User talk:Sundar1
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
WP
I am wondering if you interest in Wikiproject Germany -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note: Sundar1
Please note that you have deleted important data from the article "Pokhara" from wikipedia. Please make sure of what you delete before you delete the portions of the article.
Merge tag removal
Please do not removed Merge tags as you have now done twice on your disputed Cuba in Angola article. It can be considered vandalism. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ich hab dein Posting auf WP:EA gesehen. Da wir beide Deutsch sprechen, vielleicht könntest du die ganze Situation klarer und effizienter auf Deutsch erklären. Ist zwar nicht die "feine Englische", aber das Durchkämmen der history und talk page dauert immer ewig. Bei erster, oberflächlicher Betrachtung scheint das Problem mit dem Vorwurf von WP:OR bzw. WP:NPOV zusammenzuhängen. Aus Erfahrung kann ich dir versichern, dass sich revert wars nie lohnen, wie du ja selbst schon bemerkt hast. Das beste Vorgehen ist es, der "anderen Seite" so früh wie möglich entgegenzukommen und ggf. heftiges editieren hinzunehmen. Wenn du mir also mal in deinen Worten die Sachlage erläuterst, könnte ich versuchen (dann natürlich auf English), besser informiert einen Kompromissvorschlag einzubringen. Dorfklatsch 17:26, January 9, 2008
- Ok, ich sag mal so: Meiner Meinung nach ist das Hauptproblem mit Cuba in Angola, dass das Thema durchaus unklar umrissen ist. Eine mögliche Variante des Vorgehens wäre, den jetzigen Artikelinhalt auf eine Unterseite von Angola-Cuba relations zu kopieren und den Inhalt, soweit angebracht, in den Artikel einzubauen. Gleichzeitig könnte man versuchen, ein besser abgrenzbares Thema zu finden, um einen sogenannten content fork, also eine große oder gar vollständige inhaltliche Überlappung, zu vermeiden. Eine Möglichkeit, die mir so vorschwebt, wäre "Cuban political/military involvement in Angola". Ich hab das so mal Deon Steyn vorgeschlagen.
- Was das Verhalten aller Beteiligten angeht: Leider passiert es viel zu oft, dass die Leute nicht cool bleiben und anfangen, wenig konstruktiv mit Begriffen wie "Vandalismus" um sich zu werfen. Am besten ignorierst du das und konzentriest dich auf das Wesentliche; in diesem Fall: Wie können die mit verlässlichen Quellen belegbaren Inhalte möglichst neutral wiedergegeben und auf vorhandene oder neue Artikel verteilt werden. Wie gesagt, finde ich persönlich Cuba in Angola als Artikelthema zu unklar. User:Dorftrottel 20:18, January 14, 2008
- Ergänzung: "Cuban political/military involvement in Angola" könnte zunächst als Abschnitt in Angola-Cuba relations konzipiert werden. Wenn sich zeigt, dass das Thema zu vielschichtig ist, kann man sich dann immer noch darauf verlagern, einen eigenen Artikel zu planen. User:Dorftrottel 20:21, January 14, 2008
Information zum korrekten "Verhaltenskodex" findest du z.B. auf WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc. Lohnenswert ist auch ein Blick auf Kriterien für Vandalismus. M.E.n. ist keiner der edits auf dem Artikel ernsthaft als absichtlich schädigend zu bezeichnen, daher sind Vandalismusvorwürfe (die ohnehin nie ein positives Ergebnis zeitigen) auf allen Seiten absolut unangebracht. Ein besseres Verhalten, als sich strikt an inhaltlichen Fragestellungen zu orientieren, ist nicht möglich. Demensprechend sollte sollten alle Beteiligten auf z.B. politisch ausgerichtete Ad hominems verzichten. Generell sehr wichtig ist auch, nicht auf ein niedriges Niveau zu verfallen oder sich einzulassen, ganz unabhängig davon, was die "Gegenseite" macht. Kommt dir ein Posting beleidigend, ungerecht, etcpp vor, ignoriere dies, und fahre unbeirrt fort, dich strikt auf die Sachebene zu konzentrieren (siehe z.B. de:Themenzentrierte Interaktion). Was ich persönlich in derartigen Auseinandersetzungen für unabdingbar halte, und was nur allzu oft völlig fehlt, ist die a priori Bereitschaft, sich durch gute Argumente überzeugen zu lassen. Das Hauptproblem, wenn Leute die Ruhe verlieren, besteht meiner Meinung nach darin, dass es oft dazu führt, dass sich weniger hochwertige Argumente durchsetzen. Fazit: Mehr, als die eigene Argumentation möglichst sachlich anbringen, kann ich dir bzgl. Verhalten nicht empfehlen. Bedenke, dass jede inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung die Verbesserung der Wikipedia zum Ziel hat, also mache dies zur Maxime deiner Argumentation. User:Dorftrottel 16:02, January 17, 2008
- Thanks for the article, but you also noted that Wikipedia is a playground for rightwing politics. Especially articles relating to southern Africa are easy prey to diehards of Apartheid, distorting facts up to being unreconizable. It is hard to come up against those, since they have too much time. I had resigned, since I do not want to spend all my time on an editing war with White Supremacists. But maybe ... are there more like you? --L.Willms (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cuba in Angola
An editor has nominated Cuba in Angola, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba in Angola and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Germany Invitation
|
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Cuban Intervention in Angola
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
