User talk:Drbalaji md

Welcome
To all those 'enlightened ones' who come here. Just like everyone else, I too consider that all the other human beings except me are dumb idiots :) Regards.

Re: Dear Mr.King...
''May be. Thanks for your notice.''' Always glad to be of service.

''I never knew wikipedia has appointed you as their spokesperson. I thought everyone is same in this open domain. Anyway wikipedia appreciates your comment. But we dislike subtle arrogance, if you had meant it that way!'' Yes, everyone is the same. And I had no idea that'd be interpreted as arrogance. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of users talking to anons behave that way. If you felt what I said was inappropriate, I don't think cutting sarcasm was the right way to notify me. Regardless, I appreciate criticism more than praise, because criticism tells me what I'm doing wrong and how to rectify it, while praise just strokes my ego. Wikipedia has not appointed me as their spokesperson &mdash; if you misinterpreted that, I am sorry. I'm just telling you that we do appreciate your help &mdash; well at least, I do.

''Wikipedia appreciates your vital understanding. Keep it up. But I have to call your ignorant remark as preposterous, if you had meant that I did not have a 'vital' understanding.'' I was not implying you did not have a vital understanding, but you rolling back my changes, at the very least, indicates you have not fully understood what has been going on in the workings of the article. If the mention of Pepsi in the opening paragraph was unnecessary, if you read WP:FAC, you would have known there's a reason for it being there. Of course, you have complete right to remove it &mdash; likewise, I have full right to reinstate it. I hope this doesn't break down into an edit war, as I'm not very fond of having to resolve things like these, especially since as a sysop I'll be the scapegoat (at least, based on my observations of most edit wars. I'm not saying whether scapegoating sysops is right or wrong).

''Your higness, there is something I should disclose to you. I have been contributing to this wikipedia ever since its inception. But I have never created an account till now - for it is my humble POV that an opensource and a free domain has no rulers and nobody claims responsibility for the content!'' Nobody does &mdash; I never implied I hold any control over the article beyond what I wrote (yes, authors like us do have full copyright claim to what we write on Wikipedia &mdash; it just falls under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which turns it into a copyleft). And I don't care how long you have been contributing to Wikipedia, as using age as an excuse seems to be elitism, at least to me. Of course we all have our own POV. Again, I did not imply control over the content. I just posted my message on your talk to notify you that I was rolling back a change or two you made &mdash; not to start an argument with you or to imply I am any higher than you.

''Besides, I hate beaurocrats and red-tapism - I myself did not want to become one just by typing word salads in all the pages. Neither I have the time nor I am interested in that. And I believe in the age old fact that 'anonymity is power'.'' I don't appreciate red tape nor bureaucracy either. I did not prohibit you from making any changes to the article. All I did was explain why I was rolling back a change or two you made. I did not mean to imply I am trying to stop you from making those changes again &mdash; if you did, it would become an edit war, and I'd start a dialogue on the Talk page instead of outright reverting the change again. I understand and respect your belief that anonymity is power &mdash; without anons and thousands of nameless writers like you, we wouldn't have Wikipedia. I don't see what this has to do with the argument, though, unless you're implying I have some "royal" disdain for anons, which I do not.

''Unfortunately, in the last few months I have been noticing sheer ignorance of this fact amidst the users of this domain and individual users are being sent messages as subtle warnings/intimidations in the name of talk messages. This is absolutely against the policy of a truly open encyclopedia. I am against vandalism. But I am also against this subtle coercion being exhibited by these self-styled kings and queens of a supposedly democratic system.'' Then please don't let one bad apple spoil the rest. If you felt this was occurring, you have every right to detail your worries at Village pump. I repeat &mdash; I am not stopping you from making edits to Coca-Cola. These are not warnings or intimidations. If you think so, try opposing them. This is an open encyclopedia, after all.

''I can assert with confidence that wikipedia will never represent the truth if the healthy 'war of words' is suppressed in any form. If you want to channel the discussion in any way according to your POV, then the entire discussion becomes a piece of garbage. The other thing I wanted to bring to your notice, your highness, is this increasing number of 'monday morning quarterbacks'. My question to them is, instead of criticizing an effort, why not go and change the concerned page themselves? Nobody is awarded the Nobel prize if the article they nominated is featured :)'' I don't intend to "channel" the discussion in any way. I am not suppressing the war of words. If you think there's some cabal going on, you're sorely mistaken &mdash; at least, if there is one, I haven't been invited to join the New Wikipedia Order yet. ;) I was not criticising your effort. I was thanking you for the other edits you made and notifying you why I was changing one or two of your edits. That's all. If you thought I meant something else, again, I'm sorry.

''Just like everyone else, I too consider that all other human beings except me are dumb idiots! And if your message was intended as an intimidation - not to offend you but this has happened before, kindly take note that I consider most of these 'administrators' as the most ignorant morons of this universe.'' I'm sure it endears you to us that you're labeling us morons. Ad hominem attacks don't really help your stance.

