User talk:Gurubrahma/Archive04

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 7 December 2005 and 16 December 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/Archive05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. 10:58 (UTC + 5.5), 17 December 2005 Gurubrahma --Gurubrahma 14:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations 2

Your are welcome. Thank you.--Dakota ^t ^e 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming a Sysop. Well deserved, good luck. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it was my pleasure to support you. As for the medicine articles, I'm doing my best to do my part, but I've had little time to work much on articles these days. Several other editors, especially User:InvictaHOG and User:Rewster, have really taken the lead in bringing medical articles to featured status. Enjoy your new role! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA and barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, and congrats on becoming an admin (and sorry for taking so long to say that!). Thanks for the RfA but I am not planning to try for it in the near future. Btw, it was nice hearing that; never thought someone would suggest that to me :-) Tintin 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too

Well done on becoming an admin! Welcome to the Indian cabal. By the way, I'm not your senior in any way. I may have become an admin before you, but you're way more experienced than I.

By the way, while editing on Proby Cautley, I decided to be bold and merge the article. I felt that Proby Cautley was more appropriate than Proby Thomas Cautley, because middle names are rarely used while naming articles. For example, it's Winston Churchill not Winston Spencer Churchill and Ronald Reagan not Ronald Wilson Reagan. Also I relisted it on DYK because I was under the impression that it was denied DYK the first time because it was a merge candidate.

I hope that I may have redeemed myself somewhat in your eyes. Please tell me if you need any further clarification. Again, congratulations.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And more congratulations on your adminship; I trust you'll use it well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boyoscorporation

Hi Gurubrahma, could you also speedy delete Boyoscorporation? The user reverted my tag. Shawnc 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Dynasty

Whoever put "di" after "huang" wasn't vandalizing; it was unnecessary, but it did provide a fuller title (which was accurate). --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hey Gurubrahma, thanks for the barnstar, and good luck as an admin. I look forward to keep working with you! deeptrivia (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congraulations and the problem of bad information

Firstly, congratulations on your well-deserved elevation to the mop-and-broom brigade. Secondly, thanks for putting up the "problem of bad information" email: nothing I would quarrel with in terms of double checking anything in Wikipedia, but the learned professor is perhaps a bit naive or over-optimistic in pointing to Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable reference tool. It may be fine in his subject, but the DVD edition I have is wildly misleading (though not actually outright wrong) about Jacobitism. To me, Wikipedia is great as a pointer to further research, and its very unreliability is a useful reminder to check your sources. It's not great PR, but such distrust of any encyclopaedia should be learnt by all students. The deeper problem of insidious vandalism needs further consideration, and I'll try to contribute to a community forum which no doubt is giving this attention. Ta ta for now, ...dave souza 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

messages left

I HAVE RECEIVED MEESAGES STATING I HAVE BEEN POSTING ON WIKIPEDIA.I CAN PROMISE YOU I HAVE NOT BEEN OR DO I KNOW HOW TO DO THIS. I ONLY USE IT AS A REFERENCE. SOMEONE MUST BE USING MY IP OR SCREEN NAME TO DO SO. I AM SORRY IF THAT PERSON IS CAUSING TROUBLE, BUT REST ASSURED I AM NOT THE ONE.

THANK YOU. Unsigned comment by 207.200.116.65, an IP of an AOL proxy server (btw, I did not leave a message on this IP's talkpage, but left it on some other IP's talkpage --Gurubrahma 03:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

regarding robin cook

Respected Sir,

I am suprised anyone can think of Robin Cook and Michael Crichton as the same person. Such a comment was present in articles about Crichton and Cook. It only shows that the person who wrote such a thing does not know anything about the authors. It is for this reason that i edited the article. Also i havent changed anything except deleteing these dumb comments. Plese do not rivet them back. Infact U should be amazingly dumb to consider such an edit vandalism. regards. Unsigned comment by User:SriSri --Gurubrahma 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT TO BECOME A ADMIN! NOW!>:@

thank you for giving me the link, unforunately, it has nothing to do with Admin or MOD

