User talk:Hornplease/Archive1

Nehru
Hi, I've noticed that you recently edited the page Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru, which I recently unprotected. If we are to keep this page unprotected, I request that everyone sign their edits. You can do this by typing ~ at the end of your comments. Thanks, -Lommer | talk 02:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Lommer; I thought I had. Hornplease 03:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. I like the way you've already jump-started the new editing effort. -Lommer | talk 05:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Your claims that the links actually support your viewpoint is getting to be idiotic. So now you say that "on the lines of Soviet model" actually means "not on the lines of Soviet model!" See the link below along with the extract.

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/lsdeb/ls10/ses1/1430079107.htm Nehru was deeply impressed with the Chinese economic advance. Nehru was told that the Chinese Plan was based on the Russian Plan which was based on Feldman model. On his return to India, Mr. Nehru called his Economic Adviser Mr. Mahalanobis and asked him to prepare the Second Five Year Plan on the lines of the Soviet model and the Chinese model. The Plan was prepared and it was foisted on the nation. At that time, Shri Jayaprakash Narain said "The Plan was prepared behind the iron curtain". Whatever it was, the Plan created the inflationary crisis and balance of payment crisis when it was half-way through and, therefore, the Plan had to be pruned.

Thats from a speech by LK Advani. Not NPOV at all, and not a reliable source. Hornplease 05:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might want to check your main User Page - Mr. "Nehru-Stalinism" has dumped a bunch links onto it, apparently mistaking it for for your Talk page, and changes there don't get you the "You Have New Messages" messages. --Calton | Talk 16:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults
Regarding Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...the Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cultsexpanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic Structure
No problem, I needed something simple to do while waking up—it's 3am here—before moving on to writing a ten page essay that's due today.&mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Political change, Corruption in India

 * I ended up putting these up for AFD as you suggested they might need to be. Wickethewok 15:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Hobeywood, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is an article about a place, not about a person or group of people. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Patel
Hi Hornplease - I request you to review Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and gimme any advice you can give on improving it. I appreciate your help in improving it. I want to finish the work and send this article to FAC on May 15th. Rama&#39;s Arrow 01:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

India links
Hello. I noticed your comment on the CfD page for Category:Hindu politicians. Seeing that you are interested in South Asian History, you may be interested in the following links related to India, especially the History of India wikiproject.

You seem to have been here longer than I have been, but still if you need any help please feel free to contact me. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A nice article for you :)
I am not sure if you already know about this, but thought you might me interested in it. Cheers! - Aksi_great (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi. When you want to move a page to correct the spelling in the title, as you recently did to Andre Béteille and other articles, please consider moving the page instead of doing a cut'n'paste job. That way the page histories will stay with the page. See this link for more information. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dispossession Theory
What do you mean by "per...WP:BITE"? I don't think I've bitten any newcomers, so I'm not sure how this applies. Mostly, I'd like to point you to this diff. Thanks in advance for clearing this up! --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Nomination for falsafatuna withdrawn. However, I feel that Dispossession theory isn't notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. Unless, of course, it has a more common English name, in which case I would be glad to withdraw my nomination. Thanks for the heads-up! --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic structure
This is about the lead sentence to the article, which has remained unchanged since you wrote it. IANAL (where "L" stands for "Legal expert) but my understanding is that the Basic structure determines, not the test for constituionality, but a limitation on the power to amend the constitution itself. So it is a kind of "super-constitution" which exists entirely in the minds of the Supreme Court judges (not that I am unhappy about that, given our political leaders.) I would have changed it, but I remembered that I am a layman while you have probably studied the field, so I thought I'd ask you your opinion. Thanks. &mdash; Ravikiran 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Openers
Hello! In response to your post on my talk page: I'm saying it's probably too difficult to generalise! I don't think that openers are likely to average more (or are in any way, on average, better) than number 3/4/5. However, neither do I accept that they would average less overall! I haven't carried out any formal analysis, but I would guess that the number of instances in which the new ball makes an early breakthrough against decent openers is probably balanced by the number of times it does not. If it does not, then the openers are nicely set! Also, look at the number of sides whose far-and-away best bowler is unlikely to open the bowling (to name just three examples among many, Kent in the late 1920s - Tich Freeman, the 2005 Australians - Warne, and current Sri Lanka - Muralitharan). Being an opener is probably an advantage against these sides! And considering players' longevity, then what binds Rhodes, Woolley, W. G., Hobbs, Hendren, Hirst, Mead, Titmus, Illingworth, Close and Sutcliffe together? Longevity of career is probably the only thing they all have in common!! Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to wikisource
If you ever see something that should be moved to Wikisource, just use the tag. Thanks. TheProject 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up: Proclamation of the Independence Order (Bangladesh Liberation War Documents) has been listed as a possible copyright violation. If you object to this, please let me know why. Thanks. TheProject 05:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from main userpage (Kamaraj)
Hi! I understand that you removed sections from the Kamaraj article. Kindly put them back. If you wish to engage in a civilized discussion and verify, reply on this page. (I live in the NE too). If not, you will find the rest of the article will be deleted.