''But if your intention was noble, thanks from the bottom of my heart. Also please note that whatever you have written above is not going to change what I feel like doing in that concerned page. Because, I really want this wikipedia to survive. Just like you, I am a strong supporter of all these supposedly/'trying to be' open source endeavours, for a little more number of years than you.'' You're welcome. :) And I don't understand how this isn't open source, by the way. We have the right to open discussion with any other user if we want to discuss something.

''Wikipedia appreciates your contributions. Please continue your good effort :)'' Indeed it does. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, again
Welcome. Hyacinth 23:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I provided the link above because it leads to useful information about how to use Wikipedia (for instance, using Page history). I assume you're posting of the "Welcome" link on my page in response was a "thank you" or a "I'm not stupid". Hyacinth 02:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does wikipedia represent the entire world?

 * See Selected anniversaries for the process by which people, wikipedia editors, not software, as your friends appear to assume, select the anniversaries. Since no human knows everything, only their local understanding, they contribute only the anniversaries they know. Selected anniversaries, per the process listed above, are merely selections from the day's events. A bot does not make the selection. The medal of honor selection could easily have included other medals, but no contributor has yet made the edit, so it did not get into the pipeline of information. Please ask your friends to contribute their knowledge; only their contributions can rectify imbalance.

Dear Open-community, I am just waiting for the day when wikipedia will recognize the dates of institution of medals of honor of other nations (ex. Param Vir Chakra). Because, I have to prove two dumb idiots that their opinion about wikipedia are indeed wrong. One of them is my friend from "no man's land". He was telling me that they have a medal of honor too, for which they risk their lives. He says wikipedia is only for people living +2 hours and -6:30 hours from the greenwich meridian, ignoring the African continent (how stupid he is!). And the other friend is from "far far away (far east)". He took a vow today not to see this site again! He told me it is unfair to recognize a particular award being given by a particular government, projecting it as a global phenomenon. I told them to wait before coming to an ignorant conclusion. I have challenged them that wikipedia will recognize all their medals and will make them feel ashamed. How superflous and ignorant those idiots are? We are an open community and we represent all the nations of the world as equal and we give equal weight to everybody...dont we? --Drbalaji md 02:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not really, it is very western biased since it's mostly written by white,us;european, geeky types with far too much time on their hands. Your friend can improve on that balance of course, which is whats good about it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:00, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * My friends are so happy that there is one other individual who recognizes this disparity. They also like your insight. But the one from "no man's land" appears a little too smart. He says, he is yet to see his country's articles being displayed, on clicking the 'random pages' so many times, even though, wikipedia uses an 'unbiased' random number generator (I think he is weak in mathematics). The other guy from "far far away (far east)" says he is changing as much as he could but could never see the articles related to his country being projected or featured (I think he is myopic). But, I am waiting for the earth-shattering opinion from one of those geeks you mentioned, that will send those two dumb guys to where they came from. --Drbalaji md 03:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of folks who agree that the front page selection of news and featured articles is too biased towards US-Europe. Fuzheado | Talk 03:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh no. My friends have started rejoicing. C'mon geeky to my rescue! --Drbalaji md 04:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if you don't indend to write a biased article it kind of leans that way if thats how you feel about the issue, of course we cover some issues better than others simply because more people are interested in writing about those things, it's no deeper than that, there is no secret consensus to not write about something, people just stick to their interests, the reason nobody has written about the medal you mention is that it's just not notable to most current wikipedians, and will stay that way unless someone writes about it. If you're unhappy about the coverage of an issue &mdash; improve on it.
 * Of course the content reflects the demographic, the article about StarTrek character Data's cat was bigger than pop singer Tina Turner's article last i checked, western issues are largely covered while asian, not to mention african issues fall in the shadow simply because there are more people from the west on wikipeda. But, more international users join the fold every day which is really positive and can only add to the spectrum. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but we are not discussing about the content of individual pages - if you meant it that way. --Drbalaji md 22:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * First, to state the obvious: if you don't like the choice of anniversaries, you can change it.
 * Second, the type of information that wikipedia includes is a function of the type of people who contribute (disproportionately white/western/anglosaxon), so even the date articles are bound to be biased towards events in western/anglosaxon world. OTOH, the choice of articles for the main page shouldn't reflect that strongly. If there are more than 4 worthy candidates, geographical distribution should be a major factor in selection. Zocky 04:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed we can change the 'pool' of anniversaries. But who/what selects them for the front page - Just curious, ignore my remark if you find it ignorant :) . --Drbalaji md 22:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think they are chosen by (the) (unbiased) bot. --ganesh 23:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does, we do represent the world, we also represent outside our world. Wikipedia has countless thousands of contributors from all around the world. I am from the UK. coverage. First of all, this is the English Wikipedia, which is naturauly targeted at an english speaking audience. But the are English speakers from all over the world, so we get articles from around the world. You may also be interested in Wikipedias in other languages, where languages from all around the world have a Wikipedia, and if a language you speak does not have one, it can easily be created. So yes, we do represent the world, but we need more contributors from areas that are not as comprehensive. So tell your friends to help, rather than criticize. There is an "edit this page" link on nearly every article, so please click it. Krik 13:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Translating the same/similar content in different languages is not culture-sensitive publishing, but just an eye-wash! --Drbalaji md 22:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In general (although I'm sure there are specific cases where this is not true), articles are not translated from one wiki to another. An article written in the German language wiki tends to be from the German point of view vs. the same article in the English language wiki.  Rick'''K 22:10, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not targeting the 'content' of the 'individual pages'. I am talking about the 'content' of the 'front page'. --Drbalaji md 22:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I wonder why even after repeated remarks by User:Drbalaji_md that he is not refering to 'contents of articles', but the 'front page' issues, no one is answering his queries in that perspective. Yet another instance of closed-mindedness? --ganesh 23:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Or could it be because the user is more interested in stirring up controversy than trying to have a reasoned discussion? Rick'''K 23:03, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * So you do acknowledge that drbalaji_md's concerns are controversial, not entirely fallacious. --ganesh 23:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't feed trolls. Rick'''K 23:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Me too sorry. Being not so expert in english, I typed the word "controversy" in m-w.com and got a meaning that doesn't imply controversy to be "something fallacious".  --ganesh 23:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If, bringing to light injustice amounts to "stirring up controversy", I am very happy to be accused of that crime! --Drbalaji md 00:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia democratic or aristocratic?

