User talk:Hemanshu/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Click the + sign above to post a comment or just edit.

India Categorization Project[edit]

Hi Hemanshu, I have realized there are more things than one when it comes to categorization it won't be correct doing it alone. Not because I can not do it but because I might ignore a few aspects. Now I look at it the categories on Indian history are slightly incorrect. Indus Valley civilization for example should be under South Asian history. We are after all working on an encyclopedia about the world and not India alone. Moghul empire should be called Mogul maybe!! There are a lot of problems once you start working on something. I wanted to make one category for the state symbols of India (emblem, song, anthem, awards) but can not decide a name. May I propose setting up a small categorization project. Depending upon scope of work to be done and level of involvement it can be wound up pretty soon, once we decide the layout of the tree. I think you know a few Indian's working on Wikipedia. So maybe you can ask a few to volunteer some time to it. In the end it will help a bunch of articles related to India and collaboration on work in the future. Bye, for now, signing off. --Ankur

Custom (or "Distributed") ToCs on LoPbN[edit]

I think i have, fitfully, stripped some of these tables of tontents on pages in the List of people by name tree on past occasions, although i also, like you, have created some. I made a point to look at who originated that structure on List of people by name: Al (which i moved to List of people by name: Ale), because i stripped the d'd ToC there last night, and expect to be doing a lot of that on other pages -- i.e., i no longer expect my doing so to be "fitful". I wanted to be sure that you, the only other that i am sure has created them, knew why i am doing it, now that i expect to be doing a lot of it.

I think that the technique, when well maintained, is a good one; i would want to expand it, if the distributed ToC were an optional version of the automated ToC, instead of requiring hand-building and hand maintenance. IMO, the prospect of adquate hand maintenance is very poor, especially when the basic maintenance (correcting alphabetizing errors, e.g.) is more important, easier, and neglected.

My initial opinion was that 20-kB and larger pages are not user friendly without distributed ToCs, and that the maintenance overhead was worth the improved accessibility. At length i've decided that true as that is, the correct answer, in the absence of automation of distributed ToCs, is pages small enough for a single-screen automated ToC (of the only kind currently available) to do a good job of guiding users to their goals. The problem with that plan was that it called for a lot of page-division work, which has been a laborious and error prone task. IMO, the nested-templated method i've installed in the last week changes that, which is the occasion of my whole-hearted attention to achieving pages small enough that the automated ToCs will serve.

I'd be glad to discuss further, if you care to.
--Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Station templates[edit]

I've made a pretty decent page for Marine Lines with a table et al. Suggestions needed, as I want to replicate the model for all suburban stations. PS. What's the javascript on your page for? Nichalp 20:07, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Question[edit]

This question was moved from your user page. It was asked by IP 216.48.128.181. Mike H 15:22, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I WOULD EXPLAIN MY CHANGES TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN ITS TALK BUT NO ONE READS IT, AND I HAVE POSTED IN THERE, AND NOONE HAS READ IT OBVIOUSLY AS U DIDNT BOTHER TO BEFORE EDITTING THE PAGE AGAIN, WHY DONT U POST IN THE TALK PAGE? PROBABLY BECAUSE NO ONE READS IT

Removing of Wikilinks of Countries[edit]

Because dmmaus was doing it... if I was wrong to do so, please revert it back to the older version...

I don't know, I thought what I was doing was right - because I thought that a page with countries that are wikilinked and the rest being not didn't look good - and If i wikilinked them all - it would be distracting and plus dmmaus had removed those links... So I thought yeah... Don't know...