It seems, that link has something to do with distruptive,

And if you have something to say to me, you better say it, instead of giving me a fool that wrote about that
And I must warn, all this fools over the internet, i don't like them, nor do they like me, If you got a problem about me, it's best to stay out of my way, or you might get Flamed! Giving me that link, seems to be an offence >x<ino 15:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gurubrahma, at least he's not threatening to beat you up, just to flame you <g>. My, my, such an interesting life you lead. Zora 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is a already a crowd by the ringside *grin* Tintin 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the link

Like before, i know my rights & limits, because i am still a wiki starter, but when i have a big job i will be serouis!

For example, if i am in College, i don't have to work overnight, because it won't do me any good, but when i get a job, then i will work over night

In another words, i am still a wiki starter, all i can do is revert, edit and do articles. But since i am like that, have fun with it.

But when i am an admin, i know it is a real job, no time for calling visitor fools, or ect >x<ino 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi, You need to list yourself under Wikipedia:List of administrators. --Pamri • Talk 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mera number ...

Looks like a DFTT but he has 1500 edits in four months. So it is not like he doesn't know what he is doing ? Tintin 16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user is reverting my own comments and signautures I deleted

Hello Gurubrahma

Grant65 is putting back in his dicussion page my fair comments that I chose to delete, I warned him not to revert it back but he keeps doing it. I need your knowledge and advice on what the wikipedia rule allows and disallows this practice please. Thank you Bison augustus 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upholders of the Wiki

Hi Gurubrahma, I wanted to give a barnstar to users who stand out and go out their way to uphold what wikipedia stands for. Users who make wikipedia a special place for others. What I was thinking was just something different and special. I am not sure myself if it should only be for the Wikipedia namespace. I know the description is short but it is a start and I need your help to refine this barnstar. Thanks --Jcw69 07:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I initially proposed the title as a term for Administrators, in light of the tireless attempts by most admins to keep Wikipedia running smoothly by, amongst other things, taking care of vandals and the like. I think this fits in well with Jcw69's proposal, which could be refined as making this an award for editors who exemplify the best of what Wikipedia stands for. In other words, those who are not only valuable editors, but who take the time to become positively involved in all aspects of Wikipedia, such as Village Pump discussions, VfD, etc, and most importantly maintain a cool head and temperament when doing so. Just a thought. — Imp i 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Defense of bison_augustus

I wish to place a complaint on Grant65 for vandalising my user page and its content of malicious allegations based on suspicion against me. I am willing to withdraw these complaints if Grant65 withdraws his against Bison augustus for "personal abuse"

My user page has been vandalised by Grant65 as well, I wish to file a complaint for the sake of Bison. Magicmuffin 08:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Magicmuffin would like to explain why he/she deleted posts, which were (supposedly) not made by him/her (unless he/she is the same person as the above-mentioned vandals) from my talk page. Grant65 | Talk 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of my pages/personal abuse

Hi Gurubrahma. Thanks for your response. If each of the users concerned wish to apologise to me on my talk page, I will remove the posts left by that user. However I believe these are probaby all sockpuppets and I reported this on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Possible sockpuppets, initially on 18 November and then again on 8 December 2005. Grant65 | Talk 08:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An op has moved my complaint from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Possible sockpuppets to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Low. I have also reported the nuisance/s at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Grant65 | Talk 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jagjivan Ram