 * How about explicit voting for everything? Right from featuring an article to selecting the anniversaries to appointing the administrators? I know this falls within the domain of setting up a democratic system, which is not without faults either. Using the same principles as in real world politics, till the democracy matures, minorities should be represented in a balanced manner, by giving advantages. The results of the elections should be openly declared, when are where needed. I would also support a veto power for select administrators. Administrators' term must be short-lived and elections can be made dynamic rather than 'on one day'. Computers can make this magic possible (dynamic elections). However universal suffrage is mandatory for everyone who is registered (of course that would mean a little more of identity verification), right from the begining, unlike real world politics. Am I living in utopia? Or am I pointing to the right direction? Only time will tell. --Drbalaji md 05:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As has been said many times over - Wikipedia is *not* a democracy, owing to the fact that (a) for technical limitations of the internet, we cannot established one-person-one-vote, and (b) we operate based on discussion driven consensus, not polls. Administrators *are* "voted" on at Requests for adminship, however, the final decision to promote is left up to beauracrats who have been given authority (by poll) to weight votes to determine what 'consensus' is (in other words, they can choose to ignore trolls and sockpuppets) - typically, 75% or more. The featured articles for the main page are chosen by me (and only me) from a community selected subset (The featured articles), because the necessity of choosing a new one everyday makes the overhead for daily elections unfeasable, if not impossible. The idea that wikipedia is a democracy tends to foster an enviroment where people think that their ideas are valid just because they believe them, that every POV should make it into an article and be represented in our rules and procedures-- let me assure you, this is *not* the case. &rarr;Raul654 05:58, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * This dictatorship and beaurocracy, is exactly what I intend to fight against. One person cannot be an embodiment of world knowledge, on whom rests the decision making capacity to project an article or suppress another. It will end up as a Raulpedia, not wikipedia, eventually. I am not intending to change the way the articles are generated or the discussions are conducted. But, I am targeting three things,
 * 1. Selection of administrators
 * 2. Selection of front page articles
 * 3. Selection of feature articles
 * Of course, the list can be lengthened to include other issues as time progresses. I do not know the reason why you resist change. Technical factors, although do exist, are not unresolvable with sufficient contribution from the open society (I am quite sure that many 'free' poll applets are available on the internet). Resistance, revolution and implementation of new ideas have brought this open community into existence today. I think we must acknowledge this vital fact. Otherwise there is no difference between wikipedia and copyrighted encylcopedia like Microsoft Encarta!(Alteast Encarta has more number of Rauls!)--Drbalaji md 06:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And round and round we go. Let's try this again


 * 1) Speaking as a computer engineer - there is *no* software *anywhere* to establish one-person-one-vote - it is technically impossible to do it just with software. Every possible system relies on tying some outside source of information (SSN, credit cards, etc) to a particular user account. This is an unncessary invasion of privacy, and it would be prohitive for anons to participate. Therefore, it is also unwiki-like. Period.
 * 2) As I said above (which you apparently did not read) the community DOES have input into selection administrators. However, because of the limitations I just named (for the second time) some users must exist to seperate the votes. The decision to enact such a position was done after consensus in the community.
 * 3) The featured articles go through a peer-review process which I know for a fact that you are familiar with, because you have posted there. The community does choose these.
 * 4) Articles are selected for the main page by me because (again, as I said above) the idea of daily voting has been shouted/laughed down (again and again across about a half-dozen discussion pages) as costing way, way, way too much overhead - it is (at best) unfeasable. Moreover, since they are selected from the FAs (and checking by category, it's obvious that they are a representative sample) if there is bias then it comes from the peer review process, and the fact that we do not have an across-the-board sample of good articles in the database as a whole.
 * 5) Just because your ideas are "new and revolutionary" doesn't mean they are good. Quite the opposite - one of the fundemetnal principles of engineering is that is something works, you don't screw with it. Rule changes are inherently a bad thing.
 * 6) (Again, as I said above) Polls are generally regarded as a bad thing - we strive for consensus based on discussion, not voting.
 * 7) I just reread your statement, just to be sure, and I notice that you seem to be making sweeping pronouncmenets without a shred of evidence to back them up. Could you please give one credible reason (Note - an opinion is not a reason) for us to do what you propose? &rarr;Raul654 07:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is disheartening to read your statements.


