User talk:Gurubrahma

My reply policy: I will respond on your talkpage unless you want me to respond here. I would not respond to anon IPs here - if the concern is about a page, I would respond on the relevant talk page; if the concern is elsewhere, please register yourself so that I can attach an identity to the person I am interacting with.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. Each archive has 50 threads of discussion. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: Index to archives by date|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|

Thank you Gurubrahma

I have requested for a change in username... as I dont want to use my real name. --Aravind Parvatikar 07:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Nqakula

Thanks for letting me know about the DYK piece on Charles Nqakula. What I think is much more interesting about Nqakula is his announcement on February 9, 2006 that the inquiry into the aircrash 20 years ago – in which President Samora Machel of Mozambique was killed – is to be reopened. See the heading "Unfinished business" on Charles Nqakula.Phase1 12:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SRT

He has changed it from overs to balls. Whether it was needed is questionable but certainly not vandalism. Tintin (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Manezhnaya.jpg

When an image has a previous edit history, the summary in the upload form is not automatically displayed on the image page. As you can see, the page still has edit history from July 13, 2005. Apparently, Ghirlandajo, who first uploaded it to the Commons, decided for some reason to leave a short note on the Wikipedia end, pointing to a another image (that has apparently since been deleted). So, I just added c-uploaded to the image page manually.--Pharos 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on Republic

THIS IS NOT NONSENSE! THIS IS AN ACCURATE AND CORRECT DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC (CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC) IN THE USA. STOP REMOVING IT FOR I WILL NOT CEASE TO ADD IT IF YOU DELETE IT!

Dion Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.27.138 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

It's great that you provided a rationale for your removal. I think it's better to explain your reasons on template talk than remove entries en masse and without explanations. Please keep up the good work, Ghirla | talk 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar

I have visited many Cricketers' pages on wiki which have balls bowled because the reference used on cricinfo also has the data in balls. Is there anything wrong then we should change the pages which has balls bowled has as a data. Thanks User:Urshyam|User_talk:Urshyam

Hello Gurubrahma, There was nothing to hurt me whatever you written there. Yes, you have good suggestion for using Edit summary. I will try to use it in future. But you are saying it was still remained as overs rather than balls... i think you are wrong at this point. Thank you.

Hi, I think you didn't notice an edit "balls = true |" that converts overs into balls bowled. Thanks Shyam

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Arbit Choudhury, 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.

--Gurubrahma 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

\* Sachin Tendulkar */ Help

Hi, thanx for your justification. Could you help me out for licensing an image. I downloaded some images from sites but i don't know that are they actually licensed or not. If not, then what is the criteria for licensing. The things written on GNU-Free Documentation is quite complex. Thanks Shyam

Re:MG

Hi Gurubrahma - I thank you for alerting me on problems, but I disagree with your observations:

1. I'm using edit summaries regularly, and the 10+ edits you speak of - on February 13, 14 and 15, it involved fighting vandalism, removing images w/o copyright (no FA is supposed to have them) and a bit of reformatting. Its the usual traffic on the MG article. This article has not seen major changes in 3 days, and I haven't been properly active all this week.
2. Pournami's lead opener was confusing and in bad grammar. It gave the impression that Gandhi was a political leader on one side and a religious leader on the other - quite incorrect. The Lead was cited as a major problem - it need to be re-formatted, more comprehensive. In undertaking that process, I corrected a grammar error and something that didn't convey an accurate meaning.
3. I did not apologize for adding information to the article, but doing it in an FA when I had no idea of Wikipedia rules. And the reason I added a boatload of new info is becoz I found it missing from the article then elevated to FA status. Considering the care I'm taking to follow FA rules and write properly, I wish you would stop comparing this to my anon days.
4. "Comparing the two versions" is a bad plan becoz we will need 3-4 attentive editors constantly cross-checking with an outdated version which bore less info than this one. All we need to do here is to correct the effors in this present article and bring it in line with FA criteria, dat's all. "Pasting" select info into the older version is hardly a solution.
5. The old article was well-written and seemingly comprehensive according to FA guidelines - that is prolly the reason it became an FA. It did not contain inline citations, and was not comprehensive - consider the huge amount of new data that was added. Its better to work with the present article.
6. The Criticism of Gandhi and Gandhi's comments on various religions are cut/past jobs, that's all - it isn't exactly a great "fork" strategy. And user:Saiswa, as you point out in my case, should have raised the issue on the PR or talkpage first. The cut/paste job is a detriment to the main article. I feel that AFD is a proper solution, especially the person has not responded to my request to join the PR nor made any further edits yet to MG. I consider these so-called forks even worse than the Leadership fork.

