User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive145

Steve Waugh
I see that you did a fair bit of work on this article last year. I've been going through trying to fix the citation needed tags and generally clean the references and article up to nominate it for Good Article, but it probably needs a bit of work on the lead too. I wondered if as you presumably know a fair bit more about Waugh than I (and a good deal more about Wikipedia!), you might be able to lend some assistance? Regards, Harrias (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. All these guys with long careers, Bob Simpson, Benaud, Lawry, Border, M Taylor, S/M Waugh, K Miller got them all big and dtill haven't finished :(
 * Funny that, I was thinking about expanding Waugh the other day. Big project 120kb + bit like Ponting.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, these iconic figures can be quite taxing...as one always gets drawn into forks and daughter articels  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User Maleabroad seems to be active again
Just check these guys: and. Seems to be socks.--Anish (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo! He had a few others I nabbed as well  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Didn't realize he was active again; I even welcomed one of his socks . Will keep my eyes open for more incarnations since he, of course, won't just stop. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the Brahmin stuff is usuaully pretty obviuos for a person who has encountered him before  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True. The problem is that some of these articles are so replete with POV and OR (example) that it's hard to distinguish good faith editors from counter POV pushers. However, the sock ID itself should have given Maleabroad away if I had been looking out for him. Abecedare (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!...This joker does not get tired.--Anish (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

= Maleabroad ? Abecedare (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also: By the way, Maleabroad seems to be trying out a new tactic. Using a sock to make POV additions to an article and then using the account to blank the page a minute later. When an RC patroller reverts the blanking the previous changes get overlooked and buried in the article history. We need to be make sure that we revert his socks deeply enough. Can you confirm if I am on the right scent ? Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bingo. locked his computers. Fairly static.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also what do you think about. Direct hit, has rollback, some of edits in the same area, but a lot of random film edits. MAybe this is his clean account?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. There is a slight overlap of interest (eg ), and arguably outlook, but GSMR's main editing seems to be at unrelated pages. Also I don't see any similarities in terms of content, edit-summaries, talk-page messages or preferred citation styles. In my experience, Maleabroad isn't really able to bottle up his POV and rage - his main strategy is to segregate his edits among many accounts. Can't explain the direct hit though - was it a public/U.Calgary computer, or a home IP ? Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uni. It was the only non-Maleabroad guy on that IP though. Although on another Maleabroad Uni IP, there is a direct hit with another fellow who only edits ice hockey  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, GSMR's Youtube channel shows a much better ideological match with Maleabroad than I suspected based upon the wikipedia edits alone. So now I am not so sure ... Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did he edit Tamil stuff with Maleabroad or any Tamil v Sanskrit type stuff??  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found only 1 Tamil-Sanskrit related edit so far . Abecedare (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What about this one? I undid some of the edits changing the population % of Hindus etc, but haven't undone the Tamil texts bit, as it appears to be sourced, although I'm concerned about it. Only edits by and doesn't appear to be a new user either. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's surely him. I blocked him, although by now he surely had abandoned that account anyway. Feel free to revert his additions. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser: See edits at Runoko Rashidi by And of course genes-haplogroup-race is a favorite theme with maleabroad too. Don't know what to make of it though; could be off-site coordination, or just shared ideology. Abecedare (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hkelkar sock
 * GSMR
 * I'd never heard of this guy or these theories. Though with HK and MA's strong Brahminist outlook, HK did make a lot of diatribes about Ambedkar in his time, and this RR guy got an Ambedkar award, so it's not surprising. Not sure it MA did any explicit anti-Ambedkar stuff but with his brahmin activities I'd be surprised if he didn't dislike Ambedkar. No clue how infamous RR is with these folks though  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