 * "Rules cannot be changed" - what an ignorant remark! Only a person with absolutely no knowledge of the world history can state that! Didn't you notice how GNU changed the rules by rejecting copyright and implementing copy left?


 * "Polls are generally regarded as bad things" - Do you mean to say communism/dictatorship is better?


 * "In engineering you don't mess up with working things" - We should have been living in caves and hunting wild boar, if mankind had followed your principle, Mr.Engineer.

What you just proclaimed in those above few lines, is against the very philosophy of Science and democracy. The creed that prosecuted Galileo still lingers around, claiming that the earth is flat! I saw one of them today. "It is the questioning of the un-shakeable beliefs, that has led us to the pursuit of truth" claims the preface to Grays anatomy. Change is the rule of nature, not the exception. "It is only those weak-hearted tyrants that are afraid of losing their authority in the face of rebellion. On the contrary, resistance to change strengthens a movement, just like the magma of a volcano builds up pressure to blow up the entire mountain to peices" - a politician's view.

I strongly differ from all of your above statements. Your point of views do not constitute the world (Neither do mine). --Drbalaji md 08:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following is a link to an article regarding the Dutch open-source online e-voting software: http://www.ososs.nl/article.jsp?article=9698

The following is a link to the news regarding the same software: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/open_source_voting_software/

Now we can deduce that there is atleast one software, which you said was non-existent, thereby proving that your first statement is indeed, closed-minded. Hope there are any true open source activists around who can research the above link and find out the feasibility of incorporating it into wikipedia. Since, I am familiar with computer architectures, software and hardware engineering also, I know the hurdles in implementing a new open source endeavour. But I hope there are noble souls around, that can help. --Drbalaji md 09:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Re:"Rules cannot be changed" - if you look carefully, you'll notice I said that "Rule changes are inherently a bad thing." and should be done only when necessary. This does not mean that they cannot be changed, but that it should be avoided unless necessary, which your assertions fall *far short* of, and for which you have given no evidence for the necessity of besides broad philosophical claims.
 * Re: the open source voting program - The software you cite compares a user to a complete list of registered voters (thus tying to "some outside source of information", *exactly* as I said above). On Wikipedia, everyone is (by definition) a registered voter, and could potentially be many more. Therefore, we are back to the *exact* same problem I described above. What you need to impliment your ideas is a magic black box that would limit a person to one (and only one) wikipedia account, and such a thing does not exist.
 * In science, ideas are judged on their merit. You want to replace a time-tested system that by all accounts works pretty well (Ie, a meritorious idea) with an untested idea that you have given no evidentiary support for. Therefore, your idea has no scienctific merit. &rarr;Raul654 09:47, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul, I'm sorry to butt in, but a lot of what you have said here doesn't hold water. The last things you said regarding science disregards the whole scientific process, which is the arcstone of science.  Regarding "Rule changes are inherently a bad thing." What?  There's nothing inherent about this.  We wouldn't have any rules if there was not at one point a change from non-rules or different-rules to current rules, so you're tacitly implying that rules themselves are bad, for rules imply change of rules.  (that is, it logically follows)  "Inherently" bad?  This is completely unsupportable.  There is nothing neccessarily good or bad about conservation just as there is nothing neccessarily good or bad about innovation.  The two dichotomies, good-bad, and stasis-dynamis, exist and function completly independantly of one another.  As for the rest of the discusssion, i'm inbetween you two on this - i don't think it is possible or optimal to have a pure democracy on wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, but i do think that democratic principles and efforts are important and valuable, and that creative ideas should be encouraged, and not met with violent opposition. Kevin Baas 16:27, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * No, what I think Raul is saying can roughly be summed up as "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Although users periodicly grouse about various aspects of Wikipedia processes, Drbalaji md has not presented any specific evidence concerning what it is s/he thinks is broken about Wikipedia (I do not consider vague rants about the lack of democratic process to be substantial). older &ne; wiser 16:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Drbalaji md thinks that wikipedia is really broken in any way. i think drbalaji is just trying to think of ways that it could be improved, and throwing the ideas out in order to get feedback so that he can refine them.  maybe in the end, s/he will decide that there is nothing to be done.  Maybe something will be done.  In any case, people's minds will be made richer, and the issue will be fleshed out.