(edit copied from source, later moved to New York Accords) Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO your article is really very valuable and does not really suffer from POV problems. stylistic revisions would be useful if it were not for the constant threat of revert wars from biased editors who seem to have had their very first impressions of this subject from SADF propaganda and have difficulty adjusting to the world-wide scholarly and journalistic consensus (not a monolithic consensus, to be sure). If the subject were less controversial, the usual encyclopedic practice of relying largely on one secondary source would be acceptable. Most encyclopedia writers in the world simply paraphrase one secondary source for their article. One could easily add sources to your article from John Marcum, DAvid Birmingham, karl Maier et hoc genus omne, and nothing substantive in your article would be changed. Maple Leaf Forever!130.15.101.140 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
I have read your contributions to the Angolan conflict and I can not believe the bias you show, keeping in mind that you have no direct involvement or refernce to what happened there. You sound like one of those armchair liberals that visited Africa once or twice and know consider yourself to be an expert on Sub-Saharan politics and history. For the rest you obviously rely on selective sources to suport your views of the world. I find the contributions you keep on making to the pages relating to the Angolan conflict, and can't help but wonder why you have such a strong opinion on an event that has no bearing on your past or future. I am not a Namibian, Angolan or South African citizen, but had the privilege to stay in the north of Namibia (Grootfontein) during the conflict. I have been in the south of Angola on a number occasions and I have spoken to quite a few people on both sides that was at Cuito. I know that it is not very objective to rely on eyewitness acounts, but what I want to mention is that neither of these people (on both sides) that did the actual fighting are willing to claim victory. On the other hand it appears that a lot of armchair soldiers with "facts" from various sources tries to reconstruct the battle in such a way as to claim victory for their side.
I am willing to concede that I also may have a biased view on this conflict, but at least I can claim that my family was directly afected by the conflict and that I had numerous dealings with people that actively participated in the conflict. I am very curious to know what the real reason for your bias is. Having lived in South Africa for a number of years now I have come to the one realisation: The liveration movements in Southern Africa have mostly benefited from good propaganda engines. These Marxist supported liberation movements have just as much blood on their hands as the regimes they replaced.
As Canadian you would better serve the public domain if you start investigating the involvement of the US government in maby of these Third World conflict.
Advertising
I just noticed how large the page had got. I wonder if it would be a good idea to spin off a new article Criticism of advertising and reduce the section to 2 or 3 paragraphs? Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately at the moment it will have be be fairly low on my priority as well. I'll need to think about it for a while. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Speyer Cathedral talk
- I must apologise for not realising that part of your recent addition was your own competent translation. I am sorry if that comment seemed patronising.
- Referring to any work of art as a "pastiche" is rather insulting. That was ICOMOS word, not mine.
- The royal plural(?). No, it's not quite like that. Another editor, Johnbod, also entered the discussion, and has also contributed to (mostly) English art/architecture articles. The attitude to which I am referring is the attitude expressed in general by English architectural historians who list all the various building stages of each building, including the Victorian additions.
- Because of this, I have been trying to make sense somehow of your extraordinary degree of upset at seeing the Neo-Romanesque facade of Speyer used to illustrate a section on Neo-Romanesque architecture and your insistence on "purity" of the building. If your attitude isn't linked to national pride, and isn't simply ignorance (which it obviously isn't), then what's your problem?
- It is not as if there is no mention of Speyer Cathedral in the article. There are several places in the article in which Speyer is cited as an example. There are a great many other Romanesque buildings which are not mentioned at all.
- One of the things which I find quite hilarious is that for months and months I was hassled by a Polish art student who was absolutely incensed at the notion of my citing any German Romanesque buildings whatsoever, on the grounds that they had all been so heavily restored that almost none of them was in its original form. According to this person, the buildings had been literally vandalised for the sake of "purity". She (I think it was a woman) was extraordinarily critical of my use of Bamberg Cathedral as an example.
- On delving into the matter a little, I discovered, of course, that her claims were true- that in 19th century Germany Baroque domes, towers, facades and altars were pulled down, that Gothic chapels and porches were demolished, that genuine Romanesque towers which didn't quite match were made to match and so on and so on. It was not a case of conserving what "was". It was a case of purging buildings of any details that did not contibute to "purity of style", whether that style was Romanesque, Gothic or Baroque. The older the building, the more it was likely to have been modified, and therefore the more likely that it should suffer this ruthless reconstruction.