. Does have a thing about Tamil. That one was CU confirmed  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules of cricket - FAQ
I'm teaching The Loom of Youth by Alec Waugh to my students next week. As they are American and woefully ignorant of the rules of cricket and cricket features prominently in the book, I thought perhaps you might know of a website I could direct them to which would give them a quick overview of the game? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the Laws of cricket works well and it has a link to the official rules. Fast bowling, spin bowling and batting (cricket) also work. The articles are relatively good although not great.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a wacky video on yourbue Don't have sound so dunno if it is good. Here is another stack  on the sidebar.  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 04:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A policy of Han Tu usage
Hello YellowMonkey, could you make or suggest some policy/guideline about the usage of Han Tu in Vietnamese-related article because some editor used it too much (ex. this article). This is the most tiresome issue which I had faced for many time in Wikipedia and I couldn't deal with it well because of the lack of policy/guideline and my English skill.--AM (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't really much point in a policy when it only concerns a few people, and the adder in question (Badagnani) ignores it anyway. If it isn't sourced, you can just remove it per normal. Is there a major dispute on when it can be used (sources permitting). Apart from that the main thing is the undue weight because of Badagnani regarding it as one of hte most important things, and often there is a short article with 50%+ on Han tu  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I accept this status quo because too few editors concerns about it. I will try to deal with it accordingly if I face it again.--AM (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reasonable
"Also, regardless of the tactics, people will object to any sizable bit on the annexation of Goa, since it will creat undue weight", you wrote.

I am aware of "any sizable bit" and "undue weight". This is why I am discussing what people think are the most important points. I have even told another editor that long sections on the topic are not appropriate.

Happy Deepavali! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. For two reasons: First, Gaunkar of Goa has a very specific agenda that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia and you are only encouraging him. Second, the reasoning behind including a line about the annexation of Goa is faulty. India annexed Hyderabad, fought a war in Kashmir, sent the army into Sikkim. All that would also have to be included and would be an overweighting of recent historical events. You'll only end up expending goodwill on a chimerical mission of not particular value. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Political integration of India not to mention all the other bigger things involving various empires.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Hassett
If you are planning to take the biography to FAC, it might interest you to know that Hassett's obituary in The Australian appeared on the front page. The death of Keith Miller received less attention than that. Full ref:

"Cricket great Lindsay Hassett dies" by Mike Coward, The Australian, 17/06/1993, pages 1, 22.

Ottre 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Luckily I think the bios will have all of that in there as well  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

123.211.192.0/20
An IP address from the range 123.211.192.0/20, which you blocked with a reason which doesn't seem to make sense, is asking for an unblock. I would like to know the background for the block - the 13 edits you reverted around the same time don't seem to justify this block, and the reason doesn't seem to make any sense (since it appears to have nothing to do with the user named, who was never blocked and hasn't edited since 2004). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was what is this individual asking?  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 03:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An anon from that range(123.211.204.229) made an unblock request saying that the intended target of the block has probably left the IP, making the block useless; and that the block reason "seems to have no comprehensible meaning at all". The first claim was easy for me to respond to - you blocked a range, not a single IP, and presumably understood what you were doing. The second claim I couldn't answer without input from you, so I asked you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome creationist editor
I have noticed a troublesome editor User:SRFoster making POV nonsensical edits to multiple articles, Ardipithecus, Al Franken , and Imaginary number.

He is not a very civil editor if you see his talk page. Can something be done about this user.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, what a joke  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions about page protection
Good afternoon,

A couple of articles on my watchlist — Monarch (butterfly) and Pumpkin — have been subject to increasing levels of vandalism lately. The frequency of vandalism varies from once a week to two or three times a week. I requested that these articles be semi-protected, but the requests were denied; the two admins who reviewed my requests both stated that three times a week is not a high enough level of vandalism to justify page protection.

Another article on my watchlist, one to which I frequently contribute, is School bus. I noticed that you recently added indefinite semi-protection to that article, even though the level of vandalism was not much more than once or twice a month.

That brings me to my question: are there concrete rules for how and when articles will be protected, or does it vary widely depending on which admin makes the decision? Basically, I'm trying to understand why a seldom-vandalized article like school bus would warrant indefinite semi-protection, but frequently-vandalized articles like pumpkin and monarch butterfly would be denied even temporary semi-protection.

