Talk:Chandran Nair

Untitled
The reference to the book Consumptionomics is wrong as it is the publication of another person of the same name! This article needs more inline citations! Verifiability and NPOV is especially important seeing as to how the main editor for this article is the self-proclaimed spouse of the article's subject. - ryan  d  19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has more citations/references than most articles on Notable Wikipedians. Ryan-D's comment above seem a tad personal. The "self-proclaimed spouse" of the article's subject has also created articles on Goh Poh Seng, Lee Tzu Pheng, Robert Yeo & Felix Cheong, among othersIvygohnair 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the point on WP:POV is valid, since you are undoubtedly related to the subject of the article. Ryan-D is mentioning that everyone should help check and improve the article to meet a higher quality, and not saying that you are guilty of writing in such a style. -  SpL o T  // 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratings by SGpedians
I think it is fruitless to engage in further polemics regarding the subjective ratings of certain established Singaporean poets/writers. However those who stumble upon the talk pages of these poets/writers rated so poorly by the so-called "SGpedians" may wish to know that, thanks to an article which appeared in the Digital Life Section of the Singapore Straits Times, January 30, 2007, we now know that they (the latter) are a group of school children.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in Teenagers contributing to Wikipedia; in fact they probably play an important role in keeping Wikipedia alive. However we have to put things in their proper perspective: How mature and responsible are we when we are 15 or 16 years old?

And of Wikipedia, one can only sigh and say affectionately "that's the nature of the beast!".Ivygohnair 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A few comments here, since Ivy has asked if I would comment on the dispute re this and related articles. First, Ivy, I really don't think it is appropriate to mention the real-life identities of people who are editing pseudonymously (which some of them seem to be, even if not all). The fact that they have given their names to a newspaper does not mean that they should be identified here. Even if they are using their real names on Wikipedia, I don't think their individual ages or schools should be mentioned. Accordingly, I am refactoring your comment. I also don't think it helps to belittle them for being teenagers - that's rather ad hominem, don't you think? It's not the sort of thing you ought to continue doing.


 * Of course, if you're not just expressing exasperation - which would hardly be likely to win people over, as no one likes to feel they are to blame for causing others exasperation - you are entitled to ask them to reflect on whether they are showing some degree of "recentism" in their judgments. (Perhaps that point is worth reflecting on, folks, though I actually have no idea about the importance of the poets, etc., who are under debate, so it's up to the parties concerned.)


 * Ivy, it would obviously be inappropriate for you to edit this article in any contentious way, given that you do have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, you are quite entitled to offer information or put arguments (just not ad homimem ones) on the talk page. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to alter the ratings of articles relating to people with whom you are closely associated. But I definitely agree with you about one thing. Regardless of the importance of Chandran Nair in the scheme of things in Singaporean history and culture, I am puzzled as to why the article is ranked as "stub" class. In its current form, it at least looks like "start" class (and maybe more like "B" class but I think it has some way to go still, having had a good look at it). Is there an explanation, anybody, as to why the quality rating (as opposed to the importance rating) seems so harsh? Is it out of date? Is there some other explanation? I just can't see how it could, objectively, be rated only "stub" class in this form. Metamagician3000 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ivy, I should add this. Although the quality rating looks harsh when I compare it with the article in its current form, the importance rating is another issue. It is not everyone who is notable at all. If someone is ranked as of low importance for the purposes of a particular project, it does not mean that they are of no importance in the world - after all, they are important enough to have an article in Wikipedia! That's not to say that I agree with the importance ranking; I actually have no idea either way. But it's just something to keep in mind. Metamagician3000 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have changed the quality rating to 'start'. -  SpL o T  // 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chandran Nair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324180349/http://www26.brinkster.com:80/chandrannair/ to http://www26.brinkster.com/chandrannair/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)