- This 19th century German attitude was very different to the attitude which prevailed in England at the same time. Many of the great abbey churches in Germany and France had relatively short building periods, and then were later added to, with smaller additions such as chapels. In England however, every cathedral except one (Salisbury) grew at a very slow rate. The architects almost never tried to make the parts match. I don't think that either France or Germany have a single large abbey or cathedral that is as diverse in its parts as are the huge cathedrals of Canterbury, Gloucester, Lincoln, Durham or Ely. Durham, often cited as the greatest example of Romanesque architecture on the planet, has never suffered the type of re-conversion that is normal to German Romanesque buildings. So it retains a Gothic eastern transept, three Gothic towers and a large Gothic western window, none of which, had the building been in Germany, would have survived the 19th century. We would have ended up with Durham looking as pristine a piece of Romanesque architecture as Speyer does, minus that diversity that is so typically English.
- About using material from other articles- using large slabs of material from other articles or books is not permissable. The only permissable circumstances are 1) translating from Wikipedia that is in another language, 2) using material from 1911 Britannica. For any other material that you quote, you must put the material in quotation marks. You can quote "phrases" within the text, and short sections using indents. If you are drawing extensively from another source, say for a description of a building, then you need to paraphrase it.
- So it is fine to say: 'Peter Bloggs says of St Augustine's Abbey "it is the noblest and grandest ruin in Europe".'
- It isn't fine to simply copy and paste Peter Bloggs' whole description of the abbey. This is why I utilised the ICOMOS material and cited ICOMOS a number of times as a source. I included one of the most pertinent quotes about the overall quality of the building, as a direct quote in quotation marks.
- My description of the building itself is merely a straightforward description of the features that are clear on the plan and in photos, using the photos and plan as a primary source. ie. it has a a single nave and aisles, an apsidal east end, etc etc. I should probably go back and write "see plan" after it.
- Ecclesiastical status- for every cathedral, its status as a cathedral is mentioned in the first sentence.
- "Basilica". The word is used in two ways, and in this article it is applied in both of them. Ecclesiastically, it is a "Minor Basilica". Architecturally, it can be described as having a "basilica" plan ie. long with a nave and aisles rather than centrally planned like the old cathedral at Aachen. I think that it is rather confusing to use the word twice in the same article to mean different things, and generally avoid using "basilica" as an architectural term unless referring to the Constantinian basilica churches of Rome.
- Toodle-oo! I'm going to have dinner at the pub. Amandajm (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Not metric actually
I rolled back the LRC edits. Metrification was just starting when the LRC was introduced, and railway terminology remained Imperial throughout. Even today the speed signs are all in mph. You also converted many units that aren't really measurements, like railway gauge. Like "two by four", this isn't really a measurement so much as the name of a standard. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
List of Cities by GDP AFD
Hello, would you care to comment here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cities_by_GDP - ? I'm not sure what brought you to that article, but saw your comment on its talk page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I would respectfully request that you please participate in the pending dispute resolution at Talk:Pretzel, lest your previous reversions be seen as tendentious now that the information that you desired remains in the article, though tagged. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk: Pretzel
Comment on Style: Self analysis and Self evlauation is a healthy process. As a wiki author you appear to be single minded (regardless of what you stated) and have completely diluted the article and information.
I read what other contributors to this article have stated and talk of similar issues with your style, so I do not see this as personal but rather one of style. I can only assume that your concerns for German overtones have overwhelmed the real story and has very artfully destoryed earlier more exciting informational versions.
(1) Points of Information: Pretzel is a food with a distintive shape. That is the real story. The fact that there are other shapes is just marketing by manafacturers or poitical interests that are built on the word "pretzel". How about the pizza pretzel? Is it a pizza or a pretzel. It is about sales $$$$$.
(2) Points of Infromation: John Jr. (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)"Party" Pretzel is something you made up. It is not a common use of the word or term anywhere except in a cookbook to create popular terms.
putting an image on its feet
sometimes i upload a photo and it ends up sideways (because that's the way i took it). even though i make sure to file the picture in an upright position, on commons it ends up sideways again. how can i change this? can i turn the picture after it's on commons? what can i do to avoid this problem?Sundar1 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Sundar
- It is quite easy to turn an image. Go to the image you want to turn and hit the edit button. Then you add the command: {{rotate|90}}. (you can use either 90, 180 or 270 degrees) The image will be turned the next day so you can sit back and... wait. I did an example with one of your images here: File:SpeyerCathedralAfraChapel2.JPG. The reason why this happens is, that there are different ways of how one can turn an image. Either one turns the real physical image, or its written into the EXIF that the image should be viewed by turning it clockwise. The problem is, that not all programs react the same. some only use the physical image rotation, some use the EXIF and some both.--Amada44 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- For the second question: see also Commons:FAQ#How_do_I_fix_the_orientation_of_an_image.3F. -- User:Docu at 12:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)