Thanks,

—BMRR (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The guys who man the official requesting place, are unlikely to lock anything unless it gets maybe 5+ per day, per the guideline for "heavy". As they man the official booth, if they apply it liberally at the official office, they would get swamped with everything. But if one gets cheesed off, one can just ask the local admin at the wikiproject and they would just do it for you, for anything maybe even 4-5 times a week, as they probably don't want to revert it manually themselves. Any of my articles that get vandalised a few times a week, I get pretty fed up with and lock it, as do many others. I also s-lock upon request for those sorts of things from ppl in the wikiproject or anyone else who asks. Nobody gets in trouble for it, and it happens all the time. As for School bus, a certain banned user Nangparbat rampages around making anti-India, pro-Pakistan edits everywhere and it's easier for us to just lock every page he touches, as his IP changes all the time and the range is too noisy to block without taking out hundreds of other normal people. If you want, I can lock Monarch and pumpkin for you  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain the protection process/criteria. I have a better understanding of it now.  If you wouldn't mind protecting those two articles, that would be enormously helpful.  I don't have any particular fondness for butterflies or pumpkins (I like them, but who doesn't?), but both of them ended up on my watchlist and now it seems like every day I'm reverting vandalism at one or the other. Thanks again! —BMRR (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

York Park
York Park did not pass. Surprised considering the opposes had just been struck.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sucks, that's what happens when there are no customers. So in a way, popularity does affect FAC. I know a popular person whose FAC got swamped with about 5 supports in a day. That was just because of that person's personal standing, as they were the only person on WP interested in that subject matter, more or less. If the topic isn't popular and the nom doesn't have a personal following soemtimes it can be pretty frustrating.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit like your cricket articles. I could nom in a couple of weeks without changes and it could pass.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know about Requests for adminship/Tango 2 (looks like failing) as you participated in Requests for arbitration/Tango.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hadn't been keeping abreast of his activities  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija sock suspect
Hi there YellowMonkey, how is it going?

You helped me in here to find out that User:Tadija was using other accounts. You blocked him for two weeks and the other accounts indef (30 September 2009).

After you blocked him, I suspect he started to edit without being logged in, in the anon fashion. These users User:Pagliaccioknows and User:AntoniusPrimus have been was used by him during that time when you blocked him and I placed a to these users. As you can see in the history of this page he (probably) used some other IP address to remove the template, because the the block expires tomorrow and he wants to camouflage it and start fresh.

Since then, he has been active on the same pages as he used to be with his registered account. Some of the IP addresses that have been used since are: 89.216.192.29, 89.216.206.19, 89.216.196.107, 89.216.200.163 and so on. All these IP addresses are from Serbia just like User:Tadija declares his country on his userpage.

What do you think, what can we do about this situation? Thank you.  kedadi al  22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The range is all over the place, so a massive rangeblock isn't workable. I've given him a month block, but he will probably just keep on socking and end up being banned. S-Locking all the articles might have to happen, per the hundreds of articles targeted by and  etc  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I'll update you if he keeps on socking.  kedadi al  10:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Source quality, citation, verification
Hi,

