedia totally for the wrong reasons.
I actually hate bitching, so I want to just say that you've been a good teacher - you've helped me understand my faults, and understand the hidden mistakes in my edits on various articles.
I wish you good luck on Wikipedia and your life.
Har Har Mahadev!
Nirav Maurya.
- hi Nirav, wish you all the best in your future endeavors. let me take this opportunity in commending you for starting articles on Indian Nationalism and Gandhism, though I may not be in complete agreement with the content. Warm regards, --Gurubrahma 13:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You and Me
[edit]I'm going to say a few things that are simply between you, Gurubrahma, and me, Nirav Maurya. Forgive me for the length.
You are a Wikiholic, and that's great. You are an exceptionally intelligent Indian, a good asset for our nation. I called you a good teacher to me, because your statements and actions on articles I'd worked on helped me recognize my own mistakes, and the flaws in my way of doing things. I apologized on the Gandhism article. I truly felt I had made a mistake in my behavior.
Now I would like to privately raise some faults I see in you, man-to-man:
(a) Those fancruft and NPOV notices you put up in the articles and sections I wrote were not after raising those questions in debate. When ANYBODY ELSE had a problem with what I had written, I saw questions asked in the right place: discussion page. You changed the status of my articles, branding them as inadequate by yourself. And of course, if I erred to remove your fancruft/NPOV notices WITHOUT CONSULTING OTHERS, you certainly didn't see yourself in the mirror.
(b) I respect Tandon, and I was happy you wrote about him so well. But actually I did see some points of improvement necessary. I went ahead and removed the critical bit I had written out of spite, because I didn't want to wage war over Tandon, or anybody else. But you forced the issue. And I stopped after a little more.
(c) I saw something in that scathing critique you wrote of me: I was a coward in your eyes, running away from the heat of battle only to exact revenge in devious ways.
When I told Bhadani about my intention to drop editing, I was talking to one nice guy. You see, he notes mistakes others make, but is humble and polite, always. I wanted to thank him for the kind words he had for me.
When I apologized, you didn't bother to apologize for your abusive reaction. You hailed my supposed exit with a good luck for future endeavors, and promptly proceeded to eliminate or bad-tag my work anywhere you could find.
The fact is you reacted as if you owned the article. You did not consider even one point I had raised, nor gave an intelligent reply to them.
And you instantly forgot that BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF THE...whatever, you know. I was supposed to remember this when somebody accused my work of being stolen material.
With the apology I've posted in various places, and in your case directly above this, my dear fellow (I'm sorry to inform) wasn't sincere. I just wanted a little more info on you, first-hand. (By the way, if I was trying to save my dignity here, I would have put this on public display on all those articles, ok?)
I’m not a Wikiholic like you. It’s not the center of my life, just a passing indulgence. I thought I was just adding some useful data one day when somebody asked me to make an ID. But you chose to attack my manhood (a very dangerous thing indeed...) over an article. You chose to make it personal with your Tandon criticism.
I don't like people discrediting hours of hard work I put in, in less than 30 seconds, with an NPOV notice. The rules of Wikipedia require me to put up with this, so I decided to leave. I don’t like fighting with absolute unknowns over things I don’t care to fight about.
Now the question you have to ask yourself is, what do you see when you look in the mirror? You see, if you are the man you deserve to be, you will take a good look, see and correct the faults. If so, you can imagine me shaking your hand and paying you the final compliment of being a great person, and a future great Indian.
If you don’t, well, I leave it all to Lord Vishnu. Continue doing as you please on Wikipedia and in your future endeavors, but be wary, always of a possible, more than worthy, future opponent out there, somewhere.
Har Har Mahadev!