Good Job... Don't reply back to this message :-)

ERII[edit]

Elizabeth of the United Kingdom is officially "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" in the UK (different in other reams), not "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". Her official style is "Her Majesty The Queen". I reverted your edits because they were factually incorrect and misleading.--Jiang 19:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please use the talk page if you can be more convincing and reasonable than Avala. Otherwise, do not revert. --Jiang 21:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indian numerology[edit]

Just wanna let you know that Indian numerology is now on VfD. -- PFHLai 20:19, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Hindustani[edit]

Hi there Hemanshu, I need to consult an admin., so I guess you'll do just fine. :-) The page Hindustani language ought to be moved to Hindustani. The info. that could be covered under "Hindustani" would probably be an expansion of the (subset)info. already available under "Hindustani language". Going by the comments on the talk page, I assumed it was going to be moved there sooner or later. I wondered what the holdup was, till I tried it myself - The page "Hindustani" has prior history. Should "Hindustani" be listed under Wikipedia:VfD or Wikipedia:Cleanup or is there some other way to move things along. TIA -- Phil R 05:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Why not have seperate articles?
Could it be, my request was more of a nitpick than the obvious conclusion I took it for?

  • Perhaps, however I do associate "Hindustani" more, in the context of the language than the imperial or ancestral tones it sometimes implies. (I wouldn't expect to find "Hindi" under "Hindi language", so in that sense it is a bit of a nitpick).
  • Much of the content about the region and it's people/cultures is already covered or coverable under the "India" page. (The "Hindustan" disambiguation page directs to it.)
  • Any relevant content already in the "Hindustani" page-history would be complimentary to the article on the language, and it's inclusion/expansion/merging with the content of the article as it now stands won't take up enough space to warrant a whole seperate page. Appropriate links would suffice, for more detail.
  • The only other possible contenders to the "Hindustani" page would be "Hindustani classical music" or "Hindustani" the Kamal Hasan film. I don't think they'd wind up using the "Hindustani" page.
  • Also, rather amusingly, the "Hindustani language" article links to the "Hindustani" redirect page.

Did I overlook something obvious?

Thanks[edit]

Hey Himanshu, thanks for awarding me with the barnstar. I apologise not having contacted you earlier as I hadn't opened my main page till today. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]]

Category Indian parties[edit]

You might have noticed that I made sub-categories in your category Indian political parties to list State parties. Only All-India parties are categorized directly in the main category Indian political parties. Gangulf 08:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

user page unprotected[edit]

I have unprotected your user page along with several other user pages that do not have a history of vandalism. Policy (talk) does not permit user pages to be protected unless a history of vandalism justifies protection. UninvitedCompany 20:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Urgent: Image:Jayalalitha.jpg[edit]

I could see you have added fairuse notice for Image:Jayalalitha.jpg. But, who has added this image? It is art version and looks bit unpleasant than the previous version. Did you delete the previous image? Do you have sysop rights? If possible, please revert to old version. --Rrjanbiah 07:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your immediate response and work. Regarding the different images on different pages issue: it might be the caching problem, can fix by refreshing browser. --Rrjanbiah 14:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

County categories[edit]

Please don't subcategories communities by kind within each county. The standard form is to categorize a municipality both by its kind within the state (i.e., Category:Cities in Ohio), and by their county (i.e., Category:Franklin County, Ohio). This groups all the cities within a state together, all the villages together, etc., and also groups all municipalities within a county together. Breaking it up by "Cities in X County" or "Towns in Z County" is unnecessary and simply makes it harder to navigate and to see these groupings. Many counties simply don't have enough communities in them to do this either. Please contact me if you have any further questions about this. Postdlf 09:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories in general[edit]

Let's look at your grouping of Robert Gould Shaw under Category:American Civil War to illustrate some helpful tips. Yes, he's relevant to the American Civil War, but Category:American Civil War people is well established, and much more logical than just lumping him in with every other imaginable Civil War topic. Also, without creating the category tag like this: [[Category:American Civil War people|Shaw, Robert Gould]], the article will just be alphabetized in the category by the first letter, rather than by the subject's last name.

You had also created many redundant categories while tagging city and town articles, such as Category:Counties in IllinoisCategory:Illinois counties already existed.