 * I generally agree with your sentiments, though Raul has made statements quite beyond "if it's not broke, don't fix it." For instance, he talked about change of rules as "inherently" bad, which is not only a value judgement, and therefore already beyond the phrase "if it's not broke, don't fix it", but is worded as an objective statement (which in itself is logically flawed, for values de facto cannot be objective).  But I am repeating myself - rephrasing myself.


 * First, I agree that in the abstract, rule change is not inherently good or bad. However, in specific contexts, there is an inherent bias towards conservativism--i.e., in a situation where 1) the rules are more or less clear; 2) have been accepted by most users; and, 3) most importantly, there is not a demonstrated exigence for changing the rules. In such a case, rule change often results in confusion, especially if enacted arbitrarily or without consent. Now, if we want to work for an orderly, gradual, consensus-driven rule change, that's another matter--but Drbalaji's rhetoric seemed more revolutionary than evolutionary. older &ne; wiser 19:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say here, except what's after the last --. I think the fact that he sought to discuss it before taking any action shows that he is interested in a due process solution, arrived at by consensus rather than revolution.  Indeed, he explicitly purports democracy!  He has never expressed or implied any intention of arbitrary rule change or rule change without consent - this is purely a product of your imagination. Kevin Baas 22:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * Though even the statement that you purported "If it's not broke, don't fix it." isn't logically supreme. One can just as well make the statement: "If the improvement does not break it, then go ahead with it.", or "If there is no reason to not make an improvement, make the improvement.", or, more simply stated: "Why not?".  An example of this is the creation of Wikipedia.  It wasn't "broke", but we fixed it anyways. ;) Kevin Baas 18:02, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * Once one starts analyzing the logic of common language, one quickly arrives at the position that nothing makes much sense. In order to get by with ordinary human communications, there has to be a bit of sympathetic reading. Sure if there is a need, the a case can be made for taking action. Drbalaji raised some questions, and Raul attempted to respond (perhaps just a little snippishly at times, but overall with, IMO, considerable patience) and to try and catch Drbalaji up on things that have been discussed ad naseum previously. Drbalaji responded with baseless provocation and things degenerated from there. older &ne; wiser 19:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My heart will not let me contribute money to a system, which explicitly proclaims itself to be undemocratic and unscientific. I do not want to nurture a communist/dictatorship based closed-minded community (Just my POV). I do acknowledge that, I might have been an insignificant contributor. But, drops of water make the ocean! I am quite sure that there are others, albeit a minority, who share my view. --Drbalaji md 22:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad, I don't see wht you're trying t say with the first two sentences in the above para, nor (perhaps consequently) their relevance, so I am ignoring them. My interprepretation of the responses of Raul and Drbalaji is roughly inverse to yours.  Raul's language was more aggressive, rhetorical ("baseless" rhetoric, such as the comments on science and conservatism), and prejudicial.  Drabalaji's language was more tempered and criticaly-minded, although i do admit they were tinged with overt insults, such as "ignorant" - but i see this merely as him being somewhat loose-lipped and lacking an alternative means of expressing his thoughts, and i don't detect the undertones of aggression in Drabalaji's language that i do in Raul's language.  (For one, Raul is laquocious while drabalaji's is laconic, which suggests hostility and disguised intent on Raul's part.)  Drabalaji's frustrations, though not expressed appropriately, were not disguised.  I appreciate the fact that Raul responded with some history and some reasoning.  He should have left it at that, perhaps pointing to old discussion if there had been such.  His purposes should have been to inform, not debate.  This is when things degenerated.  This is when Drabalaji had to point out the logical fallacies that Raul had acrimoniously expressed, and was not satisfied with the answer, as it did not express a desire to cooperate, which is what he was looking for. Kevin Baas 22:26, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * Drbalaji, I urge you to stay and contribute to wikipedia. I assure you that the members of wikipedia seek due process and democratic operation (as much as practical or feasible).  I think that this is just a misunderstanding.  We all have the same goals as you, noone wants this to be a dictatorship.  You are welcome here and your contributions are appreciated and respected by the community, which you are a part of. Kevin Baas 22:26, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * If I was snippy, it's because his ideas are patently bad for the reasons I've mentioned (imagine that, supporting statements with reasoning? How original!) and that he (Drbalaji md) has not yet offered a single shred of evidence to support them, and apparently doesn't read what others say when they debunk his broad philosophical decrees (which is why I have to keep restating the same things several times over) &rarr;Raul654 23:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * And do you call the above paragraph "supporting statements with reasoning"? The above paragraph does not help your case at all.  You have not restated anything besides "i'm right, and he's wrong".


 * Drbalaji does make a good point, which you have not made any counterargument to: if a single person selects the featured article, his/her choice will be guided by the information that s/he is exposed to, thus limiting the cultural diversity of the choice, and failing to proportionally represent the information that s/he is not exposed to, by no fault of their own.  It might be feasible to have a voting mechanism for featured articles.  This would diversify the base of information that determines the selection of the featured article.  Drbalaji argues, furthermore, that he is aware of a feeling among people that wikipidia is not international enough in certain areas, specifcally and problematically the selection of the featured article.  He states that he is aware of a representative population that do not use or contribute to wikipedia for these reasons.  He concludes that if such areas could be made to more proportionally represent the cultural distribution of the world, more people would use wikipedia, and it's reputation would improve.  He puts forth the opinion that this may be ample reason to find a practical and feasible method to put a system in place which provides a better solution to these problems.


