User talk:King Zebu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RE: Hinduism and Vegetarianism

Those were excellent edits you made to Vegetarianism, however, Bob reverted them because of lack of references. I suggest you find some references and add them back in. Hindu diet varies considerably and the articles need to reflect that.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry that I really didn't get your point. Does the gallery become relevant because it was imported from Indianized kingdom? Can you, please, explain why we need the same gallery on both of the articles? You said something about discussing before making an edit. Would you like to do the same, please? At least, would you, please, explain why that gallery is relevant and encyclopedic? And, finally would you, please, explain what was wrong with the sub-header "Evolution of the term"? You did remove the sub-header while you tried to restore the gallery. And, hey, what did tell you that I haven't been watching the article for years? Perhaps you need to take a closer look before coming to this kind of decision. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I am working on the images, and trying to put them in context. Since Wikiepdia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a picture book, it is always better to have the images in context. I'll take a look at the Indianized kingdoms article later. It isn't looking good enough for a stand alone article. Thanks for your concern. Bear with me for a bit more. I hope together we can bring the Greater India article to real good standards. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With loving care and fair diligence put into it, the article has great promise. Would you care to join in? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Indian Air Force

Hi, I have a question about the IAF inventory. I was wondering if you can give the page where you found the numbers. I think the page you provided in the citation,Official strength page is an abandoned page in Indian Armed Forces server. Even the IAF's official webpage claims approx. 1700 total ACs.

The 2006 CSIS Report (Pg 24) says 852 combat AC, 288+6 Transport and 260 Helis.

I'll appreciate your response. Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one who added those figures. --Nosedown (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

Hi, I have just nominated the article for A-class review. Sumanch (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I really appreciate your effort in improving the concerned article. Cheers --Nosedown (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TomStar has raised a question that we should get rid of the weapons section. I agree with that; specifically the A-to-A and a-2-surface weapons. All the aircraft pages have weapon capabilities listed. Therefore the list of missiles do not improve the quality of the article. Let me know what do you think.

During this review I will need your help with copyedit because I don't have that skill. Thanks.Sumanch (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am moving tomorrow to a different city. So for the next week I don't think I will be able to contribute at all. I am sorry I put you in this precarious position to defend the A-class review by yourself. I should have planned better. Well! I will get back as soon as I can get my i-net connection. Sumanch (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, one thing I wanted to let you know about — when referencing, use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} or other {{citation}} templates. This may be a factor in the review. Thanks & good luck. Sumanch (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lala Lajpat Rai

How do you know that Lala Lajpat Rai was not Aggarwal ? Agrasen (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

King Zebu: you shoul know that

• Lala Lajpat Rai was an Agrawal (although his mother was Khatri).
• Goenka are Agrawal. Note that majority of the "marwaris" (although not all) are Agrawal.--Navin gupt (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

white tiger caption

Mohan may not be the patriarch of all captive white tigers in zoos, especially if some of them really are pure Siberian tigers, in which case he definitely would'nt be. Thank you for all the improvements you made.72.1.195.4 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)PS regarding the other caption-white tigers are never seen in the wild. The last one seen in the wild was shot back in 1958.72.1.195.4 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Also there's no reason to think that this gene has it's origins in just one country.72.1.195.4 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)I hope you don't mind. I made a few changes.72.1.195.4 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Adil your

All of his edits are problematic, usually YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Same for his mate Yousaf465 (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Solar power

Do you have any interest in it ? yousaf465

Reverted page move

I have reverted your page move of Mika (singer) to Mika (British singer) because this controversial page move was not discussed using wikipedia's guidelines for requesting potentially controversial moves. Additionally, Mika (singer) is clearly far more well known and popular than Mika Singh and so this would only lead to connfussion for people looking for Mika (singer), even more so since he is not simply of British nationality, but also American. Freshpop (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, King Zebu. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated ITN for South Talpatti Island

On 30 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article South Talpatti Island, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Template:India rotation test

blanked page

Hi King Zebu, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Template:India rotation test. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

I have restored the image of the Shivalik class frigate primarily because having seen this user's past edits, I have difficulty assuming good faith. I have posted a more in-depth analysis at the article's talk page. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're worried about an article losing FA status...

...see here and look at the large amount of poorly written/sourced additions introduced by anons and registered editors. Vedant (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

your last edit at india

seems to have removed some refs, leaving that line uncited. please check.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rectified. Thanks for pointing it out. --King Zebu (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked your latest change in the India article. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Zebu You reverted an edit of mine on India article (Change ).Possibly you were against the changes I made in that edit Have a look at this Archive 28 Rahuloof^{Text me} 05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back my revert. Thanks for providing a link to the concerned archive. --King Zebu (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, King Zebu. You have new messages at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may wish to take note of WP:NPA. Thanks! ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If terming someone's tone as "disgusting" is equivalent to launching a personal attack, then I have nothing else to say. --King Zebu (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe its more in reference to the remarks you made against the other editors who happened to disagree with you regarding their sanity. In any case, the discussion you started has been deemed irrelevant for the talk page and archived, so have a care on your choice of words next time and a good day. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not a very diplomatic person. My remarks are rather to the point and obviously those at the receiving end will find them objectionable. I guess, I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation. --King Zebu (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a place which requires "diplomatic" behavior from editors. Your continued "undiplomatic" conduct will only draw ire from other editors, (as seen below) and eventually you will be sanctioned for it. Its up to you to choose if you wish to continue with it or not.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your concern Zhanzhao. I'm very well aware of what kind of conduct required here. Besides, this entire episode clearly depicts why I loathe having a discussion with other Wikipedians. It seems that you are just commenting here to gain some high moral ground. Anyways, no point in continuing this discussion any further. --King Zebu (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately if you really ARE aware of the kind of conduct that is required here, and yet you are getting negative feedback from various editors for your behaviour and actions.... something is wrong here, isn't it? I'd like to point out to you that you are, to us, just another editor whom we know nothing of besides your nick and contribution history, just as us all of us are to you and each other. Wikipedia is a community effort to help each other make Wikipedia a better site or useful information. No one has anything personal against each other per se, nor is there a need for any of us to gain any moral high ground. We are just all of us fellow observers and enforcers of Wikipedia's rules so it would be unfortunate if you choose to feel that way, but that is your freedom. Just make sure your actions fall within Wikipedia's allowable limits and rules. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, point taken. In my opinion, my job here is just to improve articles in whatever way I can and would not rather waste my time and energy in lengthy and mentally exhausting arguments with other Wikipedians whom I barely know. On that note, I hope this discussion is over. Thanks --King Zebu (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, King Zebu. You have new messages at AngChenrui's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well it's okay to be candid so long you take into account others' likely intepretation of your words at the same time. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Thank you. Give users the benefit of the doubt. Your interaction with Lucy Marie is genuineley assuming bad faith, and is wandering over to a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but could you be more specific which part of my interaction with Lucy amounted to a "personal attack"? --King Zebu (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

learn to read the comments of others before terming them as "not relevant to the content of the article" is at the point of heated and uncivil discourse that is quickly heading into a Personal Attack. Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. So, my comments are first removed and then archived and deemed "irrelevant" without any logical explanation. I'm sorry but I couldn't have given a more polite response to that sort of behavior. I'm not a diplomat. --King Zebu (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No difference

As both me and Roux have noted in WP:ANI#Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language by YellowMonkey there is no difference between the text copied around, not even one character. You are welcome to do your own test if you don't trust us, just copy the text that was moved around between revisions to some sandbox and compare the diffs. You will need to add some text to one of the revisions if you want a diff as the software will not recognise it otherwise as different. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)