I think it would be most helpful if you looked through the existing category structures before you add to them—see what categories have already been created, and what hierarchies have been established and function best for navigation and grouping. Categories function properly only if they are handled consistently. While it may work to edit a little bit here and there on articles, categories must be handled as a whole—systematically. Thanks! Postdlf 09:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unit 731 protected[edit]

FYI, I've protected Unit 731 and moved the disputed text/photo to the talk page. Feel free to discuss there. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 02:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stop creating redundant categories[edit]

I was hoping my previous note would communicate the point to you, but I saw that you had just created Category:Counties in Nevada despite the existence of the already-populated Category:Nevada counties. Furthermore, after leaving my previous note, I found a substantial amount of further redundant and poorly thought out category edits you had already made. These included the following, but there were many, many more:

Category:American actors (redundant with Category:U.S. actors and actresses), Category:Human anatomy (redundant with Category:Anatomy), Category:Physical geography (redundant with Category:Geography), Category:Comic book series (redundant with Category:Comic books), Category:American politicians (redundant with Category:U.S. politicians), Category:Rock and roll groups (redundant with Category:Rock music groups), Category:Television programs (redundant with Category:Television series), Category:Singers (redundant with Category:Vocalists). Finally, Category:Cars, which you inexplicably made a subcategory of the very category that rendered it redundant, Category:Automobiles.

I moved all of the articles into the already-established and already well-populated categories. I believe that your edits were well-intentioned, but this was quite a mess to clean up, and many of your editing choices simply appear careless—for example, creating "Category:Cities in Andrews County, Texas" when there is only one city in the county. Also, "Category:Physical geography" was obviously created by you for vale because it was the first defining term in the article, but simply clicking on physical geography would show you that it's a mere redirect to geography, for which there is already a well populated Category:Geography. Please review the existing category structure before you create new ones on a given topic, and it is also best to be familiar with the topics you are deciding to classify. Postdlf 19:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dementieva[edit]

Good job on the Dementieva article. --Cantus 07:46, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

LoPbN[edit]

Complaint & Request[edit]

You made a boilerplate-summarized rv to List of people by name: Sto, of the rv i made, which i summarized with "rv to last by Dale Arnett, losing pointless and obstructive lumping". Since knowing restoration of pointless and obstructive material is vandalism, kindly explain what the purpose of your rv is in order to forestall your listing as a vandal.
--Jerzy(t) 19:35, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Counter Request[edit]

[You responded:]
Please explain what the purpose of your revert was. --[[User talk:Hemanshu|Hemanshu] 19:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy's Explanation[edit]

I have to admit to settling for less than perfect communication; perfection in this case would mean i would respond

You were warned, just now when i repeated an explanation that you ignored by reverting w/o comment, saying "pointless and obstructive"; you're already in the wrong for explaining less than i have; explain now or take the consequences.

And you would apologize, and we could get on it with more clarity about what good behavior is.

But i'm also not Miss Manners, and it's true you've been far less rude and put in more WP work than a typical vandal, and i don't mind treating you back better than you arguably deserve. So i'll focus on the technical information, rather than making sure the whole picture comes out right.

One statement of the purpose is very simple: to put back the identical structure that the page had from within 24 hours of its creation, 5.5 months ago, until your reversion. (In that time, 5 people edited it, and an unknown additional number read from it, without being called to tinker with that structure.) So the obvious question, what were you trying to do,

  • was there before i asked it,
  • is the one that i later explcitly put to you, and
  • stands in the face of your continued refusal to answer. You instead ask a question that has an obvious answer, besides the one you had already been explicitly given: to fix a bad edit, that is twice undefended when defense was appropriate.

But maintaining the status quo was not in itself the purpose, and was specifically worthwhile, rather than simply by default, only because of the result, which i shall describe.

The substance of your edit was to merge 3 sections into one, and two others into another one, adjusting the two respective remaining headings to reflect the contents. My purpose in restoring those two sections to 5 (and of course adjusting the edits back) remains the same as it was when, in March, i divided 60-some name entries into 8 groups, and organized those groups with 10 headings that remain effective despite the additions of a few more name entries.

