User talk:Shyam/Archive1

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

Image:Rahul Dravid.jpg

Hello Urshyam. I saw your picture of Rahul Dravid, but I've listed it for deletion because of copyright problems. Please don't upload images from commercial websites, unless you know that they are out of copyright, or that we have permission to use them for some reason. Otherwise they will just be deleted after some bureaucracy. Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Urshyam. Basically, you can only upload images where you have the permission of the photographer or the copyright holder (photo agencies etc.). For commercial images, there is no chance of getting permission, otherwise we'd have a lot more photos of cricketers than we do have! You can also use images if they are so old that copyright doesn't apply, or sometimes under fair use laws, but those laws are very complicated and much more restricted than most people think. So really it's only very old photos, or photos you took yourself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cricket infobox

Hi. If you want to change the infobox on Indian cricket team, you need to change only the syntax on the page. You are editing the template, and thus breaking many other pages that use the template. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tendulkar - vandalism??

Hi, your edit to Sachin Tendulkar changed his ODI overs from 1100+ to 7295. Please do not make such changes which would be considered vandalism. You would be blocked from editing if you keep making such changes. --Gurubrahma 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought it to be vandalism for the reason that it still remained as overs rather than balls - am very sorry for any of the anguish and hurt I may have caused you. Please use edit summaries so that such misunderstandings are avoided. Also, the right way to type your signature is just to type ~~~~ which would produce our signatures automatically. --Gurubrahma 18:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The funny thing is that it shows as balls in the table but if you just look at the diffs, i.e. the green coloured version, it shows, ODI overs = 7295 |, which was what I saw and thought it to be vandalism. ;) --Gurubrahma 18:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Let us say that I saw balls=true and thought that it was also a part of your vandalism - how sad I act sometimes! --Gurubrahma 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi Shyam, I saw Stephen Turner's message above and I think it pretty much sums up the issues. However, you may want to read WP:IUP which is written in much simpler English than the actual GFDL license pages you were refering to. Also, it is much better to use, imo, magazine covers for fair use. I am not an expert on messages here, but you may want to check the images on Sania Mirza, both of them covers from magazines. Click on them and see the fair use rationale that I provided. hope that helps in some way, --Gurubrahma 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Shyam... concerning [[1]] I had added source info to the image, I just didn't take off the tag as I assumed I shouldn't be the one to take it off and that it required verification. If it is NOK, then delete it, if the source I added (see discussion to the image as well) is OK, then please if you could revert the change to the page and remove the source issue, I would appreciate it. -- Dwxyzq 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read your response, that you removed the link simply because it had the tag for missing source. The issue as I tried to describe already is that before you did that I had already added the source info. I just didn't remove the tag. So, more directly this time,I ask you who is supposed to remove the tag? And further, aren't you supposed to check the history before you start removing things? I added info to the image and the discussion of the image hoping to avert any of this. I did this all within 14 hours since the tag was originally set. Please explain yourself and your actions, I do not understand the process. -- Dwxyzq 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Me again. :/ Perhaps I am missing something, but I went to the section you pointed to, but it doesn't seem to apply. It is the process for speedy deletion of images with NO source information given, and NO argument for fair use. Firstly, I do not want it deleted, let alone speedily deleted. Secondly, I have given both a criteria for fair use and the source for the picture. *sigh* Do you have any other ideas of what we can do? Maybe you can you tell me who is supposed to take off the "no source" tag? Can you tell me if I can do it? If I do it, will you revert the image deletion on the page it was on? -- Dwxyzq 21:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I contacted the person that taged it. It seems to be fixed, I guess, as they told me, I should have just removed the tag and none of this would have occured. live and learn! -- Dwxyzq 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Understand that you are new to this. It seems in the future you really should look at the history to see if something has been corrected since the tag was set, as I like other users don't know the process and maybe like me, they do not remove the tag. Maybe a solution could be to add to the tag templates WHO exactly should be the one to remove them from the page. I have made that |suggestion. As well, I don't think you are supposed to remove anything until AFTER the 7 days have passed since the tag was set, it had been less than a 14 hours! Good luck to you! -- dwxyzq|T 12:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 International Cricket Season

I have just selected an article from Requested Articles and started working on them. I didn't visit those articles before. But I am trying to put the datas of matches datewise. Should it be merged?