 * In this, he has addressed all of what you purport to be "lacking" in his argument. He did this in his first posting, before you claimed that these things were lacking.  Kevin Baas 02:51, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
 * There is a voting mechanism for featured articles. Raul doesn't just choose them out of thin air.  They are nominated, discussed, voted on and then moved to the Featured articles page.  Raul then chooses one of those each day.  Rick'''K 23:37, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * To me, Wikipedia does neither adopt a democratic nor aristocratic model. It is much closer to an academic model. As in Wikipedia, academic contributions are peer-reviewed and most reviews are biased -- sometimes an article that you think is great is rejected for publication in a journal because the reviewers simply don't share your views, and sometimes a not-so-good article is accepted because the reviewers do! Some academicians have more authority than others, for various subjective reasons (experience, age, networking, charisma, etc.), but everybody in the academic community understands and accepts that. Board and chair members in journals and conferences are not democratically elected, but it is fine with everybody. And if it is not with you, you can still leave academy and find a job somewhere else. It's not a perfect model, but it works. I think it is the same with Wikipedia: reviews are biased (we're just human), admins selection is based on subjective factors, and it is fine with the vast majority of users. If it is not with you, you can leave Wikipedia and start you own encyclopedic project, based on your own rules. Just my two cents... --Alexandre 23:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See:What wikipedia is not, Consensus

What is the future of Wikipedia? An experimental poll

 * 1) It will last for ever
 * 2) It will last for at least five more years
 * 3) It will last for at least a year from now
 * 4) Hopeless &mdash; already seeing its downfall
 * 5) It will become a commercial site after someone buys it
 * 6) My own view is...

Please take this on-line poll by typing your responses :) Please don't forget to sign. It is with your sign that we can all count the number of votes! --Drbalaji md 17:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 2  &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 10:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6. First of all Wikipedia owned by a non-profit foundation, the Wikimedia foundation, so 5 is invalid. But there are "questionable" sites such as Smartpedia which mirror wikipedia content surrounded by advertisements. 4 is extremley unlikely, since Wikipedia is open and can be fixed by anyone. There are over 80,000 users from all over the world that make over 10,000 improvements to it everyday. People have been claiming wikipedia will fail since it started, but so far it has not. Wikipedia will last as long as the Wikipedia community works together improving articles, rather than posting pessimistic polls. Krik 12:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).
 * 1 I've been using Wikipedia for 6 months now and its grown by 50% in that time. I imagine it's growth rate will start to slow eventually (There is surely a finite limit to the number of topics) but not for a while yet. I can see it reaching 1 million articles in english sooner than we could imagine. And its been catching on as a reference source: try searching for "wikipedia" in Google news and you'll turn up a ton of articles saying "according to wikipedia..." The main danger I see is intergration - we need to keep things cross-referenced. And perhaps, when you try to start a new article, search a bit more to see whats there alread. Wikipedia, or much of it's content at least, will live on in some form forever. Seabhcan 12:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. Nothing lasts forever, but I think it will last a long time. i would have voted ten years if that was an option. Kevin Baas 16:29, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 4. --Drbalaji md 17:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I do think it can be saved)
 * 3. And my view is to stop high school kids from assuming key roles. May be we can start "wikijuniorpedia", where they can play. --ganesh 19:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6--not forever, but at least for the foreseeable future. And ganesh, that's a pretty asinine thing to say. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. Wikipedia is much too popular to fall apart after one year, but I think eventually, enough people will lose interest in being very dedicated editors that the vandalism and misinformation will overwhelm those keeping entropy at bay. In response to the above comment, yes, there are some people (both high-schoolers and older) who are either too immature or not knowledgable enough to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. But this doesn't mean there should be an age or education limit on who can participate.  Wikipedia should be a meritocracy; due to the nature of the Internet, we have no choice but to be blind to people's age and formal education (and that's a good thing!) Sayeth 22:30, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6. The content will survive forever, but if the process dies the content becomes very uninteresting relative to, say, Britannica. The process won't last forever, it will only survive as long as people see things are getting better.  The two huge threats at present are a lack of money, and insufficient means to police the myriad ways in which articles are made worse.  I suspect Wikipedia is resilient enough to patch the current process problems, and probably future ones as well.  Money, however, is a less tractable problem and just as deadly.  We find money, or Wikipedia dies.  --Fritzlein 00:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 It will last a long time. I can forsee changes, for example, forbidding anonymous edits, approving editors, etc.  I wouldn't mind seeing some non-obnoxious ads, but I realize that this is a major policy change.  pstudier 00:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3 It will last a long time, but I don't see that it can retain its current form as a free-for-all wiki, because of the cost constraint mentioned above. Noisy 12:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4 Wikipedia is on the verge of complete anarchy already.  We already have so much user-input that the system is bogging down.  Changes are being made for no other reason than to make changes.  Pages are deleted, articles added, and pages protected in the same manner.  For instance, IQQD is an article about a code in a video game.  It take 15 minutes just to add it to the WP:VfD and than another 10 to get some people interested.  We're doomed if we don't resist the temptation to meddle without reason.--naryathegreat 22:21, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Could you guys move this to the pump, this talk page is for discussions and suggestions about the Main Page, not for random polls and questions, thats what the pump is for.

