Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::So let's do that on the Roland Perry page.] (]) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
:::So let's do that on the Roland Perry page.] (]) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
::::This is a joke. Playboy is not a leading cricket outlet. ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
<s>Also strike out my own previous reply prior to delete (next step).</s> ] (]) 10:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
<s>Also strike out my own previous reply prior to delete (next step).</s> ] (]) 10:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 529:
Line 530:
::] (]) 11:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
::] (]) 11:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
:::No I do not write anything in the same field as Perry, like biographies of Australians, old or new. ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::::"the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career" On Misplaced Pages the expert opinions trump those of novices. The opinions of Einstein and Feynman trump those of the high school physics teacher. The opinions of science scholars trumps the large section of people in the street who believe in creationism. 40% of people might believe in creationism but they don't get 40% of the space because among scientific publications, almost nobody believes in creationism. Thus, the opinions of Haigh and Frith and Guha trump the opinions of the other people, as they are critically acclaimed cricket historians who widely read other cricket literature and know what is out there. The other people you quote are not cricket experts. That is why Haigh and Frith know that Perry's work is filled with errors on almost every page. The random reviewer from a newspaper who reviews all the books is not an expert and would have no clue. The random review also does not have 100s of cricket books in their collection and doesn't read all the books they can find, which is why unlike a world-class cricket historian knows that ''Captain Australia'' is just a paraphrase of ]'s ''On Top Down Under'' (per Frith) or that ''Miller's Luck'' is just lifted off Miller's autobio and Whitington's "Golden Nugget" book and that the Bradman's Invincibles is just lifted off Fingleton's "Brightly Fades The Don" (per CricketWeb). People like Teri Louise Kelly in the Independent Weekly might