User talk:CarTick/Archive 8

I adn't noticed the name change  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi YM, how r u? It has been a while I had changed. just for a change. :) -- Like I  Care  13:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

 * You should have spotted Hkelkar there  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The police in Australia just can't/won't/don't do anything and anything....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * read ur post at India notice board. interesting. I am increasingly getting convinced, the issue is most likely disproportionate Indian media outburst and may not have any systemic racial element. If there are enough references from notable media and individuals about the irresponsible media reaction, i would like to add it to Times of India article. -- Like I   Care  13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * as i read more, i find it pretty hard to wrap my mind around one definitive judgement as to what really went wrong. -- Like I  Care  21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks...
Your removal of the new info and my pov tag is probably a good interim compromise. Thanks. But the article needs a lot of work to make it more factually based. I cannot devote much time to it now. Will give it more attention later tonight. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for understanding. please go ahead. -- Like I  Care  01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks:adminship?
--  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've mail ! --  Tinu  Cherian  - 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia
Removing stuff with a purpose. Will explain in talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Welding Kumar
I have nominated Welding Kumar, 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 Articles for deletion/Welding Kumar. 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. Shadowjams (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair
Hi, I notice you previous expressed an opinion on the Talk:Tony Blair page 'Regarding the war crimes accusation'. Would you consider revisiting the page as the dispute has reared its ugly head again, with the objector insisting there was never a consensus on the issue. It's at the bottom of the page. Thanks. 2writer (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Elections in Tamil Nadu
Great job with the article. Just added coalition, for the lok sabha in parenthesis, and noted that Congress didn't get a majority in 1952 state election. Tell me what you think about the changes. I guess the only think left is to create pages for each assembly, like the lok sabha pages.--Harish89 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1951 or 1952
The link for 1951 madras election, is related to 1952 madras election, since that election is referred to both 1951 and 1952, depending on the source. Since the election was planned to take place with the 1951 lok sabha, but didnt take place until 1952. It is officially known as 1951 election, even though it took place in 1952.--Harish89 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I was thinking its official because, the election commission of india has it as 1951 election, rather than 1952. So I was assuming thats the official name of the election. But most books that have referred to this election, have it as 1952 for some reason. So that's why its confusing.--Harish89 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you believe that we should go by ECI, we could change the name to 1951. I was under the impression the year represents the polling date, and many who refer to this election, refer to it as 1952. The Tamil Nadu legislative site, has the assembly from 1952-1957. Another idea for a rename could be 1951/52, but that would put it under the impression, that polling took place in 1951 in addition to 1952, which they didn't. I am not really sure, if it should be 1951 or 1952. But all the elections, from 1957-2006, have the year that polling was conducted, so I would think that with that logic it should be 1952, if its under that standard. But if you feel that we should go by ECI, feel free to change the name 1951. I have no objections to it.--Harish89 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in terms of polling, they wanted it to coincide with '51 general election, and but it was delayed to March 27, 1952. If you look at the report, all constituencies conducted polling on that date, so voting/polling for Madras legislative election never took place in 1951.--Harish89 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Legislature of Tamil Nadu
I was thinking about doing that, but the problem was there were changes in MLAs from 2006, and it would have been difficult to delete the winner from 2001, since I dont know any easy way to do it, other than going through each one and deleting it. It was easier for me to convert the html from the legislature website to wiki using the converter. Also this table separates the constituents by districts which I like, and in the future it will be easier if I stick with this format, since I can easily convert the updated table from the website to wiki. The only thing is I have to just parse all the constituents and districts.--Harish89 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, they have district numbers in this table. So since its sortable, it can be sorted by district number, alphabetical order of district name/candidate, by parties, making this table more dynamic.
 * understand. i didnt realise it is sortable. looks like more work, but the end product looks great. -- L  I C  15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of M. Moses
A tag has been placed on M. Moses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. December21st2012Freak (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT
Please be aware that:

a) the DEFAULTSORT statement supplies sorting for all categories unless the category itself has a sort key; we don't normally put sorting on categories, except when an article needs an unusual sorting in one particular category and not others. Biographical articles usually only need a DEFAULTSORT and no sort keys on other categories. A common exception is for people who are important enough to have their own categories. For example, Barack Obama has a DEFAULTSORT key of "Obama, Barack", but the category Category:Barack Obama has a sort key of "*", since we want the primary article on him to be at the top of his category.

b) articles are sorted in categories by actually sorting the sort keys provided. Generally, sort keys for biographical articles are full names, re-ordered to put the family name first in the sort key. For example, the sort key for Barack Obama is "Obama, Barack"; the sort key for Rajiv Gandhi is "Gandhi, Rajiv". Using a key like "D" or "R" will put such articles in front of all other articles beginning with that letter, and is almost always wrong. Studerby (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i see what you mean. the problem with south Indian names especially Tamil names is that there is, almost in all cases, no family name, instead just an "initial". In this case, categorising by First Name (just name) is better than by the "initial". this could be taken care of by having the first name first in the sort key. thanks. -- L  I C  21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1967 election
So in 1967 election, Annadurai opted to run for MP in Madras South, and he won. So he did not run for his MLA seat in Kancheepuram, in legislative election. But when the DMK got power at the state level, he resigned his seat as MP, which Murosali Maran took over, and Annadurai became chief minister. But he never had an MLA seat, and there are only two ways he could have become chief minister. Either he was nominated as an MLA by the governor, like how Rajaji became chief minister in 1952, or there was a special election. I doubt that there was an election, since he immediately became chief minister, so my guess would be he was nominated by the governor. I tried to find a source for this, but I cannot find any to verify this, but this is the source that has evidence that Annadurai resigned as MP and became Chief Minister.--Harish89 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. I also couldnt find out how he was elected or nominated. -- L  I C  19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1977 election
I will try to finish the table as soon as possible. I don't want you to go through the trouble of doing it from scratch. Unless of course you dont mind, the 77 and 01 election being in different that what you have created. Thanks again for helping me out with the election pages!--Harish89 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have finished up the table for 77 election, and I am now trying to do research on alliance wise results for all the elections. Due to the lack of english websites that have detailed results, I searched through google news under archives, and have found results for alliances in the 1980 election. I have used the table, that are used in general elections, which is more detailed than the previous table (e.g. popular vote etc.). Let me know what you think of it, and I will try to finish up all the elections using this table.--Harish89 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)