Jump to content

User talk:Ncmvocalist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs)
→‎Sarvagnya: uzuthran
→‎outing: new section
Line 439: Line 439:


Thanks for trying to help with the whole attack situation. Can't say I'm thrilled about the whole mess, but I felt that I had little choice except to try. [[User:Sxeptomaniac|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac|χαιρετε]]</sup> 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help with the whole attack situation. Can't say I'm thrilled about the whole mess, but I felt that I had little choice except to try. [[User:Sxeptomaniac|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac|χαιρετε]]</sup> 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

== outing ==

I recommend you do not reveal the real-identity of a Wikipedian again. That is grounds for an idef-block. [[User:QuackGuru|<span style="border:solid #408 1px;padding:1px"><span style='color:#20A;'>Q</span><span style='color:#069;'>ua</span><span style='color:#096;'>ck</span><span style='color:#690;'>Gu</span><span style='color:#940;'>ru</span></span>]] 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:23, 1 June 2008

Ncmvocalist is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries, but expects to be back on the 4th of June (2008).
Archive

Archives


1 2

Great work!

Hi Ncmvocalist, Thanks for maintaining the assessment and peer review departments. Really appreciate it. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar awarded at same time, moved-here.

Thanks!

Thank you for your warm welcome! Also, I appreciate your inputs on my assessment as and when suitable. I hope to gain on my quality of assessment as time goes on.

Now, I did some re-work on Anand. I wasn't sure if this is good enough for a B-class. I've added suitable references and re-designed the sections. Would there be any further words/comments/suggestions on this? Since, I've already put in so much effort, I'd like to take this further up on quality.

Mspraveen 07:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I've asked him already for the review. :) Regards Mspraveen 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Anand (2004)

Firstly, thank you very much for the detail in commenting on the article. I certainly do appreciate that. I've made a few changes here and there keeping your words in mind. Any further comments, please do let me know.

I feel some of your comments are a bit tough on the article. I mean, if one looks at so many other Start-class articles and this one, there will be a whale of difference between them. Wouldn't there be? :) However, I wish to contribute in quality as well. So, please feel free to critique it as much as you can! Mspraveen 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very prompt reply :) I've re-organized the structure of the Production section. I hope there is a sense of structure. If you think I'm asking for a lot from you by more comments, I'll just stop here.
When you speak of credible references, since it is a Tollywood movie, I'm afraid its going to pretty tough to get some credible references. I agree that Lage Raho Munna Bhai has got credible references because of its worldwide publicity. This can get it a whole load of references. But, it really demands the article (Anand) a lot if credible references are required. In fact, I was looking for a reference for the certification for the movie. IMDB happened to be the closest I could get to :) There were similar instances on other references too, but, over the past three days, the ones referenced were the closest I could get to.
Anyways, I thank you for your honest comments. You don't need to apologize. Now, I hope its evident to you why I wrote that your comments tough on the article. Thanks once again Mspraveen 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouraging assistance. I really appreciate you taking out time in critiquing the article.
With regards to your comments on the sequence, I followed the sequence that was there in A Beautiful Mind which is an FA in itself. I agreed with this sequencing because the movie starts with the production details and then the plot and the rest. Maybe you will reconsider this.
I've added references to the soundtrack and DVD. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, just let me know. It is hard for me to notice any minor aspects because I've been working on it since like a week now. :) Thanks again for your co-operation. Mspraveen 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I missed out on that. It is/was a FA nominee. Anyways, I agree with your thoughts about the article you referred to as it is a part of Wikiproject India.
I just rearranged the sections accordingly, added a few more to some and ofcourse found a few more newspaper references which should be considered as credible. Any further thoughts on what it still needs to ascend in quality? :-? Mspraveen 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reassessment! I suppose you know the sense of satisfaction ones gets when they nurture an article up in quality, don't you? :) I guess, I'll go ahead with improving articles of similar nature now that I have a picture of how I should go about. It was better that I learnt the hard way. Just gives me an indication of how much is needed for a good encyclopedic article. Thanks!
Next task on this article is to go further up. I read someone that the article's importance will not hinder on its quality, isn't it? Hoping so, I'll keep my eyes open for more content on it.Mspraveen 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About your further comments, here are my thoughts...
Regarding soundtrack, I found it really tough to get hold of a credible reference. However, I hope to find one e-store. Alternatively, IMDB should serve the purpose, I believe. I contributed to these missing details in IMDB. That review will be in a month or so. Maybe, I could use that as the reference. DVD details are shuffled to the top of the section.
In the awards section, the whole final para attempts to convey the essential elements of the film that contributed to its success. I felt, it will add on and support the success claims and awards. Thoughts?
About the critical acclaim, I felt the content was much lesser than in Lage Raho Munna Bhai. In that article, there are plenty of reviews given. I could have done the same here, but I felt it would over-do the essence. Your thoughts?
In the misc section, Anand is a movie title.... - Has been sorted out.
Some references re: cast would be good - imdb might help for names, while descriptions may need to be referenced from some other places. - Couldn't gather much on your intent. Can you rephrase this?
I'm sure parts of the story can also be sourced from summaries given elsewhere. I've summarized the article to about 766 words as against 1000+. This is to go as per the plot summary norms.
The introduction is excellent - but note to mention something about it being a release available as a dvd and soundtrack towards the end .... - Thanks! But, None of the featured articles I noticed contain any mention of the DVD and soundtrack in the lead section. Can you please clarify on this?
Once the above are sorted out, I shall get it peer reviewed. Thanks a ton again! :) Mspraveen 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sincerely amazed at your reviewing abilities and of course your tremendous patience to write!!! :) Many many thanks to you!!
I did consider most of your comments and suggestions and reworded some portions of the article. Thanks again from the beginning!!
On a personal note, did you watch the movie? Mspraveen 17:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bommarillu GA on Hold

