User talk:Redtigerxyz/Archive 5

Review
Thanks for your review of Swaminarayan for GA status. Your suggestions are much appreciated and through them it seems clear that some work needs to be done before the GA nomination. With the formation of the Swaminarayan wrokgroup, this should now not take too long. Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks for your reviws and alos helping with WP:Swaminarayan    Juthani1    tcs 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realised your not a member of WP: Swaminarayan. You are very much involved in Swaminarayan articles and your help is much appreciated - it would be great if you would sign up for the WP. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Swaminarayan has undergone many changes in the last few days. One glaring thing yet to be done is the merger of one-two line paras. Other than that can u pl. go thru it again and see if you can find any other faults in the article? And whiles ur at it, if u can spare the time do take a look at Swaminarayan temples as well. Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 12:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images
Nope, not all Flickr images will work. We can only use those images which have a CC-by or CC-by-SA license. This is an example. Under the "Additional Information" header on the right, click "Some rights reserved" to see the license (this is CC-by 2.0, so it is okay to use). Images that say "all rights reserved" or have NC, ND components (e.g. CC-by-NC) do not work. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en - see the "NC" in the address? That's a component that makes it unusable per the above comment.  NC means "Non-Commercial" use only; for an image to be free, commercial use has to be allowed.  What you can do, though, is email the Flickr user and ask them whether they'd be willing to drop that NC condition. They can then change the license on the Flickr site or send an email to OTRS saying they agree to a CC-by license.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you pls review the lead?
Hi Redtiger, when you get time, could you pls review the lead of Ramakrishna? I want a user who is not much aware about Ramakrishna to review the lead. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 16:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free 2D art license.
Hi, perhaps you may find this site useful, the images can be used under, Template:Non-free_2D_art. — Nvineeth talk 06:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
Hi,

Id like some further info on how assessment really works. I wanted to put Swaminarayan as top priority for the Wikiproject Swaminarayan but put it top imp for the whole Hinduism Wikiproject it seems. Further, I was working on Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Mumbai yesterday. I reshaped the article, gave proper in line referencing and added 2 sections. It was a Start Class article, so I uprgraded it to a C Class one when I finished. However, it seems to small for C Class - can u pl help me .. Regards, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 11:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I dint no tht - thanks!

PS: BTW seems ur workload just increased - could u pl. assess the above? Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably becoz there are 76 temples in Bhuleshwar! Ur from Bomaby and dont no bout it - think of those who arnt from Bombay! Iv got a ref from the Maharashtra State Gazzette for this one. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey - the other one is BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Mumbai - why did u move the article w/o first proposing it on the talk page! Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dadar one is BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Mumbai. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) this is a link from an official BAPS website - http://www.mandir.org/contactus/index.htm scroll down and u will find it listed as BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Mumbai

Mahatma Gandhi may be known as Mahatma Gandhi - but his wiki page is on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, all other BAPS temple artilces on wiki state BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Toronto, BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Atlanta etc. ... only Swaminarayan Sampraday Mandirs on wiki State Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Auckland, Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Karachi etc. .. its a differentiation. Iv not made the BAPS articles - the BAPS guys hv made them and named them like this. Like the above example of Mahatma Gandhi - official names should be used on Wiki. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be some mistake on the Akshardham site - its def. BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir - as Mandir.org states - lets follow the above eg. and keep a differentiation - like I said I have not made the other BAPS mandir pages - but they have been named in this fashion. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Iv spent quite a bit of time in Mumbai - out of curiosity where in Mumbai are u from? Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Could u pl. change the importance of Swaminarayan from High to Top for Project Swaminarayan - Its the main article for the Project. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Khandoba
I'm working on a few reference cleanup tweaks right now, and then I will pass the article. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Rollback granted. Just remember to use it to revert edits that are obvious vandalism. Note that using rollback to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war are considered misuse of the tool, and can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!

