User talk:Papa November/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Hi.Need some graphics help

Resolved

– Finished! - Papa November (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I remember you did a good job a while back on one of my FA's (Western Chalukya architecture) with some of my images, like removing data stamps and some graphics work to improve the quality of the image. I have some more images in a FA which needs similar work. Do you have the time?. I promise to "unclick" the 'date option' when I take photographs in the future. The images are currently in Western Chalukya Empire. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will let you know tonight. I was wondering about the BOT message in the

image file which goes like this Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this image should not be considered reliable and the image should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Why is this information being put there. Will that message go away soon?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, I have been using my scanner, which I purchased recently, to crop the date stamp out of many images. But on occassion, I come across some images which are hard to crop without loosing vital image content. Here is where I need some graphics expertise. Here is a list of articles where you will find some images which I photographed which have the date stamp on it. So, as and when you find time, please erase the watermark and feel free to play with the image quality if you feel it needs some work. BTW, I will be visiting some fabulous 6th-8th century monuments in Karnataka, India in July. This time I will make sure I "off" the date option on my camera. Also, I believe a page in wiki commons called "Category:Temples of Karnataka" exists. Please load these images there after you finish working on them. So also the ones you have already worked upon.

Thanks for your contribution. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Finished finally! All images in the articles have been fixed for obvious errors. Gallery images have been moved to commons, but not necessarily fixed. Let me know if any of them are to be used on Wikipedia, and I can fix them too. Papa November (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo

Some of your rewriting is leaving it too bald altogether. The business about the lyre and being sent to Milan has retained only its barest fact,, Milan, peace, letter, lyre. They are now in the wrong order. Vasari's record of the lyre is of singular importance because it indicates that Leonardo was a skilled musician and musical instrument maker. Leonardo was sent to carry this extraordinary and valuable gift to Ludovico. To say that he made a lyre and took it with him loses any sense of this. Please put it back.

As for the horses. There were only two large bronze horses of the Renaissance, and they are both so very important, that they need to be mentioned. It isn't sufficient to say that his horse was larger than the two horses of the Rennaissance, because the context is lost. One was by his teacher, and the other by his teacher's teacher.

Meanwhile, even though we have an article dedicated to Leonardo's personal life, Haiduc, who continually pushes Pederasty as a topic, is at work on the main article (again). There is no evidence whatsoever that Leonardo was a pedarest, although after his death a 16th century novelist wrote an imagined interview in which Leonardo said that he fancied 15 yr olds. It seems to me that if one gives an inch on this, we will hhave an article as it was, before I began work on it- numerous pages speculating on his sexuallity and next-to nothing on his art. Amandajm (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Jo0doe

I have replied at User talk:Faustian

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've left a modified version of this message for User:Alex Bakharev but I hope someone will do something about this problem.

I admit to sinking to Jo0doe's level of insults by being rude (calling him a liar, calling out his dishonesty) after weeks of provocations, although at least everything I have said about him (although uncivil) has been true and I backed it all up with evidence. And it was done in reaction to his unpunished abuse by repeatedly referring to my edits as "hoaxes" - in other words, calling me a liar [1]. Now he's descended into libelling me as a "holocaust denier." Please see [2]:

So, actually, you attempt to put other editor in misconception and challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution facts at IMT tribunal. So you claim what you unable to find words “organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews? and all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”. Or you suppose what such facts related to TWO DIFFERENT events? Actually it’s clear attempts of Holocaust denier- because facts about “objectives” and “all Jews be killed” were included in charge of both Nazi criminals.

(I bolded the text)

After which among numerous examples he refers to me as "...an editor which challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution at IMT tribunalJo0doe (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)" throughout the talk pages.

Recently, he has been adding unconstructive or nasty comments to my attempts to engage other editors in discussing the suitability of sources, as in here: [3] wherehe added, in references to the book's authors, "age of “researchers” 31, 26, 27 and origin – all as one from Lemberg reflect the questionability as for reliability as for NPOV of authors. "Scientific worker" – copy machine operator? @Center for Research on the Liberation Movement@ was appeared 1,6 years ago – so post “director” does not mean anything while roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history reflect the quality of Ukrainian education ". Basically, Jo0doe seems to be going out of his way to poison the atmosphere of that page.