I would prefer them to be merged, yes - so we don't get too many different types of articles running around. Data of matches datewise is what appears in International cricket in 2005-06 (the series are ordered by starting date), so I would prefer if you put the data there - that way it stays consistent. I can help you to merge it, if you like (most of it's already there or on the article for the individual tournament)
As for requested articles - there is a more expansive list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/to do (and nobody will be mad at you for creating those, hopefully!). Sam Vimes 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, all match results and the fixture lists are now up at International cricket in 2005-06. I'll make 2006 International cricket season into a redirect now. Sam Vimes 08:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Modern Cricketer

Hello Urshyam,

I saw you've started adding Infobox Modern Cricketer to some players. Can I suggest you don't do that until we've talked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket? I can see strong arguments on both sides, and a change which is not clear-cut and which is going to affect so many cricketers really needs discussion and consensus first.

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The only effect on other cricketers is that so many of them would require it.
Anyway, I suggest you raise the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, and we can all discuss it and reach a common decision.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox updating

Nice work on the updates, I've ran out of steam a bit recently --Paul 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

U-19 cricket team.

Hi Urshyam. What's going on with the U-19 cricket team articles? Are you going to expand them, at least a little? Because right now they are too small to be even stubs, and I'm afraid someone is going to delete them all if they are left as is. Herostratus 07:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Taj Featured article

Hi Urshyam Can you check the template code added to the Taj Mahal article? Might be my browser, but it looks kind of fishy...the word 'noinclude', bad link to Indian featured list. Also the "See Also" added duplicates the See Also above.

Very exciting to have this article noted as feature quality! --Nemonoman 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh??

Hi Shyam. I think that some sort of broken template was being used at the time I sent that last message. When I saw the bottom of the Taj article at the time of message, there were the following elements

  • the word noinclude
  • Some verbiage about featured article
  • Large picture of a star with one wing broken
  • An additional header called See also <<<This appeared 2 headings under the Taj's native See Also heading
  • A link under this new See also heading to India portal (if I remember right)
  • A link to Category India Featured articles. Clicking this link took you to an Edit page "Wikipedia has no article called Category India Featured articles..."

All that is currently NOT being shown on the page, so I guess somebody has changed the template.--Nemonoman 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shyam: Article History always shows CURRENT version of templates being referenced. I have no particular thought about India Portal Featured articles, except to note that at the present time, the India Portal does not contain any reference link to its featured articles. Also that the IP FA category Art, architecture, and archaeology has no similar reference point on the India Portal page --Nemonoman 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

India Featured Article

Hi Shyam,

I like the idea of inserting a WP:FA-like star on articles featured on the Indian portal, however it appears that the Indian-FA star image tends to get superimposed on the Wikipedia-FA star image, in the event that the article is both an India Portal-FA and a Wikipedia-FA (See the Mumbai page, for example). I'm using a 1024x768 machine with Internet Explorer 6. Maybe we should come up with two different templates - one for exclusively India-portal FAs and one for articles that are Wikipedia-FAs as well as India Portal-FAs. That way we can manage the formatting a little better. Also, the India Portal-FA star image is a little confusing, since it is the same as the Wikipedia FAC image - perhaps use this one: FA-star-India.png instead?