Pictures
Hi,

I saw that you deleted the image on the Mumbai Mandir page today - Iv got official permission to use Swaminarayan Sampraday images on wiki with a GFDL license. I will be requesting the people in charge of the website to email this to Wikipedia. Thought Id let you know. Regards, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 17:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the email has already been sent to Wikipedia from the administrator of the website. Im also in the process of getting blanket permission for use of all images and text from Swaminarayan Sampraday sites of Wikipedia under GFDL - this will probably come from the main Swaminarayan Sampraday website admin today. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba
I am sorry for the delay. I have striked my comments. Supporting/Opposing is not possible since I haven't reviewed the entire article. Anyway, Good Luck. Kensplanet Talk  Contributions  17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1a
I went through the FAC comments just now, and I don't see any objections to the prose, although some may be forthcoming. Unless you already know of specific problems, your best course would be to wait and see what the reviewers have to say. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks!

Raj2004 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In Reply to Rollback Reply
Heya, thanks! I have approached an admin. I feel stupid for not checking sources. but like I said it is really late night (early morning), so I'm not thinking straight. Thanks again though, it is appreciated, and I'll definitely keep it in mind! Knippschild (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the image showing the size comparison of Mahabharata
Hi, I am appreciative of the many good works that you have done on many pages. But I don't understand the reason for deleting the size-comparison image from the page Mahabharata. That picture only visualizes what is described in text (that Mahabharata is 10 times Iliad and Oddeyssy combined and 4 times the size of Ramayana). So there is no original-research involved in this image. It is just a transformation of textual information into graphical form. Secondly, this information is verifiable by actually counting the stanzas or number of words present in each of these works. If the image was about the size of the armies participated in the Mahabharata War vs. the size of the army participated in the battle of Troy, we could say that it is speculative. But there is no doubt regarding the size of these epics in terms of stanzas or words since they are a fact and are verifiable by direct counting. But if you have removed it on the basis of aesthetic ground it is fine, since when i placed the image, i too felt it to reduce the beauty of that page, and wanted to relocate it properly. Same is the case with illustrations of showing Vyasa narrating the epic to Ganesa for the purpose of writing it down and the one showing Ugrasrava Sauti narrating it to Saunaka. These two incidents are important events in the transformation of the epic as the first one denotes the origin of the epic from Vyasa and the second one denotes the last transformation of the epic from Jaya to Bharata to Mahabharata, as it is narrated by Ugrasrava Sauti.

--Jijithnr (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That Mahabharata is 10 times bigger than Iliad or Odyssey combined, is not an idea or an argument, it is a fact. Besides in the same page Mahabharata this information is mentioned as text. So this image doesn't falls under the category of original research. Request you to restore the image. I leave it to you to align and size the image properly so that it looks good in the page. --Jijithnr (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics
Thankyou, for your excellent review. While I believe the article was not upto GA standards, but however most or all the references used are reliable. Now, why are they reliable; you can find that out at Talk:Mangalorean Catholics. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image of Parvati
Just wanted to say thanks for adding that image which illustrated the section I wrote so nicely. It's pretty much what I had in mind when I'd tried to add that other picture a while ago. I finally did manage to track it down, and asked for permission but they didn't go for it, so I'm really glad you found that one.--AaronCarson (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was away for a while and I'd been writing at another wiki also as some of the smaller wikis have a lot more gaps to be filled and Wikipedia has most of its bases covered, it seems. I'll look up those references as soon as I can.--AaronCarson (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An or a historic
Good question. No one ever asked me this before. I've been using "an", I think because my most gruff English teachers insisted on it. However, my 1984 copy of the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual says "a" is correct. Poking around on the Internet, I'm finding a difference of opinion. The explanation for the disagreement that makes most sense to me says that if you pronounce "historic" with a hard "h", it gets an "a", just like "hat" and "horse". On the other hand, if you pronounce it with a soft "h" so that sounds the same as if it were spelled "istoric", it gets an "an". I don't have a copy of the stylebook of the London Times, but it might say that "an" is correct. I should probably stop changing "a historic" to "an historic" unless for the sake of a particular article's internal consistency. I think you can reasonably use whichever you prefer, but debating with the other editor might be more bother than it's worth. Finetooth (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nattal Sahu
Please see the article again. I have added four book and a U Penn PhD thesis that refer to Nattal Sahu. I can email you a couple of pages of scanned text if you like for the books. I have seen other sources, but they will take time to locate. --Malaiya (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Vithoba revisit
Hi Redtigerxyz,

The are three reasons why I've been so slow to respond (and I apologize):
 * 1) I have been dealing with burnout issues with respect to Wikipedia. I'm feeling better, but still not 100%. Maybe I'm up to 65% or 70%.
 * 2) My wife has been repeatedly requesting that I spend more free time with her. :-)
 * 3) I recently rec'd an email from the chair of my dissertation committee, outlining improvements that need to be made to my dissertation.