Finally obtained permission to use the image! deeptrivia (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gurubrahma. According to what I read on Deepak gupta's page, he admits he was real confrontational with you in the past, and says he has kinda reorganized himself on wikipedia now. His recent contributions (e.g., Political Integration of India) have been great, which must be encouraged. I think everyone must get a second chance, and he might be a valuable editor in future. deeptrivia (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The comments on Deepak gupta's page (here) are by User:Rama's Arrow. I had definitely not seen all the details of his edits, especially his reverts on Gandhism when I gave him the barnstar, but I guess everyone takes some time to mature on wikipedia (when i started in May, I had terrible debates with User:Anonymous editor). His recent edits are good, and encouragement at this point would be helpful in making him stay this way, which I think is important. I'll definitely keep an eye on his edits, though. deeptrivia (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to cite references for all his edits to Political Integration of India. deeptrivia (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interfere but I do agree with Deeptrivia. I went through some of his recent edits and the maturity in his work is clearly visible. A bit of an encouragement will do no harm. Instead it will make him feel more responsible. Regarding the current affairs dept... I'm really really busy nowadays. Devoting time for Wikipedia is becoming more and more difficult. But yeah, I'll try helping you during my Christmas holidays. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

putting it all aside

Hello Gurubrahma,

You've just won adminship and I've just completed a very productive run here, and a fresh, new year is approaching. I think its the perfect time for me to offer an earnest and most personal hand of friendship, to erase all bad blood, suspicion and enmity between us.

I'm not trying to bring our POVs on the same page, but to lay the past to rest. If there are, and I'm sure there will be, future arguments, it should be purely for the betterment of Wikipedia articles and not a personal battle. If we close this ugly chapter now, those arguments will be more productively and easily resolved.

I specifically apologize for the use of profanity against you on Bhadani's page, and for the few acts of vandalism, vulgar and insulting messages, and confrontational editing precipitated by anger.

I earnestly believe that all fighting on Wikipedia is futile, save on the most exalted principles. Our battles were upon issues I consider petty. But by a bad stroke of luck, I ran into you during a lean patch in my life where I needed to confront more important issues and was simply outraged at having to defend hours of good work over petty points. I did not take the time to understand Wikipedia, which intensified problems. Getting caught up in a chain of anger takes a while to unravel, and one feels very foolish when it is all clear.

Let me be clear that I do see the negatives in you, but in my mind the positives outweigh the negatives. Indeed, I've learned a lot from the diligent commitment you show to Wikipedia, and the respect you give through copious effort upon every work and issue. Your self-restraint and character in face of my behavior was quite remarkable as well.

I'm not sure what I'm gonna do here on Wikipedia, but I'm proud of what I've done and I'm sure this is what I must do before I step into the future.

Trust and verification of intents expressed by both of us will come in time, but this is something I feel necessary to do from my side, becoz there won't be a better time to do it.

With this message, I renounce my anger, suspicion and ill-will towards you, putting it all in the ever-pure, all-consuming Agni.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 07:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I'm sure user:Bhadani and user:Nirvana2013 will see this, so let me use this opportunity to apologize to them for the rudeness with which I've treated them over the last two months.

I also wanna thank user:deeptrivia and user:Deepak gupta for helping me get to this point.

Manmohan Singh Speech.

Wasn't the article in fact published on Sunday, Jul 10, 2005? I thought the field "URL accessed on" was there to mention that the URL was last accessed and found to be in a working condition on such and such date. So I updated it to today's date. Isn't that what it is for? Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jagjivan Ram pic

Here's Pamri's response:

Good work on getting the image. But you should have told them that free images on wikipedia along with it's content can also be used for commercial purposes, albeit with the credit/attribution and copyright intact. Suggest using a license like {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} will ensure they will be credited for and any distribution will occur under the same terms. And offer {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} as a simple alternative. Do check other requests for permission at WP:BRP. In case they agree, you can leave the image at commons and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. If they don't, upload it here and use the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag along with a note stating you have got the permission to use it here. --Pamri • Talk 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I am thinking of moving the image to wikipedia while I wait for a response from IDSA. I get this feeling that they don't really care what people do with their image or who uses it (it's a government-funded organisation not earning any profit out of these images), and probably they won't bother to reply to my mail for a second time. I'll give it a try though. deeptrivia (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the links and the welcome. Bye. --Raghu 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