Hello, thanks again for your kind assistance for this issue. I really appreciate it. I've made the necessary changes in the article as desired by the concerned user as well as you. Please find my comments here. Best regards, Mspraveen 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Maybe you should consider an awards page clearing up space for discussion here. What say?

I have addressed the points you raised about the issues I had with the article. Again, I will apologize here, as I was not threatening the article, but wanted it to be improved. If you disagree with the statements there, let me know, and I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Good job on helping with the article and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 06:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me, and I do agree with what you said for the most part. I still think the use of the word "rave" could be replaced with something more neutral, but I don't think it is enough to limit the article in any way, so if it remains, fine by me. For the FA consideration, I wouldn't be able to help that much since I'm still not too familiar with the FA process, although I'll be nominating an article of my own in the next few months. Again, thanks for the response and keep up the good work on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

Flower (awarded on 21 October 2007) moved-here.

Thank you very much for rating my article. :-) I have examined the list of necessary changes that you have mentioned and I promise to carry them out.

Do have a look at my views about the assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyer/Comments

Sir, I would like to mention that the article had been previously rated 'B' on the Assessment scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=153396646&oldid=153376157

Since then, it has undergone dramatic changes and extensive modifications have been done.Thanks!! - Ravichandar84 08:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


thank You! :-) I've improved the article and added more references. - Ravichandar84 10:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parineeta

Dear NCM,

How've you been doing? Hope I can call you NCM. I was hoping to hear about your comments on Parineeta. Would time elude you or is there comprehensive commenting expected from you? I was hoping to get it to GA status and I really believe that this can be worked into atleast an A-class if not FA.

Regards, Mspraveen 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. However, I'd wait for your comments before going ahead with any further nomination for the article. With me in travel for a month, I wonder if I can contribute much during this period. So is the case with the assessment department as I might not be of assistance to you. Hope to be back soon. Regards, Mspraveen 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vocalist, How've you been doing? It has been a while since I was active on Wiki. Finally, I can get to some editing here. I was wondering if you had a chance to review Parineeta again and add some comments on it so that I can go on with an FA nomination. It'd be great if it gets grilled before the final surge. :) Thanks! Regards, Mspraveen 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vocalist, I was being impatient and hence I have nominated Parineeta for a GA first. I'm sure the present quality is good enough for a GA. Once this is through, I'm sure other comments useful for an A-class/FA will come across during the review. I can further improve on these after the GA. Mspraveen (talkcontribs) 04:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vocalist, thank you for the review. I've been editing the article till a while ago. I hope I've addressed most of the issues pointed out. Thanks once again. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your patient reviews and assessments. I appreciate your candid assessment that has helped me improve this article to a GA. Thank you, Ncmvocalist! With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Templates