Nirav Maurya
- After all this, you still do not realise that you need to abide by the policies of Wikipedia. Don't tell me that you have realised your faults; if you had done that, you'd atleast have logged in with your username and signed with four tildes. You'd not have removed the NPOV tag again from Indian Nationalism without others discussing or debating it. If I am a wikiholic, it is my business and probably, my sense of commitment. If I had anything personally against you, I'd have either carried out anon attacks as you did. If you remember right, I joined Bhadani in asking you to cut short material about the children of Madhuri Mehta to ensure that it wouldn't be deleted. You did not heed our requests. If I had to carry a personal vendetta aginst you, I could have nominated that article on wp:afd or voted for its deletion. I did neither because I believe that human beings show reason and that you will see reason. You did not even vote on that article you created. You do not use fora that are provided to you by the community and instead make personal attacks. If this is the attitude you carry in future, all the best wishes for future endeavors and blessings from the Hindu trinity would be but futile. Am inserting the NPOV tag back on Indian Nationalism; don't expect my response any further to anon msgs in the name of Nirav. --Gurubrahma 06:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Nandita Das
[edit]Thank you for dropping in for duty on Nandita Das! Autumnleaf 14:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Forgive me Gurubrahma I am a clot and have cut and pasted from my own discussion page! Was also speaking to Pamri
Meanwhile - I think I discovered another person to put into all those links - aladin ring any bells? Asian Age did a really good piece on him a few years back - he is more or less expat Indian as his mother is Assamese and his Dad ex-East Bengal; check his website. If you wouldn't mind - could BOTH (Guru - this refers to P.C. Sorcar) these guys be put in the right lists and sections? THANKS
Left the above for Pamri above, do check please. Definitely should go into Indian people category don't you think? As to keeping up momentum, well; I hope to slip in a few more edits between now and New Year's Eve, don't worry!
As I was whimpering to Pamri - still can't get to grips with technology of Wikipedia. Still less whether I am meant to reply on YOUR page as opposed to mine :o( Autumnleaf 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Pinnacle merge premature
[edit]Sorry about that. If you don't mind, I'd prefer not to revert just because I acted with too much haste. I've put a note on the talk page explaining the situation and indicating that I'll be happy to revert if there are objections. Otherwise, it's just too much churn over pages that in all likelihood need to be merged anyway. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Tedernst 16:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog of articles marked for merger. I've been trying to help by doing a cursory review and then merging and have now been checking more carefully to see if these have been discussed. If the discussion is current, I pass on by. So I found this article where you're suggesting we wait. Why is that? And if we're going to have a standard of waiting, either initially or during discussion, I wonder if there might be a place for a different tag, or a dated tag so those trying to clean up the backlog can move past those in the waiting period to those that have been languishing. Thoughts on that? --User:Tedernst
- Sorry for forgetting to sign above. There are so many pages marked for merger, most of them having langushed with tags for well more than a week, some for months and months. The reason I'm suggesting a new tag is because I'd rather spend time tracking down those that have been tagged for a long time rather than those that are still in this one week period you're talking about. If they're in the one-week period, then I don't even want to look at them. I'm trying to reduce backlog. And you're right that the merger might've gone the other way in many cases. I believe in the be bold principle of simply doing the merge and marking it in the edit summary, and then allowing others to revert and reverse if that's what needs to happen. I totally agree that waiting for the person that did the marking is the ideal and so I have no desire to merge before that one week is up. I'm just trying to save time and skip those where the tagger might come back and just focus on the longer-term ones. Does this make sense? Tedernst 15:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Drat. You make too much sense! I'll drop my complaints and find something easier to do, like fixing stub redirects. peace, Tedernst 16:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Re:Tendulkar graph
[edit]Thanks for the comment. I certainly will be making one for Laxman (and Dravid, and Gavaskar, and plenty of others) when I can. I will think about your suggestion with the average, however I would prefer the average to have the same scale as the scores to, to make the graph a little simpler to read. The point of the line is to give a simple indication of the players form at that point of their career, rather than actually giving all the numbers. Raven4x4x 07:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]Nice to hear form you Gurubrahma. I wasn't aware that my RfA was posted and am accpeting it as we speak.--Commander Keane 13:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Dvyost RfA Thanks
[edit]Hey Gurubrahma,
Thanks so much your kind words and support on my RfA! I'm not sure I can live up to such a generous picture, but rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
|
Please do contribution at 29 October 2005 Delhi blasts. |
|
Thanks for contribution at 29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings. |
Richmal Oates-Whitehead
[edit]I saw your note at the NZ noticeboard which I hadn't visited for a while. I remembered a longish article in the NZ Herald so added the link. I was too lazy to reread the article but you might be able to mine it. Nurg 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Good work!