Hi Gurubrahma. User:Csssclll is constantly reverting the article Arabic numerals to his own version, and indulging in personal attacks. Please have a look. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gurubrahma, for your help. I think this will certainly help in resolving the issue much faster. It seems we have already reached a consensus. Just to be neutral, you might also want to look at the edit history of User:Astriolok, who was on the other end of the debate. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Gurubrahma, I'll take care in future. My edits are marked as minor by default, and sometimes I forget to unselect that option. But I'll change my settings. Thanks again.deeptrivia (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For information, looks like Csssclll has been huffing and puffing on Slashdot[1]....dave souza 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have had a few replies and, ever tactful, I added the following Dear dear johansalk, you got into a row and instead of using Request for Comment or Mediation, you break the rules aimed at containing such conflicts, as do the others, and all get blocked for a time. Obviously passions can run high over political subjects, and resolution needs calm use of the available procedures rather than running around crying about how you've been picked on because you're so much better than everyone else. It;s posted anonymous coward as my account seems to have stopped working properly lately...dave souza 14:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, welcome to administration! It'll be nice if there is another person working on DYK. On the basics, I usually read through the articles suggested, and comment on any that don't meet the criteria- usually the only unsuitable noms are too short, although sometimes people also nominate old articles. It's also helpful to add images to the suggestion page if they're not already there, it saves time when someone goes to update the template. Sometimes you'll also need to edit the suggestions, if they aren't very interesting, are too long, link to disambigs instead of the relevant article and so on...

When it comes to updating the template, try to vary the content a bit, 2 biographies and 2 articles that aren't about people seems to be the typical breakdown, if there are lots of suggestions about the same thing (like cricket or the death penalty) thy and spread these out too. I find it easiest to open both the template and the suggestions page to edit, cut and paste the old template into the archive section on the suggestion page, then fill in template with the new suggestions, removing the suggestions that will appear on the template. Always put the article related to the picture first, protect the picture (add {{mprotected}}, and if the picture is on the commons upload it to Wikipedia and save it here {{c-uploaded}}, if you need to crop it add {{m-cropped}}. Once the template is saved, I add the time to the suggestion page and save it. I always update the whole template, archiving less than a whole template is a pain.

To notify people I open all the articles on the template (firefox is great for this), check who started the article and then notify them on their talk page.

I try and update 2-3 times a day, but I always leave enough suggestions for another template (4-6). If there are alot of short suggestions sometimes I'll add 5 items to the template, you'll get the hang of this as you play with it. Sometimes I suggest good new articles that I have written, I always list on the day I wrote it, and I leave it with the other suggestions of the same age, as long as it is seen to go through the same process as eeveryone elses then there should be no question about favoritisim/self-promotion as far as I'm concerned (there have been occassions in the past where admins add their new article to the top of the template out of process, I revert these edits and tell how to nominate articles for DYK).

ANyhow if you have any other questions let me know.--nixie 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:putting it aside

Hi Gurubrahma - sry for the delay,

I don't need to think over anything. I know and understand you completely. I realized on Saturday that the best thing to do is to confront the difficult issues head-on and w/o hesitation. I don't attempt to conceal anything about our feud, or neglect its harsh realities.

In your own time you can come to the conclusion that you need not fear any future confrontations with me. Time is the healer. You can take your time, or not consider this matter beyond today. I seriously understand both and respect it either way.

Over the last month I've developed respect for you. I reiterate that I've renounced my anger, suspicion and all negative feelings towards you. I don't apologize for having them, but I do apologize for things I said and did without deference to God. I'm looking forward to working with you if any common area of work comes along.

God gives me everything I need, and I've acted upon what I consider most important. I believe Wikipedia is more for learning from, than contributing to. I believe in taking the initiative. My work, purpose and focus here are changing right now so nothing's gonna be what it was anyway. We both have important things to deal with. I think we've each said what needed to be said, and now let's do our bit.