Jo0doe has already been warned multiple times such as here: [4] and has brushed off those warnings. Looking at his editing history, it basically just consists of arguments with other editors [5] on two topics. I have enjoyed editing collaboratively with various editors, even when we have disagreed vehemently (as in the case of User:Kuban kazak or User:Irpen at times) and have been recognized for my efforts: [6], so I do not think the problem is me. Indeed, I held back for a long time before complaining about Jo0doe. But there are limits even to my patience.

Jo0doe has already disregarded warnings. Yet he has escalated his abusiveness. How long will he be allowed to continue this behavior?Faustian (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on copyright status

There's many pictures of someone like Dzokhar Dudayev on Jihadi websites, pictures taken by his colleagues and just released somewhere years ago. What's the copyright status of such images? - PietervHuis (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The copyright is held by the photographer. However, there may be something special in US law about material owned by a group it classes as terrorists. I'll have a look, and get back to you later. Papa November (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That won't help because they're not classed as terrorists by the US. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably non-free then unfortunately. If you can point me to a specific example, I can comment on it if you like. Papa November (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

www.kavkaz.tv they never try to protect their material with copyright as far as I know. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is non-free. There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page at http://www.kavkaz.tv/eng/. Regardless, unless there is an explicit declaration that material may be used under a free license, then we can't host it on Wikimedia servers. There's still a chance that some specific images on the site may be free, but generally speaking, images are only free if they are either very old, or have a notice next to them stating that they are freely licensed. Papa November (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo

About the concerns that you mentioned re the length of the article.

Vasari remains the chief source of information. The stories that I have quoted (the peasants plaque, the horse head lyre, the contribution to Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ, Michelangelo's insult, and Leonardo's death in the arms of the king of France) are the only narratives that we have about him. They cannot reasonably be left out of his biography.
The two horses that preceeded Leonardo's are of huge importance in the history of art. They must be mentioned, to give his work a context.
The section on the city of Florence and its political and artistic situation at the time of Leonardo's apprenticeship was requested of me by other editors, who saw it as being necessary for an understanding of where Leonardo fitted in.
Leonardo was primarily a painter. Nowadays, many people think he is most famous for inventing flying machhines. Not so. He was first and foremost a painter. The section that deals with his artistic development is essential to the main article because this is the reason for his 500 years of fame.

My solution to the problem of length is to remove the entire section pertaining to his scientific works, and incorporate any material that does not already appear in the other. (I think I did this when I wrote the article in the first place). While we have so very few direct quotations about Leonardo's life, we have a huge number about his ideas, and I incorporated quite a few. I think that the article needs renaming to Leonardo da Vinci as scientist and inventor.

I disagree with you about removing the list of articles about Leonardo from the See also. I think that a list of the other articles is valuable, regardless of the fact that they are all mentioned in the text. It alllows the student to find exactly which article may be of use to them, without having to search. It makes things easier for kids. (Almost every school kid does research on Leonardo at some time.)

PiCo has suggested that an article is written about Leonardo's notebooks. I agree that this would be valuable. I also think that an article about Leonardo's architectural plans would be in order. I'm prepared to write a stub about the notebooks but would like someone else to take it on, as it could become a major task and I'm rather busy. I don't mind writing briefly about the architecture/civil engineering.

Amandajm (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Papa November!

I've changed my mind about the Science. I think I will carve off the history of Leonardo's paintings, because:

it is long and will make a stand-alone article.
many of the important works are mentioned in the biographical text already, and I can include a few more references to them
I'll leave a single paragraph, like the ones about science.