[edit]I came across some of the recent changes you made to Wikipedia articles. Keep up the good work. --Deepak|वार्ता 19:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hindu
[edit]Hi, Gurubrahma. I'm a little confused about your message on my talk page. Have I had dealings with 70.X.X.X? I did add a note to the Hindu talk page about finding this on there one day while I was passing through. I don't know much about Hinduism, it just seemed inappropriate to replace the redirect to Hinduism with that content. I think that may be the only Hinduism-related page I've posted to. I wish I could help you with correcting the articles, but it's way out of my areas of expertise. Perhaps you could recruit someone who has made some quality contributions to those articles, or put a notice on the Village Pump.
I think Nirav Maurya should sign in if he wants to use that user name. I don't know if there's a rule about this sort of thing, though. I left another message on his talk page below yours about signing in and leaving a signature. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC).
Happy Diwali
[edit]yes dear, I had seen your edits as the page is under my watch list. They are nice. And, I convey you mu best Diwali greetings. --Bhadani 14:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
India related tasks
[edit]Just created, thought I will spam you[:-D)]. You may want to move it to your user page. --Pamri • Talk 08:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh..wish you a very happy and fun Diwali. --Pamri • Talk 08:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- fixed now. --Pamri • Talk 09:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Happy Diwali!!
[edit]Happy Diwali to you!!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]You have 2389 edits as of this writing. You've used edit summaries 98% of the time. First 500, 96% and last 500 98%. I sounds as if you might be interested in becoming an admin at some point. If so, I recommend you read WP:GRFA. It is a work in progress. It contains substantial information that it would be useful for you to know if you want to accept a nomination for RfA. All the best, --Durin 13:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- WP:GRFA is an ongoing effort by at least eight users. There might be more at this point. It first developed a few days ago, and has been under development since. It's not 'final' yet (nor should it ever really be), and so it's not been linked into WP:RFA and associated pages. However, as you note, it does carry significant material advice to potential administrator nominees. I've used it a couple of times so far in directing people. So far, it's been received well. I guess that's the beta test :) With regards to self nom; I recommend that someone else nominate you. I've been keeping track of RfA statistics since late June. There have been 144 non-self nominations for users with more than 2,000 edits*. There have been 38 self-noms. The success rate of non-self noms is 83%. For self noms, it's 68%, a 15% difference. If you want me to nominate you, I'd be willing to consider you against my standards. My standards to nominate are possibly the strictest around. First, you need to clear 3,000 edits. Note that those standards are for me to nominate; they do not affect how I vote on a nomination. Based on your average # of edits over the last 30 days, you should reach 3,000 edits by the end of this month. Your current average # of edits per day overall is 12.65. Over the last 30 days, it's been 33.76.
- * - I did a study of 126 nominations from late June to mid-September. I found a glaring difference in the success of nominees with <2000 edits vs. >2000 edits. That's why I limited my success comparison of self/non-self noms to users with >2000 edits, as <2000 edits is a different case.
- All the best, --Durin 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Prior to my own RfA, I voted oppose on 9 nominations, neutral on 4, and support on 3. Nevertheless, I passed 61-0. I don't think RfA contributors hold your votes against (or for) you. --Durin 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
[edit]I want to thank you for voting in my RFA even though u opposed me, I understand why u did e. I need to work English :P Thanks Again! --JAranda | watz sup 23:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I hv just noticed your edits on above where you deleted a section titled "22 vows" stating that it is copyvio. However, facts are never copyvio. For example, if I copy the list of Ten Commandments from a website, it would still not be copyvio as the list of commandments is accepted as a fact. Hence, I'd be reverting your edits after adding explanation in the talk page. --Gurubrahma 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, although "facts" are not subject to copyright, the "expression" of facts most definitely is. You have reattached over 300 words literally copied from here http://www.ambedkar.org/ without apparent permisssion of the copyright holder. Unless you have permission or it could be construed as "fair use", I believe it to be a copyvio. (By the way, the "Ten Commandments" are not subject to copyright because of their age, not because they are "facts.")
- But even if the copyright status was resolved in favor of your position, it's my firm opinion that inclusion of all this copied material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, if you want to compose a summary of what the 22 vows are about, and how they relate to the subject's overall life and times, that would be most welcome.
- You also reverted out without comment a number of other edits that, imo, made the article more appropriately NPOV.