The key issue in such a task of organizing is efficiency: this list is not subject to aesthetic considerations that may be accommodated without cost on articles that are meant to be read as running text. The list exists for two purposes as far as i can see:

  • to assist readers and editors in finding existing bios, when they can't exactly remember a name or its spelling.
  • provide a place for what become red links in it, that is, linked names for bio articles that would, or might reasonably be hoped to, be good additions to WP. (More on this in a moment.)

These two purposes directly imply two modes of use: searching stretches of the list for a name whose bio the searcher seeks, and searching them for the alphabetic location at which a red link will be added. To these can be added another mode of use: searching for a name, becoming satisfied it is absent, and adding it "as a public service" to other readers, whether or not the bio exists. An example was my adding James Brady, who turned out to have a bio already, in the course of working on the section List of people by name: Bra#Brady. In this specific case, having him there means that those looking for him, who might not be entirely sure he was not a defeated senator before his Reagan adminstration job, don't waste time linking or reading the James H. Brady bio.
I enumerate those partly because your edits look like you were trying to satisfy some aesthetic standards in your LoPbN edits. You might find it worthwhile to read what i wrote at WP:CfD, and perhaps study for yourself what has been written in the context of the Category system about the anticipated demise of LoPbN. Both the probably temporary nature of these pages, and the brief duration of reasonable visits to them make aesthetic considerations a waste, and the core and nearly sole function of improving access to bios means aesthetics cannot trump function.
And improving access is what those small sections that you tried to lump back into big ones are all about. Perhaps you have studied neither cognitive psychology nor data-structure algorithms. The purpose of, for instance, alpha lists is made explicit in these disciplines, and strategies like binary search are analyzed.

You'll recall that the part you didn't disturb has 16 names without any intervening heading. 16 or more is a good length for that section bcz the heading assures the reader that all of the surnames are identical, and can be ignored. So, consciously or not, what the user does is to ignore the column of identical surnames and focus on the following column of given names. As nearly all of them start with different letters from the others, nearly all of what needs attention is the first letters: there is virtually no reading of words or letter sequences required.

In contrast, the section you produced by merging 3 smaller ones has 20 items with a wide variety of surnames, first varying from their neighbors anywhere from the fourth letter to the seventh (where they differ at all). If we consider a fairly typical case of a reader looking for someone whose given name they don't recall correctly, and assume (as probably is true of 50% of such uses of your section) that the surname begins STOC, they may launch any of three kinds of searches:

  1. a binary search starting at the middle of the section (the optimum strategy when nothing is known about the distribution of entries),
  2. a binary search starting at roughly at the 3rd item of the section (since, if letters were equally frequent, the 2nd letter of the 10 from B to K would appear as the letter following STO in the 3rd and 4th entries), or
  3. a linear search starting from the 1st item (the strategy of complete search-theoretic unsophistication).

In 1, your headings mean log2 20 probes = 5 , maximum, and i think something between 3 and 4 on the average. In 2, the average should be about 1 higher. In 3, the average is about 5.5 probes (since no search for STOC names will go past the 11th item). Switching from strategy 3 to another in midstream does not completely waste the effort already expended, and can probably produce some improvement over strategy 3.

That of course ignores the effort of getting into the right section, but that is small, assuming the user has ToCs turned on. (I think having them off is relatively rare, and i haven't paid enough attention to that facility to be able to infer what an otherwise sensible user, who normally keeps them off, would do.) It is small, because the hierarchical nature of the ToC amounts to an optimiized binary search thru the levels of the ToC.

With my smaller sections, the ToC search is slightly longer. But this section, even though only 50% smaller than yours is still searched enough faster than yours to come out ahead: In 1, the average is smaller by 1. In 2, the average is again probably smaller by 1, because even tho the bad guess about the STOCs having their center of gravity close to the beginning is not used, a similar guess, about STOCKs isn't much better. In 3, the average is about the same. (But that is only because the STOCs are "frontloaded" within your section, while middle- or back-loading would give gains ranging up to 50%.)

The methods i've just applied can also be applied to other scenarios (like checking whether an entry exists and finding the place to add a new entry), and can be expected to produce similar results.