Thanks, AreJay 03:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shyam, thanks for your reply. I created the image in Adobe Photoshop. Sure, I will work on an India FAC-star image as well this weekend. Meanwhile, I will play around with your template to see how best we can place the star on the FA pages. Thanks! AreJay 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Here you go, Shyam - Cscr-India-candidate.png. Hope this helps. Regarding the India Portal FAC list...I think it's a great idea, but I don't know how practical it really is...talk it over with some other contributors/admins at the India portal and get their thoughts. Let me know what I can do to help. Thanks! AreJay 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam, yes, I kinda see Raul654's point. But that shouldn't stop you from placing a banner on the Talk page of the article stating something along this lines of "...this article appeared as the Selected Article on the India Portal for the month...". You could still use the same images I provided you. AreJay 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Shyam, sure that would be feasible. Just change the text to reflect the fact that the particlar article is not necessarily a "Featured Article", but that it is currently a "Selected Article" in the India Portal. Quite harmless, I would think. AreJay 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you might need to rename the article name from Featured to Selected Article. Also, it is not a daily featured article, since it occurs monthly. That should also be changed. Contact Raul654 and let him know that you are not trying to supersede Wikipedia's FA process, but are merely using Portal:India Today's featured article/March 2006 to list selected articles in the India Portal, as is consistant with Portal:USA and Portal:UK. But like I said, the name of the article needs to be changed. AreJay 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured content forking

I stumbled across the featured content fork pages you made tonight. This is totally unacceptable. It's basically an end-run around the established system of peer review at wp:fac, and basically amounts to an attempt to balkanize the FAC process. I've mass nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal_India_featured-content_fork Raul654 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Urshyam. If all you want is to build a queue for featuring in the India portal, let us call it by some other name like "India article in-focus" or something else. Because, featured articles are the best of our articles that are chosen after a meticulous peer review as stated by Raul above. So, pelase wait till we discuss this issue in our notice board before going for these changes. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with selected articles for now. I appreciate your energy for doing all the things that you do. But, when you're about to make major changes, it's a good idea to discuss the specific changes in our notice board. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Abt me

I'm a graduate student of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT-B. I'm a malayali hailing from Kochi. Adnat 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mtech sem2, i hope that sums it up. Adnat 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your changes to Infobox cricket series templates

You have made a lot of changes to the cricket series infobox templates. All the related articles are messed up now. You had added [[ ]] to all fields. The same could easily be achieved by entering those in the article instead. You should check "What links here" before making the changes to any templates. Please fix the infobox templates so that article infoboxes are back to normal. Here is an example. - Ganeshk (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To find all the articles linked to the template, click on "What links here" in the toolbox section in the bottom side bar on the left hand side (it is below the search box). The same featured can be used with all pages. - Ganeshk (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


One more thing, templates don't have to look good. They can be all messy. When linked from a article, they will come out pretty. After your changes, alignments, lines are all messed up on the article. You can notice that on the India pak series article. - Ganeshk (talk)
Hey...you don't have to be sorry. Your contributions are always welcome. I just wanted you to understand what went wrong. That's all. My intention was not to revert your changes. - Ganeshk (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Today's selected article on Portal:India

Hi Shyam,

Read your message...might I suggest that we stick with our current format of featuring a Selected Article of the Week? The rationale behind this is simple. We do not have enough articles that can even be classified as A-class articles, per Notice board for India-related topics/Version 1.0 assesment, let alone featured articles, per the Wikipedia FAC process. We currently only have 28 featured articles.

Now, in the case of some of our Selected Articles, such as the South India article, I can tell you as a person that was actively contributing on that article that the article has more regional jingoism than encyclopedic content. It is a very unstable article, given to fighting among editors wanting to showcase their respective state than produce a good article. I stopped editing that article because I grew frustrated at having to separate fact from fiction and jingoism from NPOV. It would fail the FAC process in a heartbeat, were it to go for a vote. Let us retain the the Selected Article of the Week format, we will have atleast 28 weeks worth of material for that already, and many more as we continue to upgrade articles to B-grade and A-grade status. What is your opinion? AreJay 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it - I replied to your message on my talk page several days ago. Raul654 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)