- I'll wait a reasonable time for you and others to comment, but my position is that this version of the article[[1]] is much preferable to what you reverted to. --FRS 17:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I posted the following message:
- B. R. Ambedkar--In the long form of this section [[2]] of the article, advocated by some users, over 300 words are copied verbatim from (for example) [3] or [4]. I don't know the copyright status of this text, but it is recent enough (1956) that it could easily still be under copyright. It would be good if someone w/ an authoritative view on WP copyright policy would comment here [[5]] TIA--FRS 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 3 in the hope that a third party with knowledge of copyright policy will drop by B.R.A.'s talk page and advise. FRS 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, gone through your copyedits - it looks much more NPOV, thanks for that. However, you've stated above that you'd wait for a reasonable time and yet deleted the 22 vows. I've re-added the 22 vows, leaving your copyedit intact. And you hv not answered my queries above e.g. wrongly accusing me of deleting material w/o explanation etc. Typically, whenever a problem such as this crops up, the right place to ask may be the notice board of that specific country. Regards, --Gurubrahma 08:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think I "wrongly accused" you of deleting material w/o explanation. I said, accurately, that "you reverted out without comment a number of other edits" which we now agree were, for the most part, improvements. I didn't intend it as an accusation, but merely an observation, which led, as I had hoped it would, to a discussion of the substance of editing task. Anyway it is to me a minor side issue, now resolved. If I inadvertently offended you please accept my apologies.--FRS 16:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- P.S., since you have a special interest and knowlege regarding India, maybe you could take a look at Babbar Khalsa a page I made some minor improvements to recently, but is still in rather deplorable condition. FRS 16:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think I "wrongly accused" you of deleting material w/o explanation. I said, accurately, that "you reverted out without comment a number of other edits" which we now agree were, for the most part, improvements. I didn't intend it as an accusation, but merely an observation, which led, as I had hoped it would, to a discussion of the substance of editing task. Anyway it is to me a minor side issue, now resolved. If I inadvertently offended you please accept my apologies.--FRS 16:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, gone through your copyedits - it looks much more NPOV, thanks for that. However, you've stated above that you'd wait for a reasonable time and yet deleted the 22 vows. I've re-added the 22 vows, leaving your copyedit intact. And you hv not answered my queries above e.g. wrongly accusing me of deleting material w/o explanation etc. Typically, whenever a problem such as this crops up, the right place to ask may be the notice board of that specific country. Regards, --Gurubrahma 08:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for thanks!
[edit]An appreciative comment is always nice. I never get enough <g>. BTW, I archived my page, per your suggestion. So much to keep clean -- garden to weed, house to dust and mop, dishes to wash, email folder to prune, talk page to archive. It's enough to make one want to be a wandering mendicant Buddhist nun. Zora 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for Info on Subramaniam Swamy
[edit]Hi, thanks for your feedback on my edit. I will follow your guidelines from next time.
Re: Military history of India
[edit]Yeah, it was a typo. Ive made the necessary corrections to the article concerned. Thanks for informing me. Hmm.. I went through Nirav's talkpage and noticed that atleast 3 users including you have advised him to sign by typing the 4 tildes. Probably, he's finding it hard to locate ~ (tilde) on his keyboard. Ive added all the articles you mentioned to my watchlist and will help you in keeping a track of his edits. Cheers and happy editing --Deepak|वार्ता 07:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks from Pamri
[edit]Hi Gurubrahma, Thanks a lot for your vote and support at my RFA. I am especially grateful, you took the time to write a mini para in my support :-). I am now a wikipedia administrator and I hope, I can keep your trust. Thanks a lot. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 16:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting it on INWNB. I just about managed to hit a half-century. I have looked at his questionable edits and longish rants on talk pages. I will surely watch his edits closely, but for now, try to get Bhadani to talk to him, since nirav seems to have interacted with him quite often. If nothing else works, you can consider going for a RFC. BTW, excellent work on Chindia. Why don't you work towards a FA? --Pamri • Talk • Reply 17:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Chindia
[edit]Hi Punkmorten, I noticed that the above article was on afd - I've expanded it. Can you have a look and let me know if it is ok? --Gurubrahma 04:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Good work. Punkmorten 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Replying to your message: I've looked at the expansions and changed my vote to keep. Keep up the good work! Deltabeignet 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
AfDs
[edit]Please keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India in your watchlist (if you are not doing so already). Thanks, Tintin 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
[edit]A tip, if you are interested in adminship, I'd suggest you try get a Featured Article. It smoothens your passage in the RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Walchand Hirachand, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Good patrol, yaar
[edit]You're catching all the vandalism and linkspam at Bollywood before i do. Don't you ever sleep? <g> Zora 11:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits by an anonymous
[edit]Thanks for pointing out about the activities of the anonymous. Please keep a careful watch. Let us patiently deal with him/her, as some persons may do something without understanding the issues, and thinking that they are doing the right things. I will try to see the edits. I know such matters are difficult, but over a period of time, most of the persons are expected to understand that they are editing an encyclopedia, and not writing person accounts. Let us watch for some more time. --Bhadani 13:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Rajput
[edit]GuruBrahma, Thanks for stopping by. I would like to draw your attention to rajput page.