Templates are stored in a seperate namespace. To edit, access them with the Template tag, Template:carnatic and Template:Indian Music. For more info, see Wikipedia:Template namespace and Help:Template. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more about this that would establish why this particular singer is notable/important. Thanks for creating the article, however I'm unable to see from reading it why its of any importance. Whatever the assertion of importance is, it ought to be cited to a reputable source. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ask about Priya Sisters - Shanmughapriya & Haripriya. Something to establish importance would be useful, otherwise I'm tempted to delete as lacking a demonstration of importance. Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the site is down. I'm asking what makes these singers notable? All these articles say is they are singers... so what? What have they done in the context of history or current times that makes them important? I as a casual reader don't know what these guys have done. I'm not trying to be annoying, if I were I'd just template you with one of those silly templates >.>, I'm just more or less curious. I mean you took the time to write up these one sentence articles... what makes these particular singers worth the effort? :) Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, might be a good idea to put some links and references to what you note, just so some trigger happy admin does not happen to delete them for being not important/notable. (WP:CSD#A7 I think :) ). I personally was just a tad confused as to what the heck they did! I can sing myself... but as I'm deaf, certainly not worth an article! (my singing is somewhere between horrible and I'll kill myself to make it stop! ;) ). Do carry on and help expand this great encyclopedia! :D —— Eagle101Need help? 10:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My hands are tied for the this week with other work (outside of Wikipedia) so I can't work on it immediately, but will do it soon for sure. :D You're awfully hard on yourself about your singing, and though I haven't heard it, I'm sure it can't be half that bad ;)
I was annoyed to notice that Priya Sisters - Shanmughapriya & Haripriya page was deleted by User: Doc glasgow, not for notability, but for something else (CSD#R1) - which in this case doesn't seem relevant. To add insult to injury, there was no discussion whatsoever. With the exception of you :) , it's really very frustrating that there are admins who keep deleting pages like this without giving editors an opportunity to fix their stuff up - applying the speedy criterion inflexibly is just grossly careless on their part and more effective measures need to be put forward so pages aren't deleted so immediately and irreversibly like this for trivial reasons. If there is something that really needs to be deleted, chances are that it will be reported to the admins anyway. There was no dire need to delete this page, or several other pages in other cases. It's really off-putting that I can't do anything about it now. :( Hope I/we can push for some sort of change or modification to the guideline sometime later if you understand and agree with what I'm saying to some extent.
Anyway, cheers for hearing (i mean seeing) my rant of frustration, and again for the feedback. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was what I was afraid of. What happened was someone moved that page to a shorter title, and following that someone deleted the moved page... which meant that the original title (now a redirect) was a redlink. That makes it a speedy criteria. What you need to keep in mind when creating articles is to assert why you spent the time to make it. What did those people do to merit the article? As there was not that much information on the one that got deleted, I'd just wait 'till you have the time to write 3-4 sentences on the topic. I really doubt that anyone has anything against these singers, but without adequate information, its very difficult to tell the difference between these singers and say... the latest garage band! If you would like me to undelete the article. (for the one sentence), just ping me a message, otherwise just wait till you have the time and do it then. As I said, when making articles, try to put in the article text somewhere why the article is important/notable/worthy of keeping. Why exactly did you take the time to make that article, what did this person do? If you have questions or need me to help you in any way, feel free to ask.
P.S. Don't expect convos like this for every article you create, sadly we use templates too often :(. Its a byproduct of how many crap articles we get per minute. (I think its upwards of 20 or 30 a minute, higher in peak times). Me personally, I do much more programming then new pages patrol, and I just simply did it one day to see what others were doing and also to see how we could miss so many articles on User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2‎. That list is basically a list of articles that folks on RC missed. So as aggressive as you think they are, they are still missing tons of pages. (that list is 5,000 pages long, and probably about 70% or so need to be cleaned up/deleted. Best of luck though! —— Eagle101Need help? 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About assessment

Hey, i wanted to know how i can assess an article and suggest my ratings on any particular article. The instructions dont seem to help. sriks8 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. GAreview of Flag of Singapore

Thanks heaps for the review here. I took a quick look at your review, and it all seems OK and reasonable. When the stuff is done, it'll be a race to see who can pass the article first :P Also, if you haven't already, could you leave a note at GAC stating that you added the second opinion? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklee has tried to address your concerns. Could you check whether the article meets the GA criteria now? If so, the nomination should be passed; otherwise, please extend the hold and provide further comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on references

Is it bad for an article to have multiple references from only one source, say Rediff.com? This is an issue I faced while developing the Lagaan article. Throwing some light on this will just be great! Maybe you have some thoughts to share after a cursory glance on the Developments section?

How are the last few days of the New Year coming along? Seasonal greetings! Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! It has been a while since I last heard from you. You busy in real life? Hope all is well.

If you are around, I was hoping if you can have a cursory glance at the Sivaji article. I've been working on this since quite a while and now, I believe that it is good for a GA status. If there are any comments that you might have, please feel free to list them out.