Regards HornStopPlease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.233.129.250 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 Jun 2006 (UTC)

---

Kamaraj
Be reasonable. Put back the deletions and we can discuss the points individually.

Regards, HornStopPlease   16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HornStopPlease (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 Jun 2006 (UTC)
 * I will certainly attempt to be reasonable. Please cite your sources or discuss possible additions on the talk page, or it will be deleted. Please note that deleting the entire page is vandalism. Hornplease 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Snide
May I point out, Ste4k, that on Wikipedia we are all simultaneously authors and readers. A quick look around the net about what the Sahitya Akademi is and who wins its awards might have been called for rather than an AfD. Then you, yourself, could have referenced the article. In future, why dont you try that? Also, when reading articles written about a cultural or political milieu with with you are unfamiliar, and where WP:BIAS might come into play, be very very careful about random prod-ing and AfDing. It just wastes everyone's time, otherwise. Hornplease 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sahitya_Akademi Not much on this man here.
 * External Link Not listed here.
 * Checking under "A" for Agarwal - nothing.

useless. Let's try Google. WOW, 757. I am impressed by the huge mention on the net about this man from the 2nd most populated nation on earth. And look what comes up first! It's an entry in Wikipedia!

As a reader, it's not my job to be trying to figure out who this person is. On the contrary, it is the work of the encyclopedia to be informative and present reliable resources. In other words, people go to an encyclopedia to look things up, not the other way around. Now, tell me again how this guy is important because the article still doesn't make that clear. Or better yet, don't waste your time telling me, go put it into the article instead so everyone can know, okay? Thanks. Ste4k 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the reply on your talk page. Hornplease

I was not trying to be snide, but I am startled to discover you have signally failed in understanding the point I was making. THe point is this: the Saihya Akademi Award exists to honour the most prominent cultural figures in various Indian vernaculars. This would have been apparent - or at least suggested - by reading the google results for the award. Next, the fact that 757 ghits exist is pretty decent. "Ramdhari Singh Dinkar", the most famous modern Hindi poet of all, gets a mere 1000 or so. This is known as WP:BIAS. There are certain cultures not as much on the internet as yet, and the world's most populousn nation is one of them. This should have been apparent to even the meanest intelligence.

I was further making a point that, even if you had doubts about the notability of a subject, if you are unwilling or perhaps incapable of carrying out even basic research and coming to simple conclusions, be a little humble when you recognise that you know nothing about the particular cultural, social, or political context that allows you to place this person. It means that this is definitely a BAD WP article; but you seem to have assumed it was an UNENCYCLOPAEDIC article, and that leap was unwarranted.