I wish we had this chat earlier - would have loved to put you over the 50 mark. Perhaps that would have helped bridge the gap. Be assured of support for anything like that in the future. While I don't share many of your POVs, I've come to respect you. I again and more openly and sincerely wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a great new year.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 06:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help required - Edit this page - Error

File:Error edits.gif

Error message received when I click on the button "Edit this page"

Off late I am getting this message and not being allowed to edit any pages. Is this a issue being faced by me alone or has there been any change in the policy?

When I click on the button "edit this page" I get a pop-up for download. I am using Windows 2000 as the Operating system and Internet Explorer 5.5 as the browser. It would be great if I could get some help on this. --avnp* 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reply on avnp*'s talk page. jnothman ^talk 07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gurubrahma, you're welcome... but I don't know if I've quite answered the question. jnothman ^talk 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anbeysivam

Yes, you're right about don't feed the troll. Sorry... I just couldn't resist. Jamie 13:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct process for merger

Gurubrahma, hello again! First, Congrats for the sysops-ship. Recently, I was editing My Experiments with Truth, unaware that there is already another article - The Story of My Experiments with Truth (unfortunately, there were no redirects. Both articles, as you can see, are articulated entirely differently). Now, realizing the redundancy today, I moved a request for merger which, I gather, has been accepted by User:Nirvana2013. But am sure that there are other contributors as well for The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Could you please advice how and what should be the right course of action? What is the correct (and fair) process? I think waiting for a couple of days to gather inputs from other editors is advisable. Regards. --Miljoshi 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and advice. Agree that "The Story of.." is the correct title, and intend to move the content to this article from the other one (which I was editing). Well, will see how things go from here and if any voices are heard :-) Regards. --Miljoshi | talk 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Got it now

I thought that the India page in which i listed the article is some sought of sub category for the articles for deletion. Now i know how to do. Thanks. --Raghu 14:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming admin. we'll sure ask you help when needed. sorry that I missed your RfA. catch you later --Vyzasatya 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new template

Hi Gurubrahma,

I wanted you to know that I've created a new Template:India independence movement, to help group together the large number of biographies, historical events and political articles that are attributed to the Indian freedom struggle.

I thought it was necessary given the terrible spread of a large number of articles without a common link. Its broad - covers political leaders, revolutionaries/heroes, the British end, ideology and movements.

I hope this is one of the first pieces of work we can agree upon. I need your help to improve it and proliferate it. Let me know if there's something that needs to be corrected.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

In fact, I wanted to inform you that after getting unblocked, this guy has resumed his campaign of reverts and personal attacks, but I thought to just ignore him and the debate altogether. He started a POV fork (Alternative views on Arabic numerals), and put the original Arabic numerals article there, and replaced the Arabic numerals article with his own version. Somebody put a VfD tag on this Alternate views article, which he simply deleted. I replied to his comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8, and at 22:08, asked him on Talk:Arabic numerals to respond to my comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8. At 22:09 he said he had already replied on that page. I replied at 22:10 saying he hasn't. At 23:38 he posted a reply on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8, and then posted a message on Talk:Arabic numerals claiming that I was blatantly "lying" at 22:10 when I said he had'nt replied. Obviously, anyone who would look at the timings will take a second to figure out the truth. My discussions with him have been highly unproductive, since he just focusses on personal attacks like "you one of the most evasive characters I ever met online!". I'll post a reply on Slashdot. Don't worry, at first glance someone might believe him, but anyone who looks a bit deeper will only laugh at the hilarious things he is doing. deeptrivia (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add something. He keeps talking about his version being supported by lots of scientific evidence, and quotes many references. This is highly misleading, and is the basic reason why many people have not outrightly rejected his version. In my opinion he is just making use of the fact that people don't have the time and the inclination to go through the references themselves, and assuming good faith, they believe he's quoting them right. I spent more than an hour today just reading up his references, and many things he says are not really supported by his references at all. I've put one example at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8. Seriously, I just want to get out of it, and use my wikipedia time on more consructive things.

