User talk:King Zebu/Archive

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, King Zebu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

JSR 0562 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you on science and technology in the Republic of India. Hope your time here is enjoyable. If any help is needed then feel free to contact me :) JSR 0562 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are looking for some sources for India's infrastructure my user page has a section full of online sources that I compiled which may be of some moderate help just to things started. JSR 0562

Indian Airforce

There is an ongoing peer review for this article. You are welcome to join.

Couple of things about Manual of Style —

Lead should be free of references.
An article is not a gallery. Not all images relevant images can be used in an article if it creates clutter. There is gallery section at the bottom which can be used for that purpose.

Sumanch (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Superpower

Hey, the CSE is a reliable source overall, but the article states that India will become an economic superpower. Unless the author says that economic superpower helps India become a superpower, it would be considered SYN. As a country does not need to be an economic superpower to be a superpower Deavenger (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

That's called OR, if you don't know what it is, please read about it Wikipedia:Original Research. The article says nothing about how it affects India's chance of becoming a superpower, all it says that it helps give India a stable government. While it's commonsense that stable government is needed, using the article to say that stable government = superpower is what on wikipedia is called Synthesis. The article saying that an ineffective government and poverty I just removed as it only said superpower in the title, yet he never said it once in the actual article. But even if it was, that would still be OR and SYN. As for the Energy superpower, thank you for bringing the source to my attention, I will remove it. As for sources before the economic crisis does not mean it's outdated. The economic crisis happened only a few months ago, while many of the sources were written during 2008. Those still make the sources relevant to the article, especially since they talk about more then economics. Therefore, using the article would be OR and SYN, breaking wikipedia policy, please find a reliable source and to talk about the economics, as while it's an important topic, we can't break wikipedia policy of OR and SYN. Even if it's common sense to us, it would be breaking OR and SYN. Deavenger (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anything to better the article, and not turn something like this into a potential edit war. Deavenger (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Manmohan Singh

It is pretty obvious that you have mixed up this universities:

Guess which one lists Mr. Singh as an alumni? Panjab_University,_Chandigarh#Alumni

Next guess which one spells Panjab on there own website? [1]

I re-reverted you. Greetings --Ben Ben (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addendum [2] [3]

Hi Nosedown, you gave me your answer on my talk page.[4] But for some reason I prefer to hold a discuss on one place. (As it is stated on the top of my talk page.[5])

To make it in a short way: Why did you actually revert me? [6].With an edit summary “It is pretty obvious”?

When my mouse finger once or twice or ... was faster as my brain, I had no problem to revert myself with an edit summary like “rev. myself”. I didn't hide it in a later edit, covert as minor like you did [7]. Bad style. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why Panjab University referring to Panjab University, Chandigarh is "pretty obvious". Regarding the revert, yes I reverted your edit not realizing that someone had changed the spellings of the university previously. So, in my later edit I reverted it to an earlier version and added a note to prevent any future change in spellings. And as per policy, correction of spellings is a minor edit. I still don't understand what the entire fuss is about. --Nosedown (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosedown, that's my last try, look at this [8]. On the second text block right (green) you reverted my Panjab University, Chandigarh to your Punjab University, witch is a disambiguation page that says:

Punjab University can refer to one of the following:

In India:

Panjab University, Chandigarh
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
Punjab Technical University
Punjabi University Patiala

In Pakistan:

University of the Punjab, Lahore
University of Central Punjab, Lahore

That's it, that's why I assume, you'd mixed something up. You'd reverted me to a wrong link and later corrected the link. I'm one of that people who dont' like beeing reverted for nothing. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.. seriously, something is wrong with you. It seems you cannot understand simple English or whatever.. but I have explained my edits and do not wish to waste anymore time on this silly, childish issue. And regarding your this statement I'm one of that people who dont' like beeing reverted for nothing — how old are you? --Nosedown (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to your question “how old are you?”. I'm old enough, that I could say 'sorry', if I was wrong. How old are you?--Ben Ben (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revert, yes I reverted your edit not realizing that someone had changed the spellings of the university previously

So, yes, I did mention that I made a mistake and I rectified it in my very next edit. And "sorry"?! For what? You made the same mistake. --Nosedown (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Hijacking

My apologies, I didn't have time nor the desire to list the problems. Not much of a help, I know, but perhaps it will get others more willing to help motivated in the right direction. The article is very poor and needs much work. Please do not assume that I put the template on there to show off. I was just upset at the poor quality of an article in an encyclopedia. I see you've taken them down. I'm too lazy to list all of the problems with the article. But I've a solution. Shicoco (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. The article is not lacking in the field of knowledge...it's lacking in the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that article does not look like something I expect to see in an encyclopedia. I realize that everyday people make these articles, but I do expect the articles to be as professional-looking as possible. Perhaps we both can do something about that. Shicoco (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join the WikiProject Indian Roads

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Indian Roads - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi, King Zebu, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Roads ! The WikiProject Indian Roads is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, road portal and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Roads.
\|As you have shown an interest in National Highway (India) we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Naveenpf (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the changes of the montage on the talk page and get consensus before reverting the original montage image. That montage was DISCUSSED before it was added. You can't just add random images without consensus. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new discussion on Talk:Delhi. You must address all issues within 24 hours. --Nosedown (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no opposition to the Mumbai montage. Since there is oppositon to your montage, you must discuss first before adding. Please stop being disruptive. You need to discuss major edits if there is opposition to your edits. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do NOT call me a hypocrite.

Thank you for apologizing for your hostile tone. I am currently in the process of replying to your points on the Delhi Talk page. Please do not edit war. Thanks. `Nikkul (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi montage

Just a quick reminder that you're close to the 3RR edge on reversions.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]