I revised the article on Top Station to reflect the logical conclusion that if there is a Munnar-Kodaikanal road (a debatable supposition), and Kodaikanal has an altitude in excess of 1700 meters, then the highest point of the Munnar-Kodaikanal road cannot possibly be 1700meters (Top Station), or, the Munnar-Kodaikanal road does not go to Kodaikanal (easily in excess of 2000meters, which would be higher than Top Station is, and thus any road there, including the Munnar- Kodaikanal Road, would also be at a higher point there than at Top Station).
In the interest of accuracy, please change the article (or similar) back to the version I had created previously (with a minimum of editing), irregardless of the (errant) claims of the Kerala Tourist Board web site (never minding that Top Station is actually in Tamilnadu).
I invite you to make the "highest roadway" claim for the Munnar-Kodaikanal Road (if such a road technically exists anymore -- my understanding is it is so deteriorated that even a lorry cannot traverse some parts of it) for the place where it was once the highest, on the eastern shoulder of Vanderavu Peak (roadway at approx. 2450meters), some kilometers (10km?) East of Top Station on the former Munnar - Kodaikanal Road.
BTW, this was previously known as the Kodaikanal - Cochin road, with mile markers (posts) reflecting that relationship (per Tim H. whom you know).
I don't think the format is right. Sispara needs to be disambiguated.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Sispara needs to be disambiguated and split into separate articles for Sispara peak, Sispara hut, etc. I may perform this disambiguation myself, but if I do, then some of the sections may be way less than 5K long and therefore ineligible for a DYK. So, I leave this to you-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wow! thank you Marcus, thats an incredible find. ive contacted the author and i hope to meet with him for a closer look --PlaneMad|YakYak 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you know already, but there is a project for the Cape and Islands. You are invited to join. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marcus, Just dropping by to let you know that BNHS has released a DVD with the content of 100 years of its journals. I should be getting a copy soon and perhaps you might be available to buy a copy from BNHS as well, priced at just Rs 1000. Shyamal (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Marcus,
If I have understood correctly, it was you who posted the CITES logo on the CITES page. However, I should tell you that the logo posted there is not the official CITES logo, although it incorporates the official logo. The one that has been posted is an adapted version that was created for the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, held in Thailand in 2004.
Cheers,
Barzdo —Preceding unsigned comment added byBarzdo (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, nice to see you adding all that good stuff to this piece. I wrote the article on his father, and have added quite a bit to the Prinsep surname page and was intending to get to James. Nice work you're doing. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but I had looked at Peacocke when it was initially posted as a DYK and loved the gallery of images. Lovely. Also enjoyed looking at Hamilton just now. Have you run across the user Fowler & Fowler on here? He's a most helpful fellow (chap, I suppose they'd call it), and very knowledgeable about India, in case you ever need someone. (I've bounced a few things off him about the East India Company and other Anglo ventures.) Here's one of mine you might enjoy: Sidney Kilner Levett-Yeats, who was a middling Anglo-Indian writer. That's a funny T-shirt your daughter's friend had. I won't hold it against her that she went to Andover, as a bunch of my family came from there. :-) Take care and best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that's a nice shot of your boat there in Hyannis. My family's from Hingham, not far from you there.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find Fowler & Fowler to be most helpful. He's given me a couple of good steers in the past. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just noticed your interest in the Curzon family on your page. This may interest you as well: Thomas Levett-Prinsep (the reason I became first interested in the Prinsep family). Cheers,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to the British Army lists, which from time to time also include Indian Army lists. There certainly seemed only to be one Douglas Hamilton, but last time I tried looking I hadn't noted down the dates properly. I'll try to have another look. David Underdown (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the title "Protected areas in Tamil Nadu" is more appropriate in this case. The standard naming convention for articles about protected areas in a given region is "Protected areas in x"; there is no reason for this particular article to vary from this practice. Most of the sources for the article also employ the construction "Protected areas in" rather than "Protected areas of". As for the suggestion to change the terminology on the pages which link to Protected areas in Tamil Nadu, this is not required, as is stated inthis guideline. If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me.
I share your desire to make Wikipedia consistent, but I disagree that "Protected areas of x" is the standard; it is employed in the category names, not the article titles. I don't believe that the article titles and the category names need to be aligned in this way, but if you disagree, I would recommend changing the category names before changing the article titles. If you would like to pursue this topic futher, I recommend starting a discussion onWikipedia:Requested moves.
I am not debating the general prevalence of the word "of" as compared to "in". I do not see there being any conflict between one article called History of India and another called Poverty in India; these aren't the same topic, and there is no need for the preposition to be the same. There are plenty of articles about India-related topics with titles ending in "in Inda" (Islam in India, Public holidays in India, Transport in India, etc.). That's not the point. All the articles about protected areas in a particular region should be consistent in their titles. I freely accept "Protected areas of India" as a valid title, but if we are to change it to that, we need to change all the rest. I don't even mind doing that, but I don't want to move all those articles and then have someone complain that "in" was more correct. If you feel strongly that the articles should be moved to "Protected areas of x" rather than "Protected areas in x", please start a discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves as I suggested. Then we can make sure there is a concensus to move, and we can make the switch.
This type of title standardization is one of my primary contributions to Wikipedia; in the majority of cases, no one has any concerns about the moves. To begin a discussion every time would take up far more time than reverting the moves in the few cases it is deemed necessary. That being said, I believe the titles following the naming convention "Protected areas in x" are fine as they are. I am quite content to leave them all alone. Contributing to Wikipedia is voluntary; it is not incumbent upon me to do anything, particularly to suggest a move that I don't feel is helpful to the project. If you would like to do so, feel free. I will help make the switch if the discussion results in a concensus to move.
Dear Marcus,
It is quite some months since we exchanged messages. Like you, I have also been busy posting DYKs. Please have a look at my four artcile Hook titled Phumdi, Loktak Lake, Eld's Deer and Keibul Lamjao National Park, posted on 6th. Today, I posted an article on Rajasaurus but it has attracted a tag. Can you help me with the copy-editing of this article? It is on DYK. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Your subpage User:Marcus334/Sandbox is showing in at least one article namespace category. Can you edit it to hide it from from the article namespace? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting(talk) - 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominatedKodaikanal Golf Club, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodaikanal Golf Club. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominatedKodaikanal Golf Club, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodaikanal Golf Club. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On October 12, 2009, Did you know?was updated with a fact from the article Kodaikanal–Munnar Road, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page(here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The image of the python you submitted at PPR is improperly formated as to not allow other editors to edit in the comments section. This defeats the purpose of PPR. Please fix this. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that any contact information found in any Wikipedia article is summarily removed. Wikipedia should not be used for advertizing purposes, even when the organization is non-profit. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the story of rocks and sand[1]; you need to start with big items. While you included a list of individual persons that don't meet WP:N in this article, many sections, even something so basic as "Land" don't even contain a single word! That wasn't what I expected when I praised your wide range of contributions on Sandstein's talk page. Please work on the big issues first. There is no need to rush, because you can keep the details in your userspace until they fit into the article. — Sebastian 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we've often been on opposite sides of this debate, I just wanted to say that I think your latest changes toEnvironment of India is very good and a much better way to present the information on Wikipedia.Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Kodaikanal - Munnar Road at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --LAAFansignreview 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)