Also, I get a feeling that User:Astriolok and User:Vertaloni are IDs created by the same person. Thanks a lot! deeptrivia (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a liar! You have been lying all along including today, and right here above! Gurubrahma, please see the following examples of lies from just today, and here I'll quote what I wrote to him earlier: From Talk:Arabic_numerals#Re.

Kindly please stop lying if you wish me to stop pointing out your lies. It's very rude and disrespectful when I spend my time citing verifiable and reliable sources and you just lie outright, nevermind content, but even on just simply what's happening here, and here's an example of just how you just now did it before requesting that I stop calling you "liars"; from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8, I quote your statement and my reply to it:

QUOTED: "I hope that now since all editors have reached a consensus on the article, and have tried to explain you in clearest possible words the difference between numeral symbols and numeral system, you would play a more constructive role. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTED: Why are you lying again here? yes, lying! As you had been doing for quite some time now and as I have pointed out. The dictionary defines a lie as "1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." First of all, "all editors have reached a consensus on the article" is a demonstrable false statement that you should know is not true and that we're having this exchange here is evidence enough that it isn't, nevermind others. Second, here's your other BIG lie, you say others "have tried to explain you in clearest possible words the difference between numeral symbols and numeral system", Oh really? why don't you tell everyone here that it is I who made the clearest distinction and as far as I remember and see on the page I was the first to make it between numeral symbols and numeral system, and you should know because you have been around. I clearly distinguished in my first post between the Arabic Numerals (1, 2, 3, 4...) and the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system in a paraphragh that begins with "- For a start," Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#RFC_2 and you should especially know, not just because youhave been around, but also because what you quoted above happens to be just the paragraph under it! And again I made the distinction in "the clearest possible words" when I proposed here, as my first(!) point in an suggested outline, Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#Suggested_outline.2C_please_consider_and_discuss "differentiate a specific numeral script (eg, Arabic Western, Arabic Eastern, Devanagari) from the numeral system (ie, Indian-Arabic, which includes many numerals scripts), the rest of the article should maintain this, it should also keep in mind what the readers may have searched for when looking up this article and cater for those needs (eg, is the reader looking up the Arabic Western numerals script or the Indian-Arabic Numeral system?)", and then again zocky, who prefers my version and is against yours, made the same disctinction Talk:History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals#What_this_page_is_about. The dictionary defines a liar as "One that tells lies" and "a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly", if you want me to stop calling pointing out your lies stop lying! csssclll (23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))"[reply]

In addition, I did *not* start the POV fork (Alternative views on Arabic numerals).

In addition, you are being misleading and also lying about the following "I replied to his comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8, and at 22:08, asked him on Talk:Arabic numerals to respond to my comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8. At 22:09 he said he had already replied on that page. I replied at 22:10 saying he hasn't. At 23:38 he posted a reply on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8, and then posted a message on Talk:Arabic numerals claiming that I was blatantly "lying" at 22:10 when I said he had'nt replied. Obviously, anyone who would look at the timings will take a second to figure out the truth."... Why do you not mention that you replied to someone else on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_8 at "deeptrivia (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)", which I later on found and I replied to you at "csssclll(20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC))", which you should be aware of because you replied at "Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" but you don't mention this above!! ~Why don't you mention it?! You came to Talk:Arabic numerals within less than 5 mintutes and you posted at "deeptrivia (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" "csssclll, unless you finally decide to read what others say, there's no point replying to any of this." which misled me and gave me the impression that you did not see my reply half an hour before your post, which I told you that I had replied, and then when you insisted that I didn't I went over and replied again, that might've been an honest misunderstanding on both our parts, but here's where you're being not only misleading above but lying yet again; I demand that you prove your following claim above "and then posted a message on Talk:Arabic numerals claiming that I was blatantly "lying" at 22:10 when I said he had'nt replied." Where on Talk:Arabic numerals did I claim that you were blatantly lying at 22:10 when you said I hadn't replied??!?! And again on that page you lied when you said "I asked you to reply at 22:08. At 22:09 you said you had already replied. I said you haven't at 22:10. You replied at 23:38, and then claimed that I was "lying" at 22:10 when I said you haven't replied.", where did I say at 22:09 that I replied? That's a lie. and where did I claim in my 23:38 reply that you were lying at 22:10 when you said I haven't replied?!?! That's another lie.

