User talk:SriMesh/Archive 3

View User Page DO NOT ADD COMMENTS HERE PLEASE
 * Please add comments to the bottom of the Current talk page.
 * This particular page is Archive 3...there are other archival pages for its history as it was getting too long.

Did it work?
I noticed your question at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage.

Did you try it?

And did it work?

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Card
  Merry Christmas and...  Happy New Year! -- Chetblong TalkSign

You should be notified...
...Of the discussion I have posted on the Saskatchewan Roads page. This may be something you should read.Mitch32contribs 15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome
Thanks a lot for your welcome, the banners and comments on George Exton Lloyd. I have no particular interest in Saskatchewan, my interest in Lloyd is family history: he is my great-grandfather. I have access to a lot of materials about him and hope to, over time, build a good article; of course the big challenge is getting past family stories and into checkable references! On the challenge of getting from "stub" to "start" class, I've upgraded the citations using templates as you suggested. Any further suggestions of where to focus my energies? Clippership (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Shaktism
Please take a look at the article. Most of your suggestions are executed by me and the main contributor of the article User:Devi bhakta.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada Roads
To begin improving the quality of our stubs, it has been suggested that we delete all navigational templates. More broadly, we have to decide on various conventions, which can apply to Saskatchewan road articles; please participate at WT:CANRD if interested. –Pomte 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks. I hope to produce all the 900s-roads to better condition in the future (914 is my next target). I hardly get a barnstar so this is greatly appreciated. I'll some productions for SK Roads up in a day or two. Mitch32contribs 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 58 is in need of a BIG cleanup. Route 34 needs a short one. I'll look tommorrow for details.Mitch32contribs 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for one thing - 33 along with most of these articles are red link farms that have to be cleaned up. Maybe start redirecting or starting articles?Mitch32contribs 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Matrikas
Hi, would you like to GA review this article too ? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you are well now. Take care. Please add a note on the talk of Matrikas, about any problems in the article. I want the article to be a FA one day. So find all the faults in the article and what i need to write about more. Thanks. I will look into the matter after the problems in the Gita article are resolved.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Srimesh, I didnt get why created a double copy and have reverted it. Regards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By mistake, you copied the whole article again in references. So there were 2 infoboxes. 2 origins sections etc. Would you please make the formatting edits again. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita
Bhagavad Gita is one of those Hinduism articles that I have not worked much on. But, i nominated it as i want to work on it and i felt a GA review will help it be better, just like a peer review. I did not use peer review because the response i got there for Shaktism was an automated review. Thats it. I have addressed some of your concerns about MOS, images, refs. Please strike out the issues that you think are resolved. I also have few queries (left as a note on the talk) about the modifications. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first img (The Vishvarupa one) has fair use rationale, but that comment was not striked. do i have to modify the rationale or is it an invalid rationale??? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am suspicous of some refs in the article and have listed them on the article talk. will you comment on them and judge if you feel thet are reliable. For others, i am adding cite web. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of cite web in Force
Hi there. When using cite web, the accessdate field should be entered as 2008-01-04 and not January 4, 2008, otherwise it gets redlinked in the references. Regards, &mdash; BillC talk 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Willowgrove, Saskatoon
Hi Julia. I have undertaken a rewrite and reorganization of content on the Willowgrove article. Since you created it recently, I didn't want to just arbitrarily overwrite it without getting your feedback first. The new page is currently here - I would appreciate your comments. -Drm310 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the article! I have made the changes and logged it on the Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon page. -Drm310 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the mention in the SK newsletter. I hope that banner consolidation will result in better article exposure. --Qyd (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan has an Image:Sylvia Fedoruk.jpg on it that was working correctly, and I am missing someting as it is showing code in the article and not the image.SriMesh | talk  04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer: you seemed to have a problem with html code, which can't be used anywhere in an image code (for some reason it breaks it). I've fixed it for you for the meantime. The " & ndash; " was the offending formatting that broke your image. I hope this helps :-) Pump me  up  04:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

British Columbia
Sri, I don't question Emily Carr's notability. But the quotations don't mention BC. How do you know they're about BC? You got them from ThinkExist, Who Said and someone's blog, none of which include a source we could check. (By the way, since you do not actually have a citation from a specific work, these quotes are considered unsourced by wikiquote standards. Just because you think you know who said it doesn't mean it's sourced). If you have better sources that prove these statements are about BC, by all means include them. The other two quotations aren't really notable, they're just tourism and investor propaganda. But that's just my opinion. Others may not see it that way. If I were you, I would put my arguments in the vote for deletion thread. Currently you are only defending the layout, which is fine. You need to address (in that forum) my charge that the page lacks content. --ubiquity (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)