I'd appreciate having a low level discussion about this with you, as you seem to have a similar mentality about the quality of sources issue. What are your feelings about such a discussion? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Carry on  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am running into extreme editor hostility to the concept of relying on academic sources in the humanities and social sciences (HASS). In the last few days I've been given a HUAC style WP:COI question Talk:Libertarianism by an editor going into serious distress because her personal vision of a topic differs with the highest quality reliable sources discussion.  And another accusation of COI based on a collation of my article involvement and interests instead of on the content of my edits. I'm concerned about a number of things:
 * Sciences, outside of the Pseudo sciences, seem to have this problem of "popular" sources on academic topics sewn up. Why does HASS have a problem?
 * HASS articles need to be based out of the secondary source literature very early on to cement article structure, topical coverage, and the like. Enforcing sourcing at early stages is, well, brutal.
 * But enforcing sourcing at late stages is impossible! With the exception of User:Istvan who has reserved judgement, the reaction to raising basic PRIMARY sourcing issues at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 has been personal attack.
 * The sourcing templates available for inline sources are frankly some of the poorest editorial tools in wikipedia.
 * I really have no idea how to move forward the generalised problem of HASS articles being written out of dodgy popular works and newspaper features. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit reluctant to comment strongly on currently-open FARs else I might have to recuse from closing them, but I see you just popped onto the George F Kennan FAR. Are you asserting that textbooks are of lower quality/less preferable to journal articles?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not all textbooks are created equal. A high-school US textbook used to source an article about a political group in Cambodia would be unaccceptable, but as you go up to college textbooks, it is slightly more of a toss-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, I've said in other places that HS textbooks can be politicised by governments very easily, and as far as science/maths goes, also sacrifices rigour in favour of accessability. University textbooks by uni professors tend to be fine though.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sourcing, I've asked Ealdgyth to check Ann Arbor. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised a bit by another FAR, where people haven't complained about the sources yet. Seems to be dominated by primary sources (of the people of the article subject).  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great fan of University level textbooks in HASS. Often they duplicate academic consensus that is 20 years out of date, focus on issues which aren't the debate, seriously marginalise non US views (the tertiary textbook market is a rather peculiarly US phenomena), and present cloyingly simplified debates that are not up to Encyclopedic standard.  OTOH, there are books published by textbook authors that are synthetic appraisals of entire fields conducted by scholarly writers and aimed at a universal (rather than an academic peer) readership.  These are often good, think Penguin's old "Pelican" imprint, but with better footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not asking for you to put yourself in a position where current editing would come into question, but I'm rather raising a long term systemic problem with Wikipedia & sourcing, so that we (as in Wikipedia) can work out a generalisable way forward over the next three to six months. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well since you are interested in communist stuff and we were discussing MACVSOG and other RM Gillespie stuff, can you pick some examples out of the books in his A-class articles to check? As for raising the standards, it might take a while, but I think objecting to not-so-great tabloids and cheapie textbooks and semi-formal websites on current FACs and FAs at FAR is important, as they are even crying out more than some textbooks. Were you meaning textbooks of the more pedagogical type with worked examples, case studies in coloured boxes, and those sorts of things, or even more specialised ones on 3rd/4th year or narrow foci that a postgrad might be interested in.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thich, etc.
WP:HONOR Honorifics (e.g. "Thich") are generally to be avoided in article titles, although there has been consensus to include them amongst some (e.g. Pope John Paul II and Saint Peter.) Naming conventions (clergy) makes no mention of a special dispensation for "Thich" and I know of no consensus to include this honorific in article names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not an honorofic. Thich comes from the word "Thich Ca" meaning "Sakya" which was the birth tribe of Buddha, and is used by all clerics, effectively their surname, because they consider themselves to be part of the Buddha's family. Things like "Hoa thuong" (most ven), "Thuong toa" (ven) "Dai Duc" (rev) are honorifics, this is not. Are you going to delete "Singh" from the neam of every Sikh? Because a Sikha leader ages ago gave all his followers that surname. Stop dogmatically doing things without proper reasoning. You also moved a Buddhist temple's name and chopped it's name off under "honorific".  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks First off, I was clearly wrong to move the article on the temple; I was simply sloppy and I'm glad you noticed. Furthermore, I do not know if "thich" contradicts the definition of honorific. At the Wikipedia page, an honorific is "a word or expression that conveys esteem or respect when used in addressing or referring to a person." By appropriating the ancestry of Shakyamuni (and especially considering that it is reserved for a clerical class), it seems like this word fits the definition. All of the definitions from dictionary.com seem to fit as well: I honestly don't care either way if they are included in the titles or not, but if they are, I would like them to have 1.) consistent Romanization/Latinization, 2.) proper sort keys (in case they do not already), and 3.) be defined as such at WP:HONOR, so this standard will be applied consistently. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Also, hon⋅or⋅if⋅i⋅cal. doing or conferring honor.
 * 2) conveying honor, as a title or a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a superior, elder, etc.
 * 3) in certain languages, as Chinese and Japanese) a class of forms used to show respect, esp. in direct address.
 * 4) a title or term of respect.