With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back! Hope all is well. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also worked on Lagaan as well, which is also with a GA nomination. I believe that this along with Parineeta have been my best pitched efforts. It'd be great if you can spare some time for this as well! Thanks much and best regards! Mspraveen (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, good to see you back with the review. Now, do I understand that you still are yet to complete the review? Because, additional notes on the review would help a great deal on its improvement.
Btw, Lagaan made it to a GA and I will work on it a bit more and with the wealth of reliable sources available for the article, I guess it would really mean more of breadth to it that is needed. Also, I just began with my first GA assessment and first DYK. Fresh waters for me :)
How's everything with you? You seem busy in real life? Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ncmvocalist! Been a while, isn't it? How've you been? Hope you are keeping well and relaxing in the weekend. Well, I have fully developed the Mr. and Mrs. Iyer article to my ability. If you can spare some time in having a look at it, I'd really appreciate it! Many thanks and regards, Mspraveen (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking out time in addressing! I've responded to your GA assessment. Thanks again. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think that the article is FA (the BEST of WP) yet and may be a GA IMO. So i nominated it for GA. I noticed you are GA reviewer yourself. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, please leave a note on my/article talk page. Regards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya

Well you know how I feel about it. The sheer number of complaints about him should be enough to block him but isn't. Nobody seems to be concerned about editors such as this which are making this site a misery for many people. Then you get the ususal group of editors turning up to support him. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like something is not right. I was looking around and I found this. Maybe the first few links are of use to you in your Rfc, if you already have not noticed this before? Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

According to the rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users, there has to be evidence that at least two editors have contacted the editor to be discussed, in this case Sarvagnaya, and tried to resolve a dispute. I'm not sure myself whether that threshold has been met, because I haven't myself seen all the evidence, although the links to the previous AN/I case might be useful there. Also, I believe that at least one editor, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, has expressed similar qualms about that individual, and you might be interested in contacting him directly regarding the matter. If you can't produce the two required individuals, then requesting a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which might be indicated here, or Wikipedia:Third opinion might be in order, if for no other reason than to establish the presence of a second editor who has tried to reason with the subject.

Regarding help filing a user RfC, if it ever comes to that, I'm not sure what help I could be. The two editors who had tried to contact the editor would be the ones to create such a request. However, I do think that much of what you had written earlier would probably be acceptable, with the additional input of the other editor. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the Regulars

In the light of your recent encounter with User:Dineshkannambadi, and your placement of tags in other established users' talk page, I suggest you to read this guideline: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Thanks - KNM Talk 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page linked to is not in fact a "guideline", as that party had erroneously indicated, but simply an "essay", which specifically states "editors are not obliged to follow it" and thus has no particular "weight" behind it per se. Having said that, the other party in this dispute has indicated that you may have earlier given him a warning which may not have necessarily been completely justified, when you said that a website which did not have a bad reputation should be considered a reliable source, or words to that effect. Unfortunately, that isn't necessarily sufficient to establish that it is a reliable source. I have advised that party to stop templating you himself, and I think under the circumstances it might be appropriate if you try to not template him in the future as well. I did advise that editor that it would probably be best for both of you, and potentially any other involved parties, to discuss on the talk page of the article in question whether the sources provided can be established to meet WP:RS standards. I have myself put the page on my watchlist, and I would be happy to offer any input regarding the matter, although I do not in any way cast myself as being an expert or even knowledgable about the matter in question. The two of you, and, based on the edit above, possibly a few others, do not seem to have established a particularly good relationship. Calmly and rationally discussing the dispute, without any more "templating" from either side than is probably the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't official, but it's generally better to not template the regulars. Among the community in general most people consider it a little discourteous and not in the best taste to give an establisher contributor a machine warning. (however, for image problems, it is considered ok). From my experience using a template on an established contributor usually generates a bad reaction so it is better to take an extra minute to write a personal message. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hi Ncmvocalist!

I left you a message in a comments page last October and realised that I haven't heard back. Can you leave your reply there please. Especially because it would be nice to get feed backs on to improving the article. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns on your assessment on the Dravidian Parties entry. As you can see from the examples quoted in assessment Jammu and Kashmir article of October version which is a B-class and also Real analysis which was a start-class, it can be pretty obvious that the Dravidian Parties entry is not a start class, at least as far as I can see. Hope you dont think that I am being rude. If I'm giving such an impression, I really do appologise. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was raising my concern on your assessment on Dravidian Parties article! Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Aruna Sairam

A tag has been placed on Aruna Sairam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Vijay Siva

A tag has been placed on Vijay Siva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on T. R. Mahalingam (flautist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in E. Gayathri

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on E. Gayathri, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because E. Gayathri is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting E. Gayathri, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncmvocalist, I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope you are doing okay. Well, you know it, don't you? :) Yes, as again, I'm back with another article that I've significantly developed over the past two months, mainly the past few days.