I have created the document from a list of 61 books which are mentioned in the references section. Authors have done extensive research in the field of history and then published these books. Muslims and some users like zora/gothean are accusing me of hindutva POV/anti muslim and I have repeatedly asked these muslims and self proclaimed moderators,on the talk page, to point out historically incorrect statements in the article. No one has come forth. Yet they revert my edits. When I ask them for citations they remain quiet.
Also it seems providing references is meaningless here. What seems to be working is how many people one has on there side. i.e what matters on wikipedia is outshouting the other.
Now they are accusing me of impersonating others.
Can you keep an eye out on the rajput page and help in whatever manner you can?
Shivraj Singh 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters much to Shivraj that other editors are "ganging up" on him, since we have every reason to believe that thanks to sockpuppets and anonIPs, he has given himself unlimited reverts. Zora 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Zora I have challenged your buddies and I am challenging you to prove your claim. If you cannot prove do not show your face here. Gurubrahma how do you stand her? She mentions QSQT as being relevant to rajput history. She has no idea about India claims she is a buddhist and I am willing to wager she does not even know what Buddhism is. Tomorrow she might claim "O, Siddharta was a kshatriya so all his followers including her are kshatriya's too". Shivraj Singh 04:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Shivraj, wikipedia is not a buddy forum where we form coteries. We go by credible references. Please do not be xenophobic and regard non-Indians as having little or no knowledge on India-related topics. I can recommend you a Swiss historian who can put almost all Indian editors to the sword with his knowledge of Indian history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Zora I have challenged your buddies and I am challenging you to prove your claim. If you cannot prove do not show your face here. Gurubrahma how do you stand her? She mentions QSQT as being relevant to rajput history. She has no idea about India claims she is a buddhist and I am willing to wager she does not even know what Buddhism is. Tomorrow she might claim "O, Siddharta was a kshatriya so all his followers including her are kshatriya's too". Shivraj Singh 04:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nichalp coterie has been formed by Zora and other muslims on rajput page. She has accused me of anti muslim bias/Hindu POV etc and I have asked her and her buddies to point out passages that support her claim and also some citations to support her refutations. None has come forth. She ridicules James Tod/Dashratha Sharma/LS Rathore as historians. Though she has not read there books. She claims Rajputs are 12 million where last census shows 40 million. She is clueless how important vansha/cula/shakha/gotra-acharya is to rajputs and calls it confusing. Lately she has been blatantly acccusing me of using pseudonyms in editing wiki. I have challenged her and her buddies to prove these claims. No response. To me she appears very partisan and totally clueless. She is towing the muslim line from the moment she started chiming on the rajput page. Some ridiculous claims: Muslims are rajputs. Ghoris descendants are rajputs. Prithivraj begged Ghori for his life. Majority of rajputs converted to Islam by musilm saints. List is really long. Shivraj Singh 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
INCOTW
[edit]Well, the INCOTW should have been changed a long time back. I usually used to watch the portal and the INCOTW, but I no longer have the time to see to those pages. If you're interested, you may update those pages. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Greetings!
[edit]Thank you for the welcome and the handy links. I hope to become a significant contributor to Wikipedia in the future, though I admit I've been a little slow in catching on. Perhaps I'll make up for the lost time once I've finished with the JEEs in April :). Rohit 09:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Electric power
[edit]Many thanks to have helped me with your suggestion. I have edited the above again with my name to correct the mistake. Hope this is OK.