Finally, I pointed out that on WP we are all both readers and editors. That is the point. If you are capable of bringing this article to AfD, you should be capable of the basic research that everyone else put in. If not, dont bring articles to AfD and waste our time and energy. Hornplease 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes twice now that you imply that I haven't the capability of research and then point out that because of bias that the man is hard to research. What's your point? Understand mine. The article has plenty of room for any sort of links, references, and whatever else it takes to justify and establish this person in the mind of the reader. If you think there is bias, then do something about it. Rise up, do a little research of your own, and put the links inside the article. Don't complain to me if it looks like a vanity ad. I am both willing and plenty capable of researching beyond your apparent ability to demonstrate the same by placing the results of any research of your own inside the article. Your comments are about me personally, my comments are about the article. Get that point clear first in your mind before allowing your own bias to cloud your judgment regarding my intentions. If you would like to see an example of an encyclopedic article on a non-American poet, try Alexander Pushkin. And as I stated before, checking the link on the page for that award and not finding his name on it doesn't help matters much. You appear to believe that I have doubts about the notability, and the basic point you're missing is that you don't establish any notability on the page. Look at the page that was nominated before making any assumptions about my character or abilities. Thanks. Ste4k 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better view of what I nominated. Ste4k 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point again, by a mile. I didnt actually have anything to do with the article, and the first time I saw it was on your AfD, so it would have been difficult for me to put references in before you nominated it. So although "I" dont establish any notability, my point is that "you" should realise that there are some places where you are just not qualified - or, it appears, able - to judge notability. Hornplease 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand me. There are three issues here, rather than one. One is about establishing notability in the article. The second is judging my capabilities to research rather than discussing the article's ability to present it, and the third is miscontruing the deletion nomination of an article with the notability of a man. Did you even look at how the article appeared when it was nominated? There isn't any mention of any Akadami there. Stop blaming me for the bias of the internet industry regarding this man. It was a fair nomination. And if you haven't noticed, the technology standards of India are far above average. Are you aware of the outsourcing percentage of technology to India from the U.S.? Do you think that I have some sort of anti-Indian prejudice or something? The article was listed for cleanup. Given the information in the article as it was before nomination, nobody would be able to believe the information in it unless they had prior knowledge as you suggest. This encyclopedia is not composed of experts, it does have many unpaid people roaming through articles trying to clean them up. And when articles clearly fail to meet any sort of verifiability standard, per policy, an editor is supposed to delete. Please see WP:VER and stop giving me problems about this article's nomination. You are showing your own personal bias and making it personal towards me. This is just another article as far as I am concerned, and I suggest that instead of making it a personal issue with me, that you take that energy and apply it toward the article. Ste4k 15:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the next time you get the urge to discuss this article with me, please do so here rather than my talk-page. Thanks. Ste4k 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Learn this.

 * You make the absurd and self-serving claim that nobody would have believed the information contained in the article. As I said, it was a bad article. You had three options (1) Think "someone thinks this guy is a really major Hindi poet. What do I know about Hindi poets? Nothing. What might the internet tell me about Hindi poets? Nothing that I am capable of deciphering. So why dont I move on and nominate for deletion something else?" (2) Think "this article does not establish notability. Let me slap a nn template on it and dump it on the Indian administrators noticeboard." (3) Think "This article does not establish notability. I am clearly capable of judging notability. Let me nominate it for an AfD."
 * You picked the third. This was the wrong choice. Accept that, fix your behaviour, and move on. I am not 'making it personal', I would just like more people to realise that nominating articles for AfD is not the right way to try and clean them up, but a last resort. And people should not nominate articles about subjects about which they know absolutely nothing.
 * Finally: thanks for informing me about "India's tech standards." If you had had any experience of it at all, you would realise that 90 year old vernacular poets are not the kind of people who tend to get on to even a developing domestic web, which has a penetration till today of less than 4%.
 * As I said, learn from this, and move on. Hornplease 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You can take your condescending, demeaning, derision and shove it where the technology don't shine. Get it? You don't know me, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're offensive in the extreme. If you actually care about that article then go fix it and quit bothering me about it. I have better things to do then to listen to you whine. And for the last time, you are making me your personal affair while I am currently trying to improve other articles. Shoo! Ste4k 15:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you delete every message left on your talk page, I am not sure if you ever read this. However, please take the time out of your attempts to "improve" articles to read both WP:BIAS and WP:NPA, which may come as news to you. Thanks. Hornplease 06:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Subhash Bose
I need to go now but will think about it tomorrow. WikiSceptic went and blanked out Christian entries on List of terrorist organisations and added a whole swathe of hindu organizations which do not seem to meet the requirement of widespread military activity. I've also been told not to jump on newbies which also affects the lengths.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Hornplease. Well, thanks for your support of my stance against attacks. I'm doing alright and trying to avoid deletion for a while. Seeing as I'm caught in a four-way religious dispute, I've started a religion survey on my talk page, to see if I am obviously biased or not. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Chhota haazri
Hi Hornplease. Please accept my thanks on unprodding and making the above page better. I have been through countless days of chhota haazri myself, so the subject was close to me. But I never thought it could expand to more than a line, and so prodded it myself before somebody else would do it. Thanks for the nice job and the reference. -- Lost 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mujib
Hi - many thanks! No I don't think I'll be working on Ziaur Rahman. This Fire Burns Always  12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Rashtra
Sorry about that. There were several POV edits by the anon and that one looked the same. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re edits to chappel disambig
Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29#Individual_entries multiple links on a line are discouraged, because they make the page more confusing not less. I hope that's clear. Megapixie 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Done - as suggested. Disambig is a misunderstood feature at best. Cheers. Megapixie 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)