I was going to put it up for a GA nomination. I was hoping to know if you can have a quick glance at it before I put it up. I look forward to your response earnestly. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your most recent comment on Talk:Flag of Singapore, you mentioned that you would point out other issues with the article. However, you did not do so. Could you point out the issues at the article's ongoing peer review? The previous peer review was archived without receiving any feedback. By the way, the ArticleHistory template erroneously shows three failed GA nominations, instead of two. If you are familiar with the syntax, please remove the entry dated 20 January 2008. Thank you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music

Nilakana Sastris book on Cholas (published in 1955) has section son their temple culture that was a precursor to Carnatic Music and Bharatanatyam. You should get it, if you already do not have it. Taprobanus (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music

hey!

i was walking through the carnatic music (EQUALLY karnataka sangeetham, _never_ karnataka music!) talk pages and must say you were cool as a cucumber all through the discussions! remarkable feet, given the amount of POV pushed around there. for the same amount of bullcrap and apparent double standards, i would have spewed flames and brimstone like Mt. Versues herself, ruining my cause! congratulations again for being so totally levelheaded..

jikes, the amount of politics involved totally numbs me! Indian history is hardly indisputable even for the one century and nerve of certain wiki'ans to "claim" a clear line of development for something that is at least five/six times old. some of my favourites are the following: all that call Papanaasam Sivan as Papanasam Shiva wanting Carnatic music to be renamed as Karanataka music et al; calling MS the greatest singer orginating from TN is not POV: gimme a break; Karnataka music: for god sake, Karnataka as it is _now_ didn't even exist when it was named Karnataka sangeetham: it's like claiming that the then Madras presidency is exclusively TN 'cz Madras is _now_ in TN; finally, calling Purandara Dasa THE founder of Carnatic music?!! what one would claim next? panini, the creator of Sanskrit? Tholkappiar, the progenitor of Tamil? and each gharana masters as the sole orignator not of their respective gharanas but of the whole edicice of Hindustani music?! My granny will be in fits..


i seriously don't know, being a tam that spent 95% of her life outside India, the amount of anti-tam sentiment in the mainland totally eludes me. its like whole of India is _taught_ to hate tams. its totally awrite if some UP simpleton from Itawa says these things, but to hear it from B'loreans?! *sighs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on BigGabriel555

You filed an Rfc against the above editor some time ago. Could you please let me know if this has been resolved as indicated by BigGabriel555 on the Rfc? If it has, then I can archive or remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'd been on somewhat of a mini wikibreak regarding that article. Looking over the edit history of late, I can agree that the edit pattern which I had objection to regarding that user has since improved greatly. As such, I am more than willing to call the issue resolved.--RosicrucianTalk 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my thoughts

I don’t know whether you have realized or not, there is really no K gang. There is one very, very, very hard working member who represents 99% of real work out of the group (whom I have modeled myself after) and bunch of others who just simply exist. Most of these bunches of others are not even native. They are transplants from TN who due to various reasons including due to the corrosive politics of TN have a very critical mindset with respect to T related issues. This infact is an intra T squabble that is getting superimposed on a so called K vs T garb. It is such a pity that we allow the mirage to fool our selves and create a support structure for such squabbles when all what true contributors want is to be left alone to contribute. Once you understand the source of the conflict you have to respond with academic, peer reviewed RS sources to shut them up. If we don’t have such sources then we have no leg to stand on. This is my un-solicited 2 cents. Taprobanus (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I agree with Taprobanus, who is quite right as to the facts and also as to the way forward. -- Arvind (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An FA quality Dance traditions of Tamils would a be a great way forward, because Bharatanatyam is not the sum total of Tamil peoples dance traditions. It si simply an elitist format that is popular now amongst middle class and upper middle class people. The varieties of Koothus that is the real life experience of millions of people who speak Tamil is totally missed in the shuffle.. Similarly for Music traditioans of Tamils because Carnatic music is not the sum total of all Tamil musical traditions. It is just one outlet. JMTTaprobanus (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugabhogas

From what you say, the editor introducing these concepts is misrepresenting the facts. I think you know more about this subgenre than I do. Badagnani (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I agree with your points, but the way a group of editors is and has been interacting is too worrisome and unless some admin steps in, a fair and representative article can not be be written. If you see the section on Origin and develpment there is virtually no mention of Tamil Nadu (not that I want Tamil Nadu to figure in prominently, but because that is the truth; but completely blocked). Whether you know it or not Haridasa "movemement" is definitely not an important or influential thing and it is not any movement. This is precisely precisely called WP:UNDUE. I'm not at all against mentioning Haridass, but not at the exclusion of all the other. True some the Haridasa were there but that is true of every big city in TN, Kerala, Andhra and of course Karanataka too. Like Mysore darbar, there were so many other "centres of power/influence", Travancore an many other Zamins etc. There are too many personal, linguistic, caste-race, political issues which cloud the need to write something that is balanced, factual, interesting and informative. Unless some admin comes in to moderate it, it is going to be difficult to make any true impact. Not that some 10 editors can not come forward and keep reverting the actions of this group of editors, but that is not how we should work and such things would only lead to endless bickering and dissipation of energy. Sorry, I've taken some time to get back to you.--Aadal (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