If you want to start a FAReview, that's cool - I only knew of PR as a method to bring people together on a task. If you're concerned that the PR hasn't attracted a lot of comments, you should take into account the progress made since the start of this process: the problems were candidly identified, and user:Saravask gave a lot of good input. user:Taxman gave some great advice and asserted that the articles is making progress. This article is more comprehensive than ever and is increasingly coming in line with FA standards. We've (1) cut 8 kbs, (2) inline citations (more to come) (3) improved the lead, (4) rmvd POV (5) improved the prose (6) rmvd problematic images and data and (7) The "Leadership" article is no more.

If others aren't coming forward with comments, I don't care becoz we should focus on the work ahead. Everybody knows that the PR is open and everyone is welcome to participate. I feel that you should take the few hours to gather your technical points of criticism and recommendations on this article and put it up on PR. This will give a strong push forward to the process, and help us all in incorporating your input through the right channels.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I strongly stand by all I've said and done, but you needn't fear any attitude/personal problems developing between us again. However, I think you should take the dialogue to the PR directly as I wrote above. I have not seen the kinda direct technical input from you which is necessary for me to understand your views. The only edits I plan on making till the end of next week is adding in-line citations and occasional vandal fighting. There is a need to discuss practical ways to prevent the deterioration of quality over long periods of time. Rama's Arrow 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Gurubrahma, it will really help me out. --shyam 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Wow so you are online now! And, my thanks to you too as you have created so many nice pages. And, I am not correcting: was doing a bit of minor linking here and there. One thing more, let us identify some more users from this part of the world who may be nominated for adminship: perhaps we require more Indians or administrators familiar with topics relevant to India. In case, you want someone to nominate, I shall pleasantly be a co-nominator. --Bhadani 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Permit me to interfere by saying that I consider user:Deeptrivia to be absolutely qualified and well-deserving for adminship. The man has impeccable standards regarding other users and his work. He is decent, often selfless and hardworking. He has done a fantastic job with Wikipedia:WikiProject History of India. I wanted to give him another barnstar, but didn't coz I've already given him two. Do consider him for a RFA. Rama's Arrow 16:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response to above message on my talk page. Let us do something fast. --Bhadani 16:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Languages other than English - Awards Pages

I went through and added all the languages I could find here, to Wikicommons barnstar page and to each of the Awards Pages on the different languages. Are there other languages that are missing? -- evrik 17:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I left a note on the page you mentioned, but since you speak Hindi, I was going to see if there was an award page on the hindi version of wikipedia that could be linked to.evrik 18:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

About Maruti Udyog

It has increased in size. Could use more work... the COTW week is almost up.

hydkat 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

FA candidate

Hi, Just to inform you - in case you've missed - that Kargil War is a FA candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kargil War. Almost all the objections raised have been worked out so far. You comments and vote on this are solicited. Tx Idleguy 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

MG work

Hi Gurubrahma - I've made some comments on your adminship page, but that is all I have to say about the matter. All this is best handled by Bhadaniji and yourself.

Regarding Mahatma Gandhi:

1. I gave my reply on your idea of "reinventing the wheel" - I feel its okay to consult it, but you're attaching too much importance to a piece which is quite deficient, IMO: (a) Sardar Patel is referred to as "authoritarian," (b) complex political developments and events are left unexplained, so as to enable misconceptions, prejudices to arise. (c) links, references, citations are insufficient. Sections needed coverage are glaringly missing, and lead is poor - I would not have voted for its FAC.
2. This version is too simplistic - Gandhi's life is well-documented and deals with complex issues with an easy-to-misunderstand philosophy. For example - you and I are "Gandhians" despite knowing of Gandhi's quotes on the holocaust, "kaffir" and role in Hindu-Muslim issues. Surely there is a reason for that - the quotes are in a complex context, easily provoking anti-Gandhi thinking.
3. Britannica's bio of Gandhi is long, and even so glaringly deficient (no Champaran, Kheda details). We've got a reasonably important job to do.

What I intend to do next:

1. In-line citations - coming up next week.
2. Reduction of size: compress sections by cutting off long-winding sentences, unnecessary detail. I will make the changes slowly and one section at a time. No significant changes expected.
3. user:Taxman and myself feel that the "Penn and Teller" criticism is unencyclopedic - their own intentions/purpose is not clear, and a television program is not credible enough IMO. Besides, the P/T thing just criticizes the "Kaffir" statement and Stanley Wolpert's work, which have been criticized and counter-criticized all-over. Right now, the thing seems problematic and insufficient, while adding more to it will jeopardize the focus of the article. At best, an external link should be tied in.

The most valuable input has come from user:Saravask and user:Taxman. Can you please make a similar list of what you intend to do/should be done to the article on the PR page? This will help me understand what you want better (so far we've discussed "ideas"), and I will help you carry the work out. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 06:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rama's Arrow 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx

Dear Guru, its so nice to receive your message -- thanx for being both supportive and understanding, and for the commendation on Nirav's talk-page -- I'm glad not everybody imputes low motives and bad faith to me. Anyway, time to move on. Yes, I'm writing some exams, and as a resolution, I refrained from all editing this past month, and for some time from even logging in, but just could not keep off WP otherwise!! Isn't it terrible? This addiction is downright alarming, but I will not edit (I think!) for another 10 days. Thanx again, and catch you later, ImpuMozhi 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

query on admin

Thanks for yr reply on query on admin. kindly enlighten as to whether an admin's views are authentic as wiki's official view. Appaiah 08:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Gurubrahma,

Thank you very much for your support - it is always nice when other users appreciate your views on certain matters. I will try to make sure my edit summaries get up to 100% - I completely understand why this is desirable and will endeavour to achieve it ASAP!