Amandajm (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chechen People

Did you see this? All of my POV tags removed, no questions answered on the discussion page, no consensus thought. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to settle things down again! Papa November (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop KK reverting my talk page edits. I'd also appreciate it if you removed the barnstar from the banned National Bolshevik troll from your user page. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, if you're looking for that user's latest block evasion then this [7] seems to fit the bill. --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's try not to have a revert war on the talk page too! I agree that it's probably user:M.V.E.i again, and I've blocked the IP for a week. Papa November (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Resolved

– Images moved to Commons Papa November (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just got back after an exciting trip to India. I see that you have uploaded many of my images to commons. Thanks for your effort. I have come back with many images from a UNESCO world heritage site (this time without the water mark!!) and will slowly upload as I go along writing articles. When I feel I have uploaded a significant number, I will again request you to polish it a bit if necessary and move to commons.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. Did you know that you can directly upload your images to Commons? It would save quite a lot of work later. Your wikipedia account will also allow you access to Commons. Papa November (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this require a lot a work or just a push button?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just go to http://commons.wikimedia.org and login then upload them just the same as you would at Wikipedia. (Use your Wikipedia login details). If you upload the images there instead of here, they're available to all the wikimedia projects and it saves someone else from having to copy them across later. Papa November (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I created an account on wiki commons with my en:wiki details (password/usrname). Then uploaded this image. Please see if I got this correct.

Door jamb and lintel decoration1 at Kasivisvesvara temple in Lakkundi.jpg
Kasivisvesvara temple at Lakkundi.jpg

I guess my user name comes up "red" because I have not created a user page for myself and the name of the empire and king also is in red because those articles dont exist in commons.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both of those worked fine. Well done! :) You're right - your name shows up red because you don't have a user page on Commons yet, and the same applies for the redlinked articles. On Commons, you can provide a link to a wikipedia article by writing "w:" in front of it. i.e. [[w:article name]] Papa November (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I opened a commons account, I had uploaded some 15 images to en:wiki, in the last 2 weeks. How do I move it to wiki commons, cat:Temples of Karnataka? Also, I noticed there is an overlapping category called "Hindu temples of Karnataka". Should'nt these two be merged?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving images from here to Commons is a bit more tricky. If you add {{tocommons}} to the top of the image, it'll put a tag at the top with instructions. After that, an admin will delete the copy from here... alternatively, you could just give me a list of files and I'll do the copying and the admin stuff for you in one go (as long as it's not hundreds!)

Thanks. Here is the list. Take your time. There is no hurry. From here onwords, its strictly wiki-commons when I upload, and I have perhaps a 100 more to upload.

Image:Kasivisvanatha temple at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Jain Narayana temple at Pattadakal.JPG
Image:6th century Kannada inscription in cave temple number 3 at Badami.jpg
Image:8th century Kannada inscription on victory pillar at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Kappe Arabhatta inscription at Badami.JPG
Image:Aihole inscription of Ravi Kirti.jpg
Image:Yellamma temple at Badami.jpg
Image:Bhutanatha temple complex in Badami.jpg
Image:Mallikarjuna and Kasivisvanatha temples at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Papanatha temple at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Mallikarjuna group of temples at Badami.jpg
Image:Golden temple at Khushalnagar in Karnataka.jpg
Image:Jain Narayana temple1 at Pattadakal.jpg
Image:Vishnu image inside cave number 3 in Badami.jpg
Image:Cave temple number 3 at Badami.jpg
Image:Mahakuta group of temples at Mahakuta.jpg
Image:Mahakuta group of temples1 at Mahakuta.jpg
Image:Mahakuta group of temples2 at Mahakuta.jpg
Image:Mahakuta group of temples3 at Mahakuta.jpg

As for the two categories, are there any non-Hindu temples listed there? (Buddhist/ Jain etc...) if so, it might be best to keep a general category called "Temples of Karnataka" and then sub-divide it into "Hindu temples in Karnataka", "Jain temples in Karnataka" etc... Papa November (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, religious places used by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains are classified as temples (in Sanskrit/local language, Buddhist Chaitya and Jain Basadi). The word Pagoda is rare from the Karnataka point of view. The number of Jain temples are quite small compared to Hindu temples and the number of Buddhist temples are even smaller. The description should perhaps take care of that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this earlier but overlooked it. After having read several books and visited several monuments in Karnataka, I have learnt that it was very common for a temple to change hands based on socio-religious developments in medieval times, from one religious faith to the next (Indic faith-Vaishnava, Jaina and Shaiva) with minimal alteration to the outside of the monument. I just wrote an article Bhutanatha group of temples which is a good example. In such cases, temples normally go by their current faith affiliation, where as the sculptural articulation could tell a different story. This is why I felt its better not to have sub-classifications such as Jain temples in Karnataka, Hindu temples in Karnataka etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous Locations

