Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni

References

Sitush what is the difference between the reflist style you deleted and the simpler one now. Actually the earlier one was generated automatically by a little gadget I used.[1]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot, but I find it easier for when lists become long. It seems to format as multiple columns very simply, especially if you adjust it to {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} I also find it easier if you are using footnotes as well as citations, as at Lohara dynasty. Of course, this article may never reach a point where it matters but plan ahead ... - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

... and I have misunderstood. Clicked on your link after replying, because I saw the "reflist" bit. There are numerous ways of citing. The template way is pretty comprehensive - take a look at my user page and you'll see some examples + a link to the documentation. It soon becomes ingrained in your head & you need not refer to the things again.

OTOH, I also use a cite/bibliography style, as on the Lohara article. It reduces the amount of clutter in the edit window and also makes the page smaller, so at least in theory it should load a little faster. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

Re: linking the word "Indian". Per WP:OVERLINK we do not usually link major countries etc. It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary of a few minutes ago seems to say. This is English Wikipedia and Indian-English does not supplant general style guidelines even though it is an acceptable alternative for spellings, choice of words etc. The phrasing and the style are separate issues and you cannot conflate them. You either unlink "Indian" or you shuffle things around. I tried to do both and you objected to both. Your choice, but either way there should not be a link there.

Yes, there are "occasional exceptions". This is not one of them because you claim that there will be confusion with Native Americans but in fact in the very next sentence you link to an educational institution in India with the word "Indian" in its title & I think we can assume people have some common sense. There is no logic to your position and the fact that you are carrying on this type of argument over 10 - 15 different articles, all related to some sort of perception that India-related articles are somehow damaged here, is just stacking up towards some action being taken. There are already some considerable concerns being floated around, as you are aware, and you are also aware that some of your more extreme breaches have already been halted (eg: using the wrong forum for a discussion). You can only go on doing this for so long before you will find yourself in bother. Why risk it? If you are blocked then you are excluded from the "critical mass" that you desire to see. Or, put another way, you will have shot yourself in the foot. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Don't people in the GangaxGanges debate make arguments like (a)Ganga is Hindi (b)Ganga sounds like weed. We can never take commonsense for granted.(2)Don't bother about me, why not go and start another sock inquiry or the like against me. All the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people really have comprehension problems. Here means on Wikipedia, (1)Wangari Muta Maathai is a Kenyan... (2)Mark Freuder Knopfler is a British... (3)James Douglas "Jim" Morrison was an American... All randomn names.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have missed the point completely, and perhaps deliberately. Indian unlinked is ok; Indian linked is not. Don't worry about it - I'll get the thing fixed. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What else does "It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary...", mean? And it was said in addition to overlink. Do you think editors suffer amnesia and go partially blind after some time? You are free to edit war.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to wikilink India. The context is made clear immediately. There is no way this person will be mistaken for Native American. LadyofShalott 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you then account for Ganga being confused for a weed? And Google search with region on USA is not so sure.[2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ladyof are you sure you are not indulging in providing cover fire in this edit war Sitush is engaged in here?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I form my own opinions. Sitush did let me know of this discussion, but if I did not agree with him, I would not have said/done what I did. A google search is irrelevant. Context is what matters, and the context of this article makes it entirely clear that the nation of India is the sense of "Indian" that applies, not any other. LadyofShalott 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Sitush is hounding me, he has by his own admission no knowledge of the subject, yet he jumped here, he is edit warring, you are covering up for him, it is not a display of good faith. Would you have come here naturally? Please undo your revert as a matter of good faith. (2)Did you check out the argument that Ganga sounds like weed to Americans so the river cannot be named so despite the whole world favouring its use? It seems Americans whose pleasure is very important here are a confusable people, just check the what the Indian nation leads to, if Ganga is confusing, this stuff would stump the average American bloke[3], QED let the link remain.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

?? The article does not say "Indian nation". Furthermore, if you Google "Indian", well, guess what comes up? - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What is [2] above then??? Don't you look before you leap??Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it and as LoS said, it is irrelevant. Aside from her point, the article does not use the phrase "Indian man". Just get over it, please. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudheendra is an Indian man, check out image search for him.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said that he was not. Now move on, please. No more from me on this issue so you will be talking to yourself. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I made no reply to the Ganga/ganja point because it has nothing to do with this article or any edit I have made anywhere. It is not mentioned here and is therefore irrelevant. LadyofShalott 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant mam, the argument against Ganga is that it is a very confusing word for Americans, they think it is ganja, wouldn't Indian be infinitely more confusing?? As ghits demonstrate. Please reply??? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page of Sudheendra Kulkarni, an article that does not mention Ganga, Ganges, ganja, or marijuana. Nor does it mention gangrene, gang violence, or a googolplex. That is why none of those topics are relevant to this discussion. LadyofShalott 04:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem mam is that you are not assuming good faith, when a bloke says so there perhaps is a connection, a few clicks at the right place would explain the whole thing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The commonality is American comprehension, what Ganga and Indian would convey to a common American.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Sudheendra Kulkarni is an Indian politician and columnist. He is an alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay"
• " activist for the Communist Party of India (Marxist)."
• "such initiatives as Delhi–Lahore Bus and India Shining"
• " helped former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee"

All that is in the first paragraph. I don't know how stupid you think Americans are, but if someone can't tell from the above that the article is talking about a person from India rather than a Native American, than adding a wikilink isn't going to help. The End. LadyofShalott 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)