I'll contact the FA director and ask for advice.

Sorry again, Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another copyedit
Regrets. I can find and fix low-level errors in anything written in English, but I have a harder time with higher-level problems involving specific content that's unfamiliar to me. I've read the latest comments at FAC, and I don't think I know enough about Vithoba to be of significant help. I remember that User:Galena11 did an excellent job with Ganesha. Perhaps she would be willing to assist with Vithoba. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba articles
Hi, I came across few articles on Vithoba of Pandharpur in the journal Prabuddha Bharatha, in the following issues: Aug08 Sept08 Oct08, probably it will be of interest to you. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the link to Aug above, in fact you can find the entire archives here, I recently subscribed to it and it does contain lot of scholarly, very good articles. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At jstor, I found few articles which can be of interest:
 * The "Pānduranga-Māhātmya" of Śrīdhar
 * Mālobā, the Marāthā Saint
 * On the Road: A Maharashtrian Pilgrimage
 * You are welcome, (and what a coincidence! I pressed preview here, to see your messages!) -- Nvineeth (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I feel that the "akimbo" images of Rakhumai, Vithobha are required, and these are available in the august 2008 issue of PB,(pages 447-448) and I think we can straight away use this (with attribution and "licenseNon-free newspaper image") A fair use rationale is very appropriate here because generally the public is not allowed to take such closeup photos of deities in garbha gudi... Anyway if required we can write to them and get the permission to use these images, and use OTRS. Nvineeth (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vithoba
I took a look at the article but I can't find any major issues with it (there are a few MOS issues such as spaced en dashes and inconsistent inline citation formats). I'm probably a bit too non-neutral with the article since I reviewed it for GA, too. Gary King ( talk ) 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits which you can use as examples. Gary King  ( talk ) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the inconsistent problem, what I am talking about is "Keer p.482" should be "Keer p. 482", with the space. As for spaced and unspaced en dashes, they should be spaced when the items on both sides are not the same "type"; for instance, "January–February" or "March 2–10" is unspaced because they are both the same "type", but "April 3, 2008 – May 4, 2009" is spaced because they are different "types". Gary King  ( talk ) 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Year ranges are unspaced en dashes. Gary King  ( talk ) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The ones I know are more interested in pop culture-related articles. I'd suggest going to WP:PRV to find someone. Gary King  ( talk ) 14:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That list of volunteers is probably your best bet. I've only been working on featured lists and video game articles recently so the people I ask for copyedits specialize in those. Gary King  ( talk ) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already linked above. Gary King  ( talk ) 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; PRV Gary King  ( talk ) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Best Wishes on the Occasion of Diwali -- Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Assam serial blasts
I saw your redirect as per the nomination that Bangalore uses that. But see the terror in India infobox on the page. You'll see when it was so many bombings it was called serial blasts. That's what I was looking for to name it, and that's how i found your article. Lihaas (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Review - reassess?
Thanks for your review on the Holy Jesus Hospital article. The article has gone through many changes. Perhaps you could re-asses it? Nicg1883 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Re: Vithobha FAC
I'm going to be away for periods of time so I'm not sure I'll be able to help much. When there's doubt, it's always a good idea to try to find alternate sources that include the same content. However, I'll try to take a look when time permits. Whether it passes A grade or not, you're putting a lot of hard work in and that's commendable. Hang in there; I'm sure you can try for FAC again sometime soon after resolving those concerns. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a similar problem when I featured Amateur radio in India and Indian Standard Time. You might want to see how I pitched the claim of reliability: To answer your query, http://www.ambedkar.org/ does not appear reliable, but if it's a published book, then the book is more or less reliable. It really depends on context. If an author has written several topics on the issue, and he/she is known to be actively an expert in the topic, then reliability can be ascertained. I'm not too familiar with the nitty-gritties of the subject to figure out what's missing, so I would have to decline on that count.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be a good idea to make a formal request on the assessment page so the dept. is aware of the request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Swaminarayan temples
Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I actually wanted u to have a look at it and see how it was shaping. The thing with listing temples is that there is no complete list of temples available - several Swaminarayan Sampraday sites list temples - but all are incomplete. There are about 120 presently in the list - but thats probably just "the tip of the iceberg" - there are over a thousand mandirs around the world - I have no idea about the exact figure - and the problem is the list is ever increasing - New temples just keep comming up. The India part is the smallest - presently just about 40 temples - covering major cities and religious destinations. There would be over 500 temples in India only - and it would be impossible to list them all. What Iv done is Iv made it alphabetically and broken it into states as u suggested. Wherever possible Iv also put pictures of the temple building - note thats not always available - in some cases there is no Image available at all! I have contacted the main Swaminarayan website and have obtained permission by email for all the pictures - a blanket permission covering everything - pictures, information, articles - everything from any Swaminarayan Sampraday website. I am forwarding it to wiki - should be sorted out soon. The thing is that "Swaminarayan Temple" means just a Sampraday temple - no other organisation can have a "Swaminarayan temple" as they are not ratified by the Acharya - they must have their own prefix - if u rem v had this conversation for the mumbai mandir too - a BAPS mandir list for example would be "BAPS Swaminarayan temples". Yes, Ill try and expand the lead. Im looking forward to ur input on that (Swaminarayan). Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Just to let you know, the email containing permission for use of all Swaminarayan Sampraday artiles/pictures etc has been forwarded to permissions. There should be absolutly no problem on this front now. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba
Hello! Nice to meet you.