--Dore chakravarty 18:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Saw your comments. Not worthy for such expressions. One more question. Is it necessary for me to fill up preferences? Ho will it help me? Shall try to meet by Jan end.
--Dore chakravarty 02:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Unexpected
[edit]I saw this as user: unexpected after referring to you. What I have to do now please?
User talk:200.219.184.80 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or is not signed in. We therefore have to use his or her numerical IP address to identify him or her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. We also recommend creating an account if you do not want anyone to see your IP address. '
--Dore chakravarty 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
User talk:200.219.184.80
Thanks veru much for the quick response. I am neither using vsnl nor sifi. Hence we need not worry at present. Let me wait and see. Shall trouble you if unavoidable. Let God be with you always.
--Dore chakravarty 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Your response to Maurya
[edit]My dear, hellooo, I saw your response to Mr Maurya's message on my talk page. I have given my response to messages from both of you on my talk page. I am sure that we shall be inter-acting more. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I saw some of the anonymous edits, but failed to understand the reasons for putting them anonymously by him although he has a user ID – but some have there own reasons for doing things, on which we should not brood unnecessarily. I came here just now to congratulate you on keeping your cool in spite of very provocative word used by the annynymous/Mr. Maurya about you on my talk page. Please remain calm and continue your work here. All the best. --Bhadani 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for responding to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will work to improve my community interaction. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks again :) Dont' worry about the neutral vote, the edit count tool is just one way to help gauge what a person is done -- since so many RfAs are posted, its not surprising that we don't have the time to go through every one and check their communications elsewhere. If I would have thought about it, I would have mentioned it when I posted the RfA instead of just expecting people to have to go looking on their own - lesson learned. :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
New artcle-Condense_steam turbine
[edit]New article is uploaded. Comments and corrections if time permits please.
--Dore chakravarty 05:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Condenser-steam turbine
[edit]Thanks very much for the corrections and noted the same. Hope not to trouble you next time on such corrections.
--Dore chakravarty 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Sorry I didn't read the discussion page; I saw that there's not much to merge.—Gniw (Wing) 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi! I never thought of that. But in this particular example the point would not make much sense, since the word “company” is actually part of the group’s official name (not to mention that “theatre company” as a word has a rather specific meaning that has little to do with companies as in businesses [and there are lots of companies outside the US that are not LLC’s too]). I agree that these discussions are sometimes quite “interesting”. Let’s see what happens in the discussion till November 22 :D —Gniw (Wing) 07:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Condenser
[edit]Thanks very much. Noted the change in name and the use of move option. Seen also the article's entry on Condenser, a disambiguation page. Understood about DYK and the entry there. Learning something more. I do not think it will stay in my head. However shall try to digest all. Noted about the scanning and have to do experiments here:self taught.
--Dore chakravarty 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Condenser
[edit]Please do not call me Sir.
--Dore chakravarty 19:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Condenser(Steam turbine)
[edit]DYK says as under.
that a condenser is used to condense steam from a steam turbine to obtain maximum efficiency? (suggested pic - Image:Dores-Cond-diag1.png) -- Gurubrahma 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
This says about the condenser usage only. I would prefer that the whole article is checked by other persons as well because it is written from my memory only. It also involves multi discipline technology. Does the above convey this aspect please?
--Dore chakravarty 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Condenser(Steam turbine)
[edit]Thanks very much. Noted the details given. Shall do as suggested. Have done the sketch again to avoid scanner light etc. Shall upload shortly. If OK, shall redo all.
--Dore chakravarty 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
All the best
[edit]Dear I wish you all the best, and have decorated your user page with one more barnstar. May God bless you! --Bhadani 17:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- And took the liberty to place it on your user page - arrange the same as you wish. --Bhadani 17:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew the identity of the user all along - but refrained from using his name for the sake of simplicity and decency. All the best. --Bhadani 17:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Technology barnstar
[edit]This is the thanks conveyed to Mr. Badani, for your information please.
Really over helmed with joy. I feel that I am not still worthy of this. Thanks for putting it on my user page. The referred article has been renamed by user:Gurubrahma to, Condenser(Steam turbine). Both of you and other Wikipedians are helping me a lot.
--Dore chakravarty 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)--Dore chakravarty 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)