It's being taken care of. Don't worry about it. — scetoaux (T/C) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I was wondering whether you would have any interest in maybe giving occasional opinions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review section in addition to the Indian A-Class reviews. Right now, I'm about the only one who is working on that page. If you thought I would be of any use on the Indian A-Class reviews, I could add my own, often less-than-well informed, comments on at least article structure there as well in "trade", as it were. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award for you

The Missing Barnstar
This is, hereby, awarded to Ncmvocalist for his long-standing efforts in providing valuable reviews and assessments in the India project. Despite his low-profile, he has managed to maintain the assessment department as well help guide and motivate new assesseors like me in supporting the project tasks. You thoroughly deserve this, mister! Mspraveen (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! You are very welcome, sir! And, yes, I don't quite mind emails. Here is my email address schumi [underscore] rules [underscore] forever [at] yahoo [dot] com. I've been a bit busy assessing and tagging WP:India and Andhra argument to the scores of Telugu films. Besides that, I've worked extensively on Rang De Basanti (now on GAN) and trying to guide Riya Sen (also in GAN through efforts by User:Aditya Kabir) into a GA. Thats about me. What about you? Mspraveen (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu and Kannada

Hi, I wonder whether you had looked at the last two paras of [[Kannada_literature#Vijayanagara period]]? Did Srinatha call his Telugu, Kannada? What is the story there? I can think of some possibilities. But I want to first get your view of what "kannada" mean in Telugu? Where exactly does Srinatha calls his Telugu, Kannada? I'm kind of assuming you know Telugu. If you don't, please forgive me or would you please give me a good pointer. Thanks --Aadal (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srinatha called his language Karnata bhasha (or, more precisely, he called himself a poet of Karnata bhasha). The key is what "karnatabhasha" means. Vijayanagara as a whole was quite frequently called Karnata rajya, so the name literally means "the language of Vijayanagara". "Karnata bhasha" was also frequently used as a name for Kannada, and some early accounts of Telugu literature treat it as meaning "Kannada" in Srinatha's poem (an example is P.T. Raju's Telugu literature from 1944, of which I have a copy). Nilakanta Sastri implies something similar, and the same inference crops up in books about South India well into the 1970s. I'm not sure if all modern scholars agree, though. The poem itself is translated in David Shulman's Classical Telugu poetry: An anthology (published in 2002), where the word karnata-bhasha has the gloss "literally, the language of Karnata, the extended region that, for Srinatha, includes the area of Telugu speech." (footnote 5 on page 174). -- Arvind (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The issue is not resolved, but the editor in question has stopped with his attacks and disruption, so I see little need to keep it open at this time. Feel free to archive it. — BQZip01 — talk 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin collins RfC strikethroughs

Yo. I haven't delved into whether the reason people are striking stuff through on the RfC is valid, but it's certainly not vandalism - after three separate editors managed to get themselves indefinitely banned, marking their posts to point out the resulting slight credibility problem was suggested.

Just to let you know. Peace, Kizor 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking their posts this way is inappropriate (if there are such concerns of credibility, then this should be articulated on the talk page as per any other editor - there is no authority for other editors to strikethrough past views). Unless the banned editor(s) were involved in the dispute under another account, then there is no issue with the credibility - it is a view that can be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being overcautious around the editor, I note again that I was explaining others' behaviour, not doing it. Anyway. That's fair enough, though I personally believe that this did significantly aid the discussion. Proven inexcusable malevolence is a bit of a credibility problem, clearly marking said problematic views is a non-trivial help, and and strikethroughs were specifically proposed as a way of pointing out the problem while keeping posts legible. --Kizor 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I was not at all suggesting you were engaging in this behaviour - but stating the behaviour itself (done by whoever) is inappropriate, even with such an explanation. The talk page exists if any editor has an issue with another view or endorsement, and would like to make a comment of this sort. The only way the view is problematic is if there is a conflict of interest, or the editor was using the sock-puppet account as an additional endorsement of a view. Neither was the case here. Further, in the case an editor changes their mind about endorsement, they often strikethrough their original rather than remove it - this was not the case here either. This is why I don't consider the behavior, or the explanation, acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that I noted that you did not note that, I only noted what I noted for the benefit of the onlooker(s). The conflicting interpretations of strikethrough are a good point. Want to copypaste this discussion into the RfC's talk page? --Kizor 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