Gurubrahma, please check this out and see for yourself what kind of people I had been inconvenienced by. Regards, csssclll (07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Edits on your userpage

Well, Sir, it was listed under "U". And my logic for that is, if you do not explicitly specify Category:Indian Wikipedians|Gurubrahma and keep only Category:Indian Wikipedians, it takes Category:Indian Wikipedians|User:Gurubrahma as the default. And hence, you are listed under U. (That's interesting, isn't it? Check it out! :-) ) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian freedom struggle/history

Since Rama's Arrow is enthusiastic about Indian history, I suggested him to try to figure out if it is feasible to create a Wikiportal on Indian freedom struggle or Indian history in general, since there is such a huge volume of information on the topic. Do you think it is compatible with all the policies? deeptrivia (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I think what you said about reviving Portal:India makes sense. I'll suggest him to focus on that. Regarding the comment above, I just don't feel like trying to explain anything that he'll again label as a lie or something, and it's all going to be a waste of time. These time histories ([2], [3]) should make it sufficiently clear. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boiled beans

[4] Bangalore to be renamed; town of boiled beans. Hmm. I wonder if they had WP:BEANS in mind? :) --Durin 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template India independence movement

Hi Gurubrahma,

I understand your and Deeptrivia's points about the length and unnecessary categorization. I will clean up the template shortly.

I was trying to provide a fundamental connection board so that people can find all kinds of articles. You know, if people are just getting curious about the freedom struggle by reading about Gandhi, whom they've just heard as a leader of peace, it is helpful to have a template there. This issue has a whole network of articles as big as Hinduism and Islam. Both of those have manageable templates so I think we can make this work.

But I honestly don't believe it should be deleted. It can be merged with IndiaPortal, but its independence must be retained so that an article-to-article link base is available for users.

Handling this issue

Just like you to know that your comments about my MO, lack of knowledge of Wikipedia rules, etc. have not gone to the wrong place with me. I know they are problems, and I did ask for your advice on this template.

Its progress that you feel I've earned this 3rd barnstar. Thank you.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reform

Hey, I've slashed the size of the template by about 50%. Except for "Movements" and "Leaders", all are one-liners. I've also taken care to project the diversity of all leaders, philosophies and events despite the cut in size.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me! :(

I need your help clearing my name! My IP is shared by my school's computers/internet as well, and some kids (I think one of them, Paul Cleverly, is in my grade) went on wikipedia and vandalized a page, I think it was Renaissance. He trolled it by adding remarks and all sorts of things about his friends and whatever, and when I went on the page (The renaissance is our current project in Music and Language Arts so we were reading the page) and so I get on the page and I see "New Messages", and I click, and there are WARNINGS! I was confused! I couldn't even edit pages on my Log-in account to fix spelling errors and whatnot.

I just want to let you know as one of the moderators who had cleared the vandalism caused by those jerks that I would never do something like that and I hope you understand that this IP is shared unfortunately, so please don't ban it!

Thank you so, so much for understanding! --24.128.43.180 00:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Numerals

Csssclll (talk · contribs) is continuing with his revert war on the page , he and Zocky (talk · contribs) also keep blanking out discussions from the talk page. Can something be done about this?--Vertaloni 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vandalism

24 hours sounds good to me. I'll change the message. thanks and keep up the good work.--Alhutch 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon?