Resolved

– Account blocked, user created personal account instead - Papa November (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FamousLocations.com (talk · contribs) created Flocations (talk · contribs). I've asked him to create a personal handle since his name appears to be David. There's ongoing discussion at WT:FILM about his website, FYI. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user is requesting unblock

Resolved

– Auto unblock in a couple of minutes. No need for admin action. Papa November (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Yeago. I'm not big on lifting 24-hour 3RR blocks myself, but if you are so inclined, you can do so. This editor is proposing that his adversary in the revert war, CENSEI, be unblocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Leo etc

My comment was meant in a a general way. It can be extremely difficult to word information in a way that doesn't introduce errors. Sometimes simplifying a sentence can do that. The matter of peace between Milan and Florence is a classic example. There is another one, further down. It says something like "It was for the French King that Leonardo created the lion." .... It would be much simpler to say "The King commissioned Leonardo to make the lion". But the facts of the commission have been lost.

I have had this problem a number of times with publications of different sorts, where well-intentioned editors think that they can get closer to the facts by abbrieviating the expression. I once had a relatively short document go to press and distribution under my name with about twenty such errors in it, many of them factual. It was a humiliating experience, and I have become very cautious.

I don't particularly care whether articles that I write are raised to FA status or not. The whole business is unpleasant and nit-picking. I am much more interested in making important articles meet my own standard of accuracy. It is not hard to have a string of FAs under your belt if what you write are monographs. I quite often get invited to take a look at people's monographs, before they go for FA. But what I am really interested in is getting the generic articles and the giants of the Renaissance up to a suitable standard.

The sort of thing that you are doing really bugs me. I don't want to have to defend the Leonardo article from a well-intentioned editor who introduces error in the interests of brevity. At exactly the same time, there are two (or possibly only one) editors who are trying to edit out homosexual references in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, and a third editor who has read it in iits recently chopped state and insists that the two articles are mmost definitely going to be merged. That will lenngthen the present main article considerably.

I personally consider that the inclusion of a section on the artworks of "the greatest painter who ever lived" is of greater significance than a lengthy dissertation on whether his mother really was an Arabian slave, the effect of his lefthandedness, and whether or not he like his chicken on the plate or in his bed. That is the stuff that is about to be reintroduced.

From the time that it happens, there will be an ongoing squabble over the references to homosexuality/pederasty. The row will be endless and bitter, probably with more and more references being added to support the case, until the entire article is a dissertaion on Leonardo's sexuality, about which we in fact know only a little more than nothing at all. This is what happened at the FA page on James I of England. I reorganised that article a couple of years back and started a new page for the lengthy speculations about his private life which threatened to swamp his political career entirely, and was making a lot of people very angry.

What one wants is articles that are balanced and that are stable. You don't want an article in which wedges of stuff are inserted or removed every other day, because people are pushing their own barrow. If the barrow happens to be pederasty, then you have a very unstable article. I had managed to get the Leonardo article to a state in which it was relatively stable. You could tip that balance very easily, and I don't want to see that happen. If the article is deemed "too long" because it has a section that describes his development as a painter, then it is hardly problematic. If that sections is removed, and the article is no longer "too long", then you can count on the fact that the discussion of the paintings will simply give way to a section in which presents every possible reference to or speculation about his supposed erotic love of teenage boys. That is exactly what my discussion of his painting replaced, when I began editing the article. Please do not continue to push me into removing that information again.