Your lumping of sections on this page not only removed information, it removed information that is likely to ease the time burden on users. My edits before and after yours had the purpose of easing that burden. I expect you will now understand what you have done wrong, and refrain from any further lumping edits; if you don't understand, i expect you to stop stonewalling about your purpose, and present a convincing counter-argument that will permit others to judge whether reasons should be considered even equal contenders with mine.

You still have offered no explanations in response to two reasonable requests, one implicit and one explicit. You have gone further with your misguided and unexplained lumping (on List of people by name: Lef-Len), fully 24 hours after my bringing the problem to your attention. I now consider pointless my own restraint, in not further reverting, after you responded, lumping you did before then. I therefore anticipate re-splitting those pages, if the timing is convenient, whenever i do other work on them, or think of nothing more productive than going after them. --Jerzy(t) 03:29, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Explaining my edits[edit]

[Copied from Jerzy(t)]

Hello. I was surprised to see that my edits were being considered as vandalism by you. I am sorry that I did not read your long comment on my talk page. Here's the thinking behind my edits: (1) Where possible, avoid dividing page into sections. Why? Because too many sections make the page large, very unreadable and difficult to navigate. So if that is the rule, why have sections at all? Well, the reason is because large lists are difficult to read, maintain or edit. so obviously I have a criteria for what list is large. I didn't want to mention it as it's laughable in a way but it's also a good rule of thumb. A list that exceeds 1 page is large enough to divide into sections. 1 page: I think that's about 25 lines. since this is a bit arbitrary, I shouldn't expect everyone to follow this rule. Even I don't always follow it. if a list just exceeds a page by a few lines, I don't divide it. I do make changes when I see sections divided into very small subsections and merge them. I don't really see what the problem is and how this is vandalism. perhaps, we could individually discuss where the section should be divided into subsections. but I don't think that there should be a subsection for every 4 names. It's clear that the frequency of divided and undivided sections will vary depending on whether the section is long enough to divide. I don't see this as a problem. I think it's a good thing that we can divide the list as it grows.

While we are at it, I also wish to say that some of the small lists should be merged, empty lists should be deleted... if there is concern about the ability to create them when needed, we could have red links.

I admire your dedication to the list. I really like some of the edits you have made. And my intention is not to vandalise the list. I do not think my edits were arbitrary. --Hemanshu 18:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Temporary Heading Title[edit]

Well, you say

Hello. I was surprised to see that my edits were being considered as vandalism by you. I am sorry that I did not read your long comment on my talk page.

and

I admire your dedication to the list. I really like some of the edits you have made. And my intention is not to vandalise the list.

Which are polite things to say, at least, and which i appreciate as far as they go. I hope i don't need, after all my previous communications to you, to reiterate that i seek a good working relationship with you, and wish you no ill. In that vein, i'm not going to dive back into technical discussion yet.

In fact, i imagine that User:Ardonik said some things to you, explicitly or implicitly, about the need to do maintenance on intra-WP relationships. In any case, that is certainly something i believe in, and a need that i think is current in our case.

I'm not sure whether i've ever sat down and read the running text of User:Hemanshu (which i should make a point to do soon), but wherever it came from, i have a clear association in my mind between you and Mumbai; i presume you have lived there, or within its orbit. I think you are the second person i've met and known to be from the area (tho the other never mentioned its local name, i think). My Indian geography is rudimentary, but i'm pretty confident in picturing it on the west coast. I would say south, rather than north, but with little confidence, and with enough vagueness that i probably shouldn't even try to guess between an Indo-European or a Dradvidic language. (For some reason, or for that matter perhaps no reason, i picture Goa (recently portrayed, briefly and for me delightfully, in American film) as within hundreds of miles of Mumbai, perhaps in what IIRC could be called a Canton/Hong-Kong relationship.) Am i right in guessing that Tamil is pretty well restricted to Tamil Nadu and thus the southeast coast? Even if so, is it reasonable to expect any mutual intelligibility between Madras and Mumbai without resorting to Hindi?

That train of thought is occasioned, really, by thinking whether Mumbai's environs are still forested significantly, and whether the climate is warm enough for wild elephants, which i'm sure you're aware are a prominent element of the Western imagination of India.