Bad luck about your delays in getting to FA. I'm very happy to help, in fact I'm keen. Lots for me to learn here.

One challenge is that I'm swamped with overdue deadlines in real life, my own, and those of some people who pay me to write for them. However, if you can put up with me chipping in for a few hours here and there when I turn to Wiki to relax and get away from other work, then I guess it's worth you keeping in touch with me.

I just read the lead. It's extremely well written, in my opinion. I won't explain why, it just is. Opinions on these things differ, partially because tastes differ. Almost anything can be improved; however, sometimes all people mean by improvement is, "make it more the way I like things." It can be a very frustrating thing trying to please people, because ultimately it is impossible to please everyone all the time. But me, I'm easily pleased. ;)

Indology articles will often cause headaches for English readers because there are so many unfamiliar words. This means good text attracts more criticism than it deserves. But a more positive way of putting it is to say that other articles can get away with average levels of readability, while Indology articles often have to be well above average before they gain wide support. Such is life.

The topic sentence idea sounds like a good bit of feedback to me. Not only does it identify a perceived issue, it suggests a way forward.

I have a huge deadline Thursday morning (forgetting overdue ones at this point). I can't do much until Friday. I'll see what I can do regarding advice ... and actual work to help you move along. I'm also willing to say if I think people are giving you advice to "fix something that's not broken." Reliable sources, though, no article ever suffers by having more of those! :)