I have another agenda, which I will be perfectly frank about. Every English-speaking schoolchild on the planet who has access to a computer will refer to this article, sooner or later, as part of their homework. I would rather that the references to Leonardo's (speculated) sexuality within the article were written in terms that are clear but not offensive to an adult, but can be glossed over by the likes of my young grandchildren. In other words, "Leonardo was accused of sodomy" means little to the average 9 yr old. "It has been speculated that Leonardo's relationship with Melzi was homoerotic in nature" is also not offensive. But I would prefer to keep the purely fictional 16th century quotation about Leonardo taking boys from behind and fancying them at the age of 15 right out of that particular article. Likewise the drawing of a bottom (presumed to be Salai's) being chased by penises on legs. (The drawing is generally considered to be by a student's hand).

If you would like to do something really useful, then you could get over to the other page, and put forward a case for keeping the articles separate. Particularly since you are the person who is now urging for brevity.

Meanwhile, as the major contributor of major Eoropean architectural articles (Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Renaissance architecture, Architecture of the Medieval Cathedrals of England, Stained Glass etc as well as Italian Renaissance painting) I have my own wikipedia work schedule. I commenced work on English Gothic architecture and have never completed it. The article History of architecture is a shermozzle and has needed a total rewrite for several years. It is the one that really demands my attention and I feel slack for not fixing it. I also want to work through the entire series of Medieval Cathedrals in England and bring every one of those articles up to scratch. So far, I have only done two of the lesser ones, Chester and Bristol. Canterbury Cathedral poses a big challenge.

For this reason, trying to keep the Leonardo articles stable constitutes waste of work time. I could have spent the same number of words that I have spent explaining this to you in a way that was much more profitable to wikipedia. Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki commons images

Hi. Thanks for transferring so many of my images to wiki commons. I noticed that a page in commons called "Temples of Karnataka" was created to accomodate many images which is a good thing. In addition, there are other commons pages like Belur and Tripurantaka Temple whose image galleries are perhaps not available on the commons page "Temples of Karnataka". Is there a way to link them all together since these temples towns are all in Karnataka state itself.? In other words, if I created a page for a temple town and included a image gallery in en:wiki for it, you normally create a wiki commons page for that gallery. Can the gallery be accessable to the commons page "Temples of Karnataka" also? The reason I ask is I will creating several pages in the next 3-6 months on Temple towns and would really like to see everything consolidated in one place. Thanks for all your efforts.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Amruthapura

Slight mess up here. Because the page mostly described the temple and not the town, I moved the article to Amrutesvara temple, Amruthapura. However, the move did not work out well for the wiki commons link you had in there. Please rectify the commons link when you have time. Sorry for the bother.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Done

User Accountforwp

Thank you for blocking this user. I am wondering if you could revert his edits to the previous version. I have already reverted two times, which prevents me now from restoring the original article. Thanks again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

No problem. The reversion has already been done by another editor! Papa November (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed it. It must have been done will writing to you. Thanks again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Sorry if I appeal to you again. I am not quite that familiar with Wikipedia and what to do. Both me and user 3vil-Lyn‎ just received a harrasement from User:123pure456 because of the 3RR blocking of Accountforwp [8]. This message was also published on our talk pages. The account for user 123pure456 has been created just for this purpose. So I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of Accountforwp. But I have no idea how to report this on Wikipedia. Any help appreciated. I'd also appreciate if you can give an advise if the edit can/shouild be reverted. Thank you. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Papa November, I have already informed Jamesbeat and 3vil-Lyn that what they did to newbie Accountforwp was not so nice and that they should stop doing this to newbies. I agreed with Accountforwp that a George Duroy Section in Bel Ami is relevant. George Duroy is the founder of the brand and is also already mentioned in the introduction paragraph. The link to the EU Trademark office is a reliable one. I have informed Jamesbeat and 3vil-Lyn that if they remove the George Duroy section I will report them immediately to you and ask for a life ban ( you could start with a week :-) Kind regards from Dallas --123pure456 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And NO I'm not a sockpuppet of Accountforwp, just happen to agree with him/her on the George Duroy section. --123pure456 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jamesbeat, please go to WP:SSP if you suspect a user of sockpuppetry. 123pure456, as I stated below, I will only issue blocks if someone actually breaks the rules! Papa November (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (Jamesbeat (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Account Themfromspace block request