I have edited many pages. What are you referring to in particular? If you mean the Sir Crocodile page, that was a correction of vandalism, and you are mistaken.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.189.78.42 (talk • contribs)

156.63.87.28

156.63.87.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been constantly vandalising MEMS, and is on WP:VIP. Since you're online, could you block them please?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal to merge Australasia and Oceania

I just put this on the Oceania talk page: "It's been about a month since this proposal was made, and the only reaction has been negative to very negative, and I think that should be considered the consensus. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the mergewith template soon. That is not to say these articles don't need improvement, just that this particular idea isn't going to fly. OK?" I wanted to check in with you about it, though. Feel free to comment there. Thanks! rodii 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smartass! :) rodii

Your vote on Linuxbeak's RFB

Oppose- I would not want to vote for someone as RFB unless he is atleast a year old on Wikipedia (Nothing personal, though, but I believe that just as voters hv their standards for RFA, I too wd have standards for RFB, especially since it is a bigger deal). --Gurubrahma 07:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guru, per that logic, you would not have recieved my support vote on your RFA as you did not pass my "standards". There are sometimes cases where one should go beyond their standards and make a gut decision based on the current evidence provided. I urge you to please reconsider your vote against Linuxbeak, If you feel you still cannot support I ask that you instead switch to neutral. ALKIVAR™

09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot

Hi, your bot has tagged Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, a PD image as a no-source image. If there is no source, that is, the uploader uploads it from his collection, how will there be a source information unless he prefers to enter it? I guess the bot should catch only those no source images where no copyright info is provided. Thought you may want to look into this. btw, I have not uploaded the image, so I do not know about the source. Also, while you may notify the original uploader, what happens if he doesn't log on to Wikipedia for a week or if he has left the project? These questions are more out of curiosity. Pl. reply on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 11:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bot does not tag images. The only thing it does is remove images that are already tagged from articles.

In the more general case, this was discussed in great detail when speedy-deleting unsourced images was first allowed. The conclusions were:

Unsourced images represent a liability to Wikipedia. Without knowing where the image came from and who created it, there is no way to tell a public-domain image from a copyright violation. Consequently, all unsourced images need to be deleted.
Many images are improperly tagged, particularly those tagged with {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}. Many people don't understand copyright law, and think that any image is public-domain just because it's on a webpage somewhere. Without knowing the source, it's impossible to check this.
The uploader should have provided source information when he first uploaded the image. If he's gone on a long vacation or has left the project, that's just too bad.
If someone uploads an image that they created, they should say so, and should use a copyright tag such as {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}.

In the specific case of Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, it was uploaded by User:Bronks with a tag of {{PD}}, and no other information. User:Petaholmes tagged it as unsourced two weeks later. Based on the dither pattern and aliasing effects in the image, I'd judge that the image is a scan from a magazine or newspaper, probably from the mid to late 1980s. In that case the image is still copyrighted, and will be for the next 70 years or so.

--Carnildo 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neglected articles

Hi, great work!! I had proposed flagging off anon contribs on that article's talkpage and it is good to see that your algorithm includes that. As and when the first list is available, you may want to inform at the Village Pump, so that more people pitch in. --Gurubrahma 06:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good idea. I posted a few thousand listings and put a note on the Pump...I guess we'll see how long it takes for people to work through those. Enjoy, Beland 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Lorx

Gotcha. I'll start using Template:Welcome more often. However, don't you think Template:Test would be more appropriate in these cases? -- Daverocks 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just realised that Template:Test would be inappropriate for me to use in cases of speedy deletion since it claims that the test has been removed, and I can't delete the article to "remove" it. -- Daverocks 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

At Yagans head images were no good as small thumbnails.--nixie 08:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Arindam Chaudhuri article

Thanks for the update. I was going to talk to an admin about him, but didn't have time. Thanks again! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Yes no doubt you are right. I have even copy-edited articles I've listed on AfD! If I am working fast (or as fast as the 'Pedia will allow me), I am genreally trying to complete some task, or list of items, and if I get side-tracked it won't happen! Nonetheless I would be interessted to know which articles you had in mind. For example I delete patent nonsense (e.g. Street racer ski) when I come across it and spent time researching Alfed Witte which eventually looped back to Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough 15:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Wolpe

Thank you very much for selecting David Wolpe and my apologies for forgetting to sign the nom! Joaquin Murietta 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]