Best regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding William Crooke, FAC, Anish and others, I can see their point of view, and have no strong opinion regarding whether prose is used to say more about scholars cited. For example, those who are cited as examples of the view of their particular tradition need to be so described, because it is not they alone who are really being referenced, but the consensus of their tradition. On the other hand, those who are scholars, with no particular affiliation, it seems to me, normally need not be described as "a reliable scholar in the field" (or words to that effect), because readers should be able to assume that references have only been provided when they are reliable. Having said that, though, I think I have found it politic in several articles to provide such context indirectly, where reliablitiy of sources is challenged. When I do it, I try to do it by offering information like, "author of The History of Indian Philosophy" or "from the University of Pune", which are new statements of verifiable information, rather than editorial ascriptions of reliability tantamount to "peacocking". Where a quoted author has a Wiki article, I am much more inclined simply to use a name, since a reader can so easily check credentials, or an editor supply sourced information from that biography if it is felt to be helpful.
 * In any case, my edits are no more and no less than personal judgements of what constitutes improvement, as indeed are comments of other editors. Please feel free to revert any or all of my work. Regarding Crooke, I'll seek a verifiable gem of context from his article (or add one to it) and introduce that into the text of our article.
 * Questions of style have many legitimate perspectives, proposals for improvements to style need to be presented non dogmatically, and should be received in that spirit also. I'm looking forward to getting sufficient grip of the material I can make some assessment of logical structure (at the moment it is looking good to me). The quality of the text as readable academic English seems very high to me also. I have not overlooked the lead, I simply couldn't find any way to phrase it better. To my reading it is very clear, smooth and attractive prose.
 * I'll be back to work again sometime today, when I need a break from real-life writing tasks.
 * Best regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No complaints from me. I agree Mercer's evalutation of Crooke's contribution to scholarship should be noted at the Crooke article. I also agree that providing text regarding sources in the body of an article "dilutes" the main subject. I think WP:UNDUE is aimed at a different sort of issue, say if we included a very marginal and minority opinion regarding the subject of the article. I would think the Mercer quote is good to establish Crooke's opinion is far from UNDUE. However, the main thing is Mercer's opinion is not about the subject of the article, it's about a source for the article ... tangential, I agree. There are other ways of fending off awkward feedback, "orientalist" may suffice as you suggest. My preference would be to have neither, but as I've said, I'm not dogmatic about it. I'm happy if you're happy. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work with the info box and distinguish tags at the William Crooke articles! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome indeed to the little work I've done. I have said several times and mean it wholeheartedly--the article is extremely well written. It selects the best sources, follows them closely, only uses what is close to the subject of the title of the article. It presents information in an unfolding, logical and chronological manner. It is well illustrated. Also, I think the "turn of phrase" is stylistically very elegant and so a pleasure to read. If this is largely the work of one writer, as it appears to be, that writer has both a scholarly mind and sensitivity to quality expression in written language. The main thing that makes the article difficult is trying to say things in English that don't normally need to be said in this language. That is a very demanding context for writer and reader both.
 * I also want to thank you for taking the time to interact with comments I make on the talk page, some of which are very long. I find your responses educational and encouraging always. :) Best Alastair Haines (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Thank you for saying nothing about cricket. The better team won! Good luck in Kanpur today! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tiger, will do. Shouldn't be long now. Sorry I keep getting distracted. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Thirumangai Alvar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. November 9

Thank you
Thank you for your concern on the article. You are right there are no pics. The only option is to contact websites. That may take years to complete. Website responses are very very slow. GA is the maximum which I can try elevating for now. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Mumbai
Thankyou for your image of Lokmanya Tilak. If you have better images, then do put it here. Sections which are in need of better and relevant images are History of Mumbai, History of Mumbai, History of Mumbai and History of Mumbai. Additionally, any copyedits or anyother help will be greatly appreciated as you are member of Wikiproject Mumbai and History of Mumbai is a top rated article for the project. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  12:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Anupam Mukhopadhyay suspect sockpuppetry
I suspect Sock puppetry at the Afd, can you please check the users.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've blocked a whole pile of them, see my logs. You can chuck out the votestacking as needed.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 03:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * done,  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A-class review
Hello Redtigerxyz. Being a member of WP:IN Assesement Department, I am ready to review your article for A-class status. But If you plan to give it for FAC soon, then you better submit it directly at FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  12:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Creating of new articles is not only work, it is also a privilege. It is a biggest encyclopedia in the history. I prefer en-wiki because it is international wiki. Here is possible to meet people from every country of the world. On en-wiki is possible to find experts on every field. I see you have an extraordinary contribution to the wikipedia articles. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gate of Mercy Synagogue
No sources available online. When I visited the place, it was padlocked :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenu
Can you please add the fact tags back where you think we could use some better referencing, that way myself and others can see where to focus on? Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any way you can hold off on your "Remove" vote until myself and have had a chance to address more of your concerns? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will try to get on it soon. Cirt (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done a bit more work on this, a majority of the credit goes to who put in some hard work improving the article as well. I would very much appreciate it if you could take a moment to reevaluate your position. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the other remaining issues, could you take another look? Cirt (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba
I am happy to say I've finally finished working through copy-editing the article. I've made some suggestions in the Glossary section of the talk page that you might like to consider. I believe that thinking about which words you want to teach to your reader may help you with other features of the article. Logical flow, concise and clear text will always interact with introducing English-only readers to new words and ideas.