Resolved

– Request declined Papa November (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please block the account themfromspace, he/she has deleted the George Duroy section at the Bel Ami page this is against the rules. Kind regards.--123pure456 (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Declined Certainly not, no rules were broken. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to revert content on a page once or twice. However, if you revert content more than three times in 24 hours, then that is cause for a block. If you disagree with someone about content, you need to seek dispute resolution. You must assume good faith, so please don't request blocks again unless someone really has broken the rules! Papa November (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the admin stated, I broke no rules in editing the article the way I did. You are operating under a single-purpose account who's sole editing record appears to be to ensure that the information in question stays on the page. Your account was created right after another account got blocked for 3RR of the same information. It is insulting to think that you seek to ban me for trying to restore neutrality to the article in stead of allowing information to be kept in that clearly shouldn't be stated as it is. I removed POV and bias as well as what I thought might have been a smear campaign against the person you so vehemently insist on adding to the article, in big bold type showcasing his name far more than his position. The consensus in the article is that the information does not belong; this has been established by editors more experienced with the operations of Wikipedia and have not only edited the article in question and the consensus will remain that until valid arguments are put forward defending the insertion of the controversial information. Themfromspace (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Galleries

Papa November, Thanks for your talk on the above subject and advice, I clearly understand Wikipedia is not image gallery. I also thank you for taking initiative to move images to Commons. Just to update the images are linked from commons you may not have to move them :-)

I have website of my own for images (trailvista.in), why do I need other repository ???

The images sections are added as just a first step to places in Karnataka, this is still work under progress and before adding relevant information. The idea was not to overwrite existing images as I am new to pedia. If you observe none of the images have highres uploads. (Also note my updates and clean up activities on content).

I am clarifying again, I am not in process of creating image gallery or repository.

Let me know if you think otherwise, you are free to revert them.

Regards Vinayak --Vinayak Kulkarni (Bangalore) (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am moving/creating galleries till the time articles are updated - thanks --Vinayak Kulkarni (Bangalore) (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is done please verify Thanks --Vinayak Kulkarni (Bangalore) (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Papa November, I find lot of image galleries let me know should it be reported for action or cleaned-up (few examples Kudalasangama Shravanabelagola Jog Falls Shivanasamudra Falls Karkala) --Vinayak Kulkarni (Bangalore) (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK Computer Criticism

You say that disagreeing with a review is not sufficient grounds for removing it. But then what the hell is? Robert Christgau's review of the album is pathetic and not to mention he has a dislike for the band.

After his review is removed, you're left with only 1 more review in the Criticism section. That review speaks about OK Computer not being as good as the Bends. That's NOT criticism.

Give me a good reason to keep the criticism section. --James599 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable grounds for removing a review could include any of the following:

Irrelevance (however, a review of the album is clearly relevant to the article)
Non-notability (however, Christgau is an extremely notable author)
Lack of verifiability (however, a reference is provided)
Undue weight (however, as stated in the policy, prominent adherents to the minority view are named and referenced, and the minority view context is made very clear)

However, your own point of view is not sufficient grounds for removing content. An adequate justification for keeping the material is as follows:

The material represents a significant viewpoint that has been published globally in reliable sources worldwide. According to official policy, all significant viewpoints must be represented proportionally. Regardless of your personal opinion, Christgau is the most famous music critic in the world, whose reviews are read by vast numbers of people. He is one of the most significant adherents to a significant viewpoint, and it is a violation of official policy to completely remove that viewpoint.

If you object to the title "Criticism", then why not merge the "Acclaim" and "Criticism" sections? Papa November (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like that idea. I made the edit just now. --James599 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Didja...

Recieve the phone call yet?

;)

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, don't worry - it's just a wikibreak! Actually, I'll be back in zombie form in a couple of days. Papa November (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)