Thanks again, DJR (Talk) 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: BAP archiving

Reinstated. However, IMHO 25 speechless days are more than enough to determine a proposal abandoned. Deryck C. 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Good work!!

Thanx! But I did'nt do that much though. I hoped to have done more... but with my workload keeping me busy right now i need to compromise sleep time to do this. I'll keep working on the article.

hydkat 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Aishwarya article

Hi, yes i will do summaries in the future. Thanx. The Ash filmography came from imdb, Pa7 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you. I am flattered by your comments in the talk pages :-) It is an honour to be thought of like that but I did some thinking after we discussed it a few months back and would like continue just as an editor due to a number of reasons.

First, I am more of an editor (not very good as a writer, but I like to think I am reasonably okay at digging up data, nitpicking facts etc) than admin material. I am not that good with words (as you or Sundar) and don't have the infinite patience of someone like Bhadani (whose WP:AGF for people who I would have dismissed as trolls is something that I admire). If I get comments like these in my talk page a couple of times, I probably would want to run away from Wikipedia rather than fight it out with such people.

Secondly, the two areas where I work - cricket and some sections of India - are great places for an editor as there is almost no friction with the fellow editors. I don't really want to get out of that comfort zone but being an admin will invariably bring new pressures and obligations and it wouldn't be right to avoid them. Both of these areas have a lot of good admins and an extra one is no real necessity. In AfDs too, there is very little backlog these days when compared to three months ago.

The only reason why I may want to apply for an RfA in the future is if I become active in articles related to Kerala and Malayalam because there are no admins who work in this area. But if one of Raghu, Jisha, Pournami or Kjrajesh becomes an admin by then even that won't be necessary. Tintin (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bangalore peer review part deaux

Gurubrahma,

The Bangalore peer review is in its final phase...a lot of work has been done to revamp the article and I like the way it stands as of now. I wanted to thank you for your continued support and contributions in improving the quality of the article. I am working on minor touch-ups, as necessary, and should be in a position to nominate it for FAC tomorrow (2/20). If you have a few minutes at your disposal, could you please give the article one last review before the FAC nomination? Thanks a bunch! AreJay 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the compliments. --Aravind Parvatikar 07:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy Vio - Articles related to Karnataka's History

Text has been directly copied and pasted in the articles Vikramaditya VI and Vijayanagara Empire

• Source of the article: OurKarnataka.com
• Author: Mr. Athreja (of Mangalore)
• Contributed by: Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs)

Our Karnataka.Com no where specifies that the information on their site is free for reproduction. Is this a copy right violation? Please advise. I have referred this issue to you since you are a admin. Since Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) is a new member I haven't referred this issue to him Aravind Parvatikar 10:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Aravind Parvatikar 14:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Pic

Hi, Gurubrahma, I changed Ash's pic to the old Devdas-pic by replacing the porn pic. Thanks again for the heads-up. Regards, --Plumcouch 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No Cpyright violation

How can one claim there was copyright violation in the material I put in regarding history of Vijayanagar Empire, when I have clearly quoted the reference source and the author. Can you please explain this to me. This also pertains to the content on page "Vikramaditya VI". A copyright violation happens when one takes material and calls it his/her own deduction, research etc when in reality the material was written by a someone alse.

Dinesh Kannmabdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs)

Re: Nit-Picking

Thanks for the tip, I'll do that now. Raven4x4x 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lothal and Bangalore

Hi GB - if/when you have time, can you please have a look at Lothal, which is terribly close to FAC? Also, Bangalore is FAC right now. Rama's Arrow 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know about the pic. That's ok. Rama's Arrow 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What jumping the gun? I know both about your removing from MG, and placing on assasination. Its ok. Rama's Arrow 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Britain and United Kingdom

In response to post on my talkpage.

The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707, and was replaced by the United Kingdom. Thus, there was no Queen/King of England after that date. 'United Kingdom' is correct.. Bastin8 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

about copyright etc

Thanks for your information. I am trying to take care of this issue in some locations where I have cut and pasted interesting material. Good Job!!!

dinesh kannambadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs)

Sorry Just Trying to Clean Up

Pardon Me Sir, or Madame. It won't happen again. HG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.203.89 (talk • contribs)

Thank you!

Thank you for choosing Broadcasting in East Germany for DYK - and thank you again for all your hard work for the Wikipedia, which everyone benefits from but we're all too slow to say so! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)