Personally, I think your article is outstandingly well researched, sparklingly clear and balances detail with brevity in a very disciplined fashion. I would have no reservations recommending it to readers and other editors as being among the highest standard articles at Wikipedia. But, I am a generous sort of critic, best regards at FAC, if I can help you further in any way, please let me know.

PS I trust your own family have not been touched by recent tragic events. In any case, Maharashtra has my deepest sympathy at this time. Peace to you my friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can make myself available for a few days after the 16th of December. I will be in Melbourne without online access from the 23rd to the 28th. I would be keen to observe the FAC comments and respond as I believe appropriate to them, and helpful for acceptance of the article as FA. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes! I think your article is an excellent example of doing these things just about perfectly. However, there are still a lot of new ideas and words for people, it's the nature of the subject and it's the nature of English speakers. People all over the world don't mind learning new English words, but English-only speakers are not as used to learning foreign language items. I don't know which part of the MoS you're refering to, but I think the key thing is feedback. If peer reviews and GA and FA attempts are treated kindly by reviewers, then things are probably reasonably good (though reviewers are often more educated than the average reader). Otherwise, people may criticise the text a little, simply because they find all the explanation tiring and not what they're interested in. Anyway, we'll see what we'll see. It's a great article, I'm looking forward to hearing comments. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think that might be helpful, please do that. Feel free to rephrase definitions. I've given sources in some cases where I think definitions could be questioned. There are many good things that can be done, we don't need to do any, let alone all of them. The "Glossary" idea, and the sidebars are just ideas. It stimulates thinking, they are not formal proposals. Your note idea sounds interesting. I'm sure you'll do it skillfully. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Won't be reviewing articles this month. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:A Description in Konkani.jpg
Hi, Redtigerxyz, please provide the proper information for the image so that it can be used for the Goan Catholics article. Sanfy talk

Thanks!
Thanks for the birthday wishes! I use inkscape for all drawings, and save them as SVG. It's free, platform independent, and has a lower learning curve. It also supports different stroke styles, so you can get the dotted and hashed lines needed for sectional views too. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Pulicat
You are probably not aware that when you "corrected" my citations you spoiled the critical reference #55 that supports the DYK nomination for the article.
 * "and between 1621 and 1665 alone, used 131 ships to transport 38,441 Indian slaves obtained mostly from Pulicat brokers.[55]"

The correct reference for that statement is now shown later as [56]. Please revert your change ASAP so #55 refers to ¶¶ 14-17. Also please check your other "corrections" to be sure they are indeed correct. Thank You. Marcus (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Red, I am Sorry, You made no error. I had the ref wrong in my memory and the original ref was correct after all. The 38,000 number I was concerned about supporting comes from addition of 26,885 Bay of Bengal slaves in first table with 11,556 Arakan slaves in third table, all of whom were sold and transshipped  from Coromandel coast to Batavia. Again my apologies, and thanks for reformatting how the citations display. I appreciate your help and interest in this article. Marcus (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba review
I will be glad to take a look at it, but am both fairly busy and somewhat burned out at the moment, so it may take me several days. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Barring unforeseen problems, I should review it by next Tuesday sometime. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will continue with the review, just busy at the moment and can only do it in pieces. Hope my comments are helpful, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to reply until now - I have not reread the article to see the changes, but as of my last review I owuld have been at Comments expecting to support after the minor changes. I did notice some refs not in numerical order too - forgot to mention that before. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - good luck with the FAC, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

DYKBEST
Regarding this: according to the archive 229 and 227, they were not lead hooks. What made you think they were? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The images are there for purely descriptive purposes. It doesn't mean they were lead hooks when they got featured. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For what purposes? This list is not an archive. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That should be already obvious when the hook does not have "(pictured)". --BorgQueen (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)