Regarding your edit here, did you move it to the subpage? Which subpage are you referring to anyway? As of this writing, your contribs history doesn't show you moved it anywhere. Why not? - ALLSTAR echo 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see it. Sorry to bother you. - ALLSTAR echo 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the peer review department

Hi, I would like to join the peer review department in Project India. Can you tell me how to do that? Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will get someone to help you out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Though I obviously don't completely agree with your preferred wording/approach, I wanted to make sure that you knew I truly appreciate your interest in my proposed principles and your efforts to improve their wording and clarify their intent. I believe the general approach is vital, both in the sense of reaffirming general wiki philosophy and as a step towards real solutions for many problematic topic areas. It is reassuring to have someone provide intelligent and considered feedback and alternatives to the proposed principles. Again, I may not exactly agree, but you are appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The India Star

The India Star
I hereby award this barnstar to User:Ncmvocalist for his contributions and maintaining the assessment dept of Wikiproject India -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 07:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Speedy delete - decline request

Thanks for the clarification. The reason why i initiated the speedy delete was that i created an article on Tirumala Tourism quite a long time back and the article was speedy deleted (with the contents transfered to Wikitravel) and hence the reason why i issued a speedy delete. please clarify if tourism related pages can exist in Wikipedia (rather than Wikitravel). --Kalyan (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
For being the only reviewer brave enough to offer a second and decisive opinion on an article long under review. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what did you mean?

Did you post that I made meritless claims? What about them was meritless, if I may ask? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I was saying if you made claims that were meritless in other steps of DR (even after his misconduct ceased), then only would what he said be considered relevant. (My point was you so far haven't, so his theory about some sort of dual has no bearing). Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YEs, it does, Thanks for clarifying. Btw, not for nuthin', but the spelling is 'duel' as in a battle between two folk. Dual refers to two sides of something, like the dual natures of good and evil, etc. I think you just picked up on MPerel's misuse of the word. No biggie, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello,

I read somewhere that you belong to the team that rates articles for the WP:INDIA project. I also saw that you have strict standards with regards to prose when I saw you vote on the Kannada literature FACs. You may have missed it, but I recently came across the Priety Zinta article which is up at FAC. Would you be able to please take a look at the article and let me know if it is upto the standards you would approve of or upto the normal FA standards. I am asking you because if I remember correctly, you had said somewhere that you are the leader of the WP:INDIA article rating team or something like that. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your input in the discussion would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, just to let you know Ncmvocalist, Sarvagnya is trying to canvass you with this message in order to see another oppose, other than his only one, on the FAC. As the only user who has opposed the nomination, he tries very hard to make it fail, and even if it means that he has to be a bit civil toward an editor, who he is not on very good terms with, he will do anything.
Amazing no? Well, you should not be surprised, this is the nature of some people.
ShahidTalk2me 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I didn't quite understand this remark, but I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for your level-headed input. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Hey Ncm, it has been a while, isn't it? I hope things are fine with you. I'd been busy in real life for the past month and this has kept me away from active editing. However, I'm back now. I'm helping Rang De Basanti towards a GA and slowing pacing myself up in editing. Whats keeping you busy? I didn't hear more from you regarding your ideas about WP:India. Busy, I believe. Gimme a heads-up whenever you can. Cheers mate! Mspraveen (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC/N

RE Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Arbitrator_announcements, where is the notice by jpgordon, I want to read it myself. Post a link at AC/N please.RlevseTalk 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE "After discussion with ArbCom, I've updated the template created by AGK to reflect all of the threads that are stale" WT:RFAR...what discussion? RlevseTalk 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you

Hi Ncmvocalist. I've revered your edit of my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Proposed decision, where you changed "All" to "Both". I believe "All" is correct since the majority required for passing is six and since each of the 4 remedies have at least 6 votes in support (you may not have noticed that the majority had recently changed from 7 to 6). In any case, I know you meant well, but please don't edit my comments. If you think I've made a factual error, just point it out, and if it needs correcting I'll do it myself. Thanks, Paul August 06:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya

Holding me responsible? I closed the RfC based on the rules we have WP:RFC/U. I know Sarvagnya has issues, but there are certain rules and expectations at RfC, and I am not going to ignore these. It's his own fault if his behavior worsens. Not mine. Also, I have no responsibility or obligation to investigate a user's conduct when closing an RfC. Furthermore, if someone had contacted me about Sarvagnya's behavior on the article talk page a week ago, I would have surely blocked him. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Nishkid is not at fault here. We didn't have it filed completely appropriately. Having said that, like he said, some of us might be a little, maybe a lot, less lenient regarding that person's behavior from this point forward, if it continues. By all means, let me also know if you see any evidence of it ever again. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of Sarvagnya's behavior. I did do a bit of digging on the article talk page. Most of the incivility and such took place a week ago, not now. Blocks aren't punitive, so what could I have done? That's why I just left a message on his talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he goes on an incivility streak in the future, let me know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya knows what I will do if he continues to make uncivil remarks. As for the canvassing, a block is only appropriate if the person continues to canvass after being warned not to do so. I don't think he canvassed on user talk pages after Karanacs' warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am acknowledging that. I only became aware of some of his actions after the fact. There's nothing (besides issuing a warning) that I can do there. As for 59.182.75.210, that looks like Kuntan (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kuntan operates from a dynamic IP. Blocking this IP address won't do anything now, because he's probably already operating under a different IP from that range. We can't do a range block because there are a number of Indian editors who have the same ISP as Kuntan. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has Kuntan started taking up the case of the Hindu editors? It is notorious that he is anti-Hindu. The IP in question was arguing for Sarvagnya, not other way round. Uzhuthiran (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kuntan is masquerading as a Hindu user, he has imitated Hkelkar before and so he knows that he can do more mischief if he pretends to be Hindu.Bakaman 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb clerk stuff

You've been providing good inputs, but here, only arb clerks can open, close cases/clarifications, archive RFARs, etc. If you're interested in being a clerk, drop a note on the clerk noticeboard. FYI, you start out as a clerk helper and it takes many months to get to official clerkship. Coren and Jayvdb are still helpers. RlevseTalk 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rating articles

hi, i found your name on the assessment team of law articles. I have been looking forward to review a number of articles of specific importance to the Indian legal system. In fact just to list a few of them, I have worked on editing the following pages

  1. National Law University, Jodhpur
  2. Common Law Admission Test
  3. Legal Education in India, LLB in India
  4. Advocates in India
  5. Chief Justice of India
  6. Autonomous law schools in India

I was wondering if you could help me out with how to rate the articles by placing appropriate class template on them and also in terms of importance they carry. Cheers, Tarun2k (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

hey thanks a lot for the advice. btw, I was wondering as to who constitutes the Law Assessment Dept. Could I be a part of it. Like I need to apply formally for it or just add my name to the list? Tarun2k (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Inviting Thoughts -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike?

You seem to have duplicated my proposal in the C68-FM-SV case. ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. RlevseTalk 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WQA on you

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought that thing was over already because another editor have urged him to stop [1]. And from this WQA, I am speculating that he's willing to go to ArbCom for such a minor thing.

I'll just summarize what happened between me and him quickly (so your talk page doesn't become the WQA itself). He was trying to demote a featured picture (FP) and replace it with another because they're the same subject and he believes that only one picture per subject can be FP. I told him that's not the case. Later, he trusted my comments and got opposed in Commons' FP [2] for the potential of having 2 FPs of the same subject. Because he's upset that his nomination didn't get through and he thought he trusted the wrong person (aka me), he decided to start lunging at me. Even User:MER-C, the user who closes 99% of FP nominations, came and told everyone that "We do not explictly forbid more than one featured picture per subject" [3] I still don't know why he won't drop it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like he decided to harass and attack you too. I hope you don't get into trouble just for letting me know a case was filed against me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquettes

Sorry for the delay. My internet connection went down. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, if this sort of bigotry continues i will inform you, at which point a topic ban might be appropriate. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editer has now decided to run around to various admins pretending he is the victim of some plot, vendetta or even the "Gay Agenda". Seen here. Really im tired of this. Can you resolve it, clearly hes trying to cause as much drama as possible. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these comments made by an administrater best sum up how tired we are with his behaviour.--Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Drive

I am looking into your request. I have asked Kirill how he had done it for MILHIST and await his response. We can do this using a combination of AWB/OpenOfficeCalc; if there is a program available that can speed things up, we can use that instead. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Thank you dear Ncmvocalist! I knew that we would do that! :) ShahidTalk2me 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RobJ1981 thing

Hey. I apologize if I've gotten out of line during the ANI on Rob. I'll restate that I'm willing to step away from the debate as soon as you tell me my presence there is becoming a problem, or my conduct is deteriorating. I am, however, extremely concerned about Future Perfect, specifically this. He's personally threatened me, and stated that he is going to overrule the entire process - is he allowed to do so? McJeff (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessment dept

Hi there..Yes, I will manage the Assessment department while you are away. Look forward to seeing you back with some nice plans. Btw, I replied to your email. Ciao! Mspraveen (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for trying to help with the whole attack situation. Can't say I'm thrilled about the whole mess, but I felt that I had little choice except to try. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outing

I recommend you do not reveal the real-identity of a Wikipedian again. That is grounds for an idef-block. QuackGuru 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]