Thank you --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:35, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

I do not usually write anything. But, a lot of what drbalajimd says has got truth in it. It was very thought provoking to read all those messages. Looks like he has acheived what he wanted, going by the sudden changes I saw in the front page. Let good things happen. -- unanymous. (moved from Main Page  &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 20:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Is it the established norm...
to move pages from village pump to a specific user's talk forum? Again, who am I to question you mighty comrades? Ah, the beauty of communism. --Drbalaji md 06:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear visitors...
If you are desperately searching for those controversial articles, keep searching. In a communist domain, suppression of media is not new. And if you specifically are looking for that article which questioned the content of the front page...well, they think even that is 'inappropriate' here! Please contribute more money to strengthen our comrades! --Drbalaji md 23:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Start writing in non-english. See above. --ganesh 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or, Dr Balaji, you could simply continue the discussion on its new, more appropriate, location: User_talk:Drbalaji_md.

Moving of discussions
All of these discussions have been moved again from the Village Pump to User talk:Drbalaji md


 * Could you please explain the reason why, dear Comrade. Are you planning to make me a celebrity? --Drbalaji md 06:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved three huge discussion to the Village Pump, this is not a place for general talk but talk about the main page and it's contents. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:41, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)


 * FYI, you have got to move more discussions from this page to village pump. My pea brain fails to establish any relevance of those discussions with main page. --ganesh 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Those comments are to articles that were recently on the main page (whether as the featured article, In the news, annivesaries, or new articles). &rarr;Raul654 00:17, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * My answer is the obvious. --ganesh 00:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear comrade,

How about the article "Does wikipedia represent the world?...Just curious" ? Is that not discussing about the front-page content? Or am I forbidden to ask? --Drbalaji md 00:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your are not forbidden to ask about anything;), the question had just become a much more general discussion about wikipedia and hence should be on the pump. Village_pump


 * See: Village pump.

Did anyone see a poll here?
I am searching...I am quite sure it was here. For, I was the one who created it - to disprove that polls can be held without any technological prowess. Hmm...its name is "What is the future of wikipedia" or something like that. I am becoming too absent-minded. :) --Drbalaji md 00:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone thought it would be appropriate to move the whole shebang to Village pump. The wisdom of moving a huge lump of text like that to the second busiest page on the entire website, I will not bother to question. Pcb21| Pete 00:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone was telling me about wikiquette or something like that. I am a poor learner. --Drbalaji md 00:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is safe and sound at: Village_pump. Also, you can check the Page history, by clicking the link at the bottom of articles and talk pages, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=history. Hyacinth 00:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Notice this text at the top of this article: See the Wikipedia FAQ for general questions about Wikipedia. You can ask questions at the Village pump

Something else missing
I am searching for a comment I wrote about 'consensus'...I think I left it in my car. I also could not find my humble appeal, which I am sure I wrote in that pump, to the comrades to atleast notify us, the 'proletarians' about this dislocation. I think they tear-off the appeals that they don't like. If someone finds it, kindly put it inside the nearest post box. Postage is not needed in communist countries (atleast, thats how I can convince that good samaritan). --Drbalaji md 00:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If it was on this page, and got moved, it is probably at the village pump. It was on the pump, and got moved, take a look at the archived sections section near the top of that page. See if any section heading looks familiar. Failing that ask Angela who has been busy archiving that page (it is very busy) this evening. Also she has the patience of a saint. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it soon enough, and it won't seem like some great conspiracy then! Pcb21| Pete 01:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to become a millionaire in 30 days!
There are a billion people in India, a little more than that in China, a little less than that Africa. When we expect contributions(money) from all these countries, is it not our responsibility to represent their nations as equal, in the front page, instead of repeatedly portraying only western events and places (I am being straight-forward here)? I think this organisation needs to change from grass-root level, if it wants to survive. The front page, indeed, needs a makeover. Hope, someone understands my noble intention. --Drbalaji md 01:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you need to "show us the money" as it were. Please give us some diffs which show non-western events being surpressed. I think every right-thinking Wikipedian wants better global coverage, but it doesn't happen just by clicking the fingers. Pcb21| Pete 01:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm...does it mean that you will project only the rich and wealthy? My concern is the front page, and the front page alone. I am not targeting the representation of the articles inside the domain, I am making this clear. How can we suppress things, when they are not even recognised? Could you please make us available the statistics regarding the articles you displayed in your front page, till today? I am quite sure that will tell the story! --Drbalaji md 02:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The front page is inextricably linked to content further inside the 'pedia. The featured article is picked from Feature articles, the historical anniversaries are taken from the date articles e.g. July 13, the news events are taken from Current events. The "did you know" are taken from articles recently on Special:Newpages. Reduce the western bias of those pages, and you reduce the western bias of the main page.