 * Thich is also used to describe a samanera or a novice monk/nun who has not yet passed the requirements to be ordained, so I do not think that it is restricted to a certain level of achievement, so to speak. I don't think it is any different people of a warrior caste calling themselves "Singh" (Lion) or other types of people who give themselves surnames on what type of people they are. Also, in overseas Vietnamese newspapers, there are heaps of instances of people using the title Thich X Y even in attack/anti-Buddhist opinion pieces, including libellous ones where they got sued for randomly claiming that a certain monk was a criminal, had a wife etc, but they still used Thich in there. So I don't think even opponents of a said monk take "Thich" as much at all, compared to "Hoa thuong" and so forth.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MOS Really, this is a discussion for WP:HONOR that is not going to get resolved on our talk pages. You may want to contact the appropriate WikiProject(s) or go to WP:RfC. Right now, there is no standard to include them, they are certainly titular rather than proper given names, and whatever standard Wikipedia ends up using should be consistent. If there is a consensus to include leading Thichs then I will support that as well. Please post on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
YM, can you take a look at R. K. Narayan and provide some feedback at the article talk page or here? I'm trying to get it up to FA standards and would like some independent input before going through peer review etc. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I've made a few tweaks. I can't say I have ever heard of this gentleman before though. Also, I am not sure that the pictures are valid. The first one, no date is given, and by his DOB it could have been taken after 1949 when he was 43 years old. Also the thing is publication date, not date of photo. Secondly we need to know it was taken in India to know that the law applies. For the cartoon FU, there needs to be critical commetnary explaingin why the picture is needed to enhance the understanding of the discussed text. Not many people know or enforce image copyrights, and at below FA level you can get away with almost anything. Even the olden-day FAs such as Sheikh Mujib, Ziaur Rahman, Kazi Nazrul Islam are filled with all sorts of images that are randomly claimed as PD for 50/60 years without proof of date of publication or that it was made in such a location, or invalid FU, a picture of a man shaking hands or sitting in a chair isn't hard to understand, so doesn't need a fair use. The other stuff about dashes, italics, are pretty straightforward I would imagine  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that.
 * I'll take care of the dashes/italics/n'ts/etc
 * The image was in the article before I started on the article or Wikipedia, so I don't know the history, I'll leave a note on the uploaders TP, but I doubt I'll get any response. I found one image released to public domain on the Library of Congress, but that's one with others in it and small too. My search hasn't stopped though. Also, for FAs, is it ok to use "fair use" since nothing might be available? Specifically interested in - clipped from a book cover,  - from The Hindu (republished in Time etc)
 * On the cartoon, I'll add commentary, there are some sources that discuss the Lawley statue specifically and Narayan's use of that as a political statement (or should the commentary be on the cartoon itself?)
 * Any lapses in content/sections that you think need fixing?
 * You should read his books sometime, Abecedare and I introduced Priyanath to this article a month ago, and he has read three books already and appears to like them. I'd suggest Swami and Friends or Malgudi Days (book) for a first. The latter is Jhumpa Lahiri's favorite. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Images are not needed at all in this case, as we need to know what he achieved, not what he looks like, he is not a model or anything. FU wouldn't really get by on FAC unless you can explain why us knowing what his face looks like significantly adds to our understanding of him or his work, although it would pass 90%+ of the time on a normal article.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll leave out FU images and probably pull out the one in the article too. This image is on every website as a public domain image, but I think that was because of Wikipedia listing it as PD. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. Funny how 3 parallel conversations about the image seemed to have sparked off on the same day, 5 years after it was uploaded! Abecedare (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * YM, rather than start another thread, I've made the changes you suggested on List of India women Test cricketers. Except for the pro vs non-pro bit brought up by Nev1, I believe all content bits are complete. Good for a nom now? cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  00:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. They haven't played a Test since 2006? Appallling scheduling  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty sad, they've got a good team right now with Mithali Raj, Karu Jain, Jhulan Goswami et al, but their captain for two years - Goswami - hasn't captained a single Test yet!


 * Is there some unwritten rule in the style guide that infoboxes should not be used in lists? I had used Infobox women's national cricket team in List of India women Test cricketers but it was removed because the infobox is not meant to be part of that page. It appears to be a decent summary view for the list IMO, so thought I'd check with you. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure actually. I've never seen a FL with a infobox although I basically never pay any attention to lists. who runs FLC wrote a few cricket FAs, Collingwood, Gilchrist, Bill O'Reilly so he would know more about, although he has stopped dropping into CRIC nowadays, unfrotunately. I don't actually read the style guides either, I just pick up the rules on the run by being told off.  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)