And even if you were in Norway, i'd be thinking about what's called "the elephant in the living room". Even if you haven't heard that expression before, i'm sure you won't need more help understanding it than, at most, my saying that no one in the living room has mentioned its presence. However, i am going to mention the elephant: Wow, 6 hours. One 35-minute break (less than an hour and a half along; you probably didn't know how long it was going to take), and maybe a couple of 8 minute breaks. This really mattered to you.

I'm not suggesting that why it mattered is any of my business unless you want to make it such, but i'm convinced that we'd be ignoring the elephant if something weren't said about it.

I suggest for mutual convenience we continue this discussion on this page (or move it as a whole to my talk, if you preferred). As long as it stays here, i'll monitor its activity, and not need notification of additions. (Not being notified on my talk page is more convenient for me (ask if interested), but don't hesitate to do so if it feels urgent or my pattern of contribs makes it appear that i'm forgetting to check.)
Collegially, Jerzy(t) 15:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Responding to Your Month's Silence, and to Your Further Misbehavior[edit]

I'm disappointed that you have again not seen fit to reply to me. As i tried to suggest, the order of business between us is not more or fewer headings on LoPbN pages. (That is, by the way, a matter of almost no significance. It has a right and a wrong answer, and i am satisfied that your stubbornness and aggressiveness is dedicated to a wrong one. But in itself, it is a question unworthy of even the effort that you and i have already expended in its context.) Rather, what our interaction has to be about, if we aren't stupid, is the process of resolving disagreements about what is good for WP. And the elephant in the living room that i've already mentioned is only one of several, all having to do with your misbehavior in the recent disagreement.

If you fail

  • to state that specific behaviors of yours were wrong, and what made them wrong,
  • to acknowledge your obligation to behave differently in the future, and
  • in some form to convict yourself by your own words if you were to behave similarly in the future,

then saying without elaboration that you're "sorry" about one specific omission is not merely worthless but in fact thumbs your nose at WP: you might only be sorry that (in your eyes) it alone led to Ardonik and i distracting you from something else. "Sorry won't cut it": if you think you did nothing wrong, say so and your colleagues will make a decision about it; if you did something wrong, get to work making things right.

In that light, you'll understand that i don't intend to respond directly to the technical assertions you put on my talk, until there is adequate evidence you are prepared to make technical discussions a fruitful activity. For me, the relevant principle is "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." In contrast, RTFM is important advice to you, who

  • nearly a year ago bollixed the splitting of an LoPbN page (that was not even particularly in need of splitting), and
  • ignored my and Angela's urgings to discuss what is involved.

(In fact a functioning colleague in your position would have been monitoring Talk:List of people by name all month, and would have sent me something light and clever like "... but i've got another great idea that'll be really popular! [smile]".)

You show little insight on the issues that affect this complex information structure, which is not surprising in light of your experience with it:

  • adding names but not, that i've ever noticed, correcting alphabetization problems as i constantly do (and having your attention drawn to where people go wrong);
  • coming up with one good human-interface idea (tho an ultimately impractical one with our current software), but implementing it in a mechanical way that would distract you from opportunities to feel how structure affects users;
  • never, ever, even once participating in the discussions on Talk:LoPbN;
  • never communicating with me about LoPbN, in three distinct periods concerning three separate areas, despite many messages from me on your talk, until after your silence turned into evidence of your being a problem user.

In fact (and i hope you see this as a charitable construction of your silence -- construing it as other than sullen -- and that you don't see it simply as twisting the knife about your novice status re LoPbN), i could easily see your earlier non-communication about LoPbN as simply not really having anything to say, if this recent behavior didn't invite seeing it all in a darker perspective.