 * Nb as I write the countries mentioned "in the news" are Portugal, Philippines, Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Egypt. Down with that arab/middle east bias! :) Pcb21| Pete 02:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Good that atleast the world news is unbiased --ganesh 15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd note that the Chinese Wikipedia probably has much better Asian coverage than we do, but our coverage of the U.S. is likely to be stronger. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by we and our? --ganesh 15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You guys still continue to be taken in by this guy? He must be using some pretty good bait. Dori | Talk 13:22, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Meelar means by "we" and "our" those people that know the english language and are contributing to the english language version of wikipedia. Kevin Baas 00:20, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's become quite obvious the guy is a troll. That's why I won't bother to answer him in the future.  Rick'''K 18:39, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

You have been placed on Requests for comment
I hope you will respond to the allegations responsibly there. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have commented there as well. I suggest you read it to see why your behavior so far has been unacceptable. Also, here is a response to Kevin Bass on my talk page that you should also read.
 * ''As I have said twice already, there *is* a mechanism for voting on featured articles - it is Featured article candidates. And (as I said once before) Drbalaji is aware of this too, because he has voted there.
 * Now I'll tell you the same thing I told Andrew (Fuzheado) in IRC - if the main page article selection is biased, it is because the selection of articles I have to choose from (at featured articles) is biased. If anything, non-western featured articles have been disprortionately favorably represtented on the main page - virtually all of them have been featured compared to about 50% of western articles. 
 * If our non-western writers don't like this, the solution is simple - write more articles of featured-article quality, nominate them, fix objections as they are raised (which, during his last outing on the FAC, Drbalaji made no attempt to do). Once they become featured articles, I will happily put them on the main page, as I have done with the rest of the articles. &rarr;Raul654 03:26, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 17:02, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

You don't understand, Raul. Those who complain about supposed pro-Western or pro-US bias are demanding that those of us who know the US and the West STOP writing about what we know, and ONLY write about what THEY want us to write about. Rick'''K 18:41, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * RicK, no sarcasm please. There are more decent and straightforward ways to say that. Kevin Baas 00:16, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)


 * Dear Kevin, I sincerely appreciate your discernment. But, I think it is unavailing to argue with those who lack that! As a mute spectator, watching the chaos and confusion caused by just a few sparks of mine, I was indeed amused (I am quite sure you were too!). This just proves how fragile this infrastructure is, how hidebound, imbecile and myopic some 'administrators' are and how in-effectual and confusing their 'laws' are :) It is a wasted effort to try to 'change' a system that is doomed. Your nobleness will certainly be mis-interpreted.--Drbalaji md 17:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If they don't want to write about topics that interest them, I see no reason why I (or anyone else) should write it for them. If the don't like this, they're SOL. &rarr;Raul654 18:46, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that the unofficial policy is to improve articles that are lacking, rather than to drag down excellent articles to the level of articles that do need work. Drbalaji has shown this too in his attitude towards NPOV. Instead of NPOVing Coca-Cola, he just added more POV (but a POV different from the one he insinuated existed in the article), and to add insult to injury, it was in the opening paragraph, and bolded. For more and links to the diffs, see Requests for comment/Drbalaji md. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are so indeed in the right, Drbalaji, why not pen your version of events at Requests for comment/Drbalaji md? It'll be a lot more helpful than arguing with you. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And this is how they treat those who want to donate money! (moved from Talk:Main page)
"...Goodbye, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. user:Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) "

By the way, I acknowledge your apologies for the above profanity, your highness, comrade Johnleemk. --Drbalaji md 22:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent! At last some co-operation! Sure, you omitted the rest of the discussion, but acknowledging an apology is better than nothing. And, need I remind you...I am not a spokesperson for Wikipedia. And thanks for the cutting sarcasm again. I love how you troll everywhere and half-heartedly attempt to disguise it. Stop flinging mud at me and stop bringing this elsewhere other than the relevant page &mdash; Requests for comment/Drbalaji md. I am moving this from the Main Page talk to your Talk, your highness. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello. Johnleemk has requested mediation with you. Would you agree to discuss these issues with John with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Mediation Committee. Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 11:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Air India
Could we get some references to your sources of information? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks for uploading Image:Airindia.gif, Image:Airindia1.jpg, Image:Airindia3.jpg and Image:Airindia4.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

main page FA voting
I have been directed to you to find past discussions on main page FA voting. Can you point me in the right direction.? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Mercury Award
The Mercury Award, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Mercury Award satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Mercury Award and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of The Mercury Award during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Russavia 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bharathi.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bharathi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)