Your desire to improve the headings is of course laudable, but your overassertive and recalcitrant behavior, especially when your stepping up your level of LoPbN involvement was the context, was a mistake, and a serious one if not corrected. Your acting on your further LoPbN-structure ideas -- even good ones -- without fixing that mistake would merely compound the trouble you've made, so if you won't fix it, you should avail yourself of some other areas of endeavor among the many WP has to offer, instead of letting LoPbN be your gumption trap. I'm not so foolish to imagine there's any dividend in counter-reverting, or complaining further about, the pinprick reversions you've done between finishing your 6-hour orgy of heading destruction and your bout of it today. Nevertheless, your continuing in that project is nothing but

  • a waste of everyone's time, and
  • a prospect of your wearing out your welcome.

But it's sad that you've landed in the position where i'd be foolish to wink at your recent behavior and not speak such unpleasant truths. You can fix the situation, and another good reason for my ignoring the pinpricks was the hope that you'd get around to that. I don't think there's any reason not to expect you to become a good colleague again, and there's plenty of work on LoPbN to direct your obvious energy to. I do look forward hopefully to that.
--Jerzy(t) 04:40, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

09:23, 16 Sep 2004 Ambi deleted "Zee Network" (content was: 'The Zee Network is a network of satellite channels.{{stub}}')

I disagree with your deletion of Zee Network. It was an unwarranted and hasty decision (made within a minute of my creation of the article). Please avoid doing so in future. --Hemanshu 09:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've already made your opinions well and truly clear on IRC. Don't create speedy deletion candidates, and they won't be deleted. In addition, don't spam my talk page, as there was no reason to restate here what you'd already said thirty times on IRC. Ambi 09:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup[edit]

Hiya.. just wondering what the intent of this edit to Template:Cleanup was.. because it messed up the table of contents of any article with multiple sections that had a "cleanup" tag on it, and I honestly can't see what you were trying to do. —Stormie 23:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Indian company articles copyvio'ed[edit]

This guy decided it would be fun to put a ton of copyvioed stuff in articles on Indian companies. I noticed you had created a few of them, so I figured I'd let you know. CryptoDerk 23:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems: Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. See Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion. --Hemanshu 06:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mumbai suburbs & Stations and India Cities[edit]

Something you might want to comment on :

If you can interest other people also ... Alren 15:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

mahishasura[edit]

I doubt all the green skin thingy and the form of a giant buffalo is cooked up in the TV serials. take a look at the photo of the statue. All the durga, chamundeshwari temples in southern India have this mahishasura statue as far as I've known. --Hpnadig 11:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome Template[edit]

Hey - thanks for undoing my edit :-) I thought I was only editing the message on my own talk page. Didn't realise I was changing the entire template! Adambisset 13:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Please follow existing conventions for archiving talk pages. Archiving each section on a different page makes browsing difficult. --Jiang 00:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you planning to respond to me or are you just going to do whatever with total disregard of community conventions? If I am in the wrong, I would like to know why and I think you would be able to explain to me. Just reverting is not the way to do things. --Jiang 11:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As a courtesy to me and other readers, could you both please stop reverting each other's changes before having discussed them and/or given others a chance to reach consensus? Discussion and consensus here meaning that there's a decision about what should be done before it's actually done. Talk it out before you revert. Regardless of who's "right" or "wrong" according to policy or personal opinion. Please. JRM 12:30, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

It is the established convention that discussions be archived in whole. Please explain otherwise. By separating different discussions into different pages, users must visit these different pages to read everything instead of just scrolling. If it fits on one page, there's no need to separate it. Two of those discussions are related anyways. That's why we have section headers. --Jiang 12:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you moving stuff of the page while the discussion is still in process? Talk:2004/F*** Politics is a discussion still in process. Why make users make an extra click just to follow the discussion? If you want to change the community convention, then please propose to do so. --Jiang 12:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where has this been done before? Please show me a couple examples. We also run into the problem of watchlisting. Who has Talk:2004/F*** Politics on their watchlist? This just makes discussions difficult to monitor.

I would also like to know why you want to separate archive 1 and archive 2 when both would fit on the same page without going over the limit. --Jiang 19:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please look at List of people by name: Bro#=Brown, Joe=.[edit]

Please look at List of people by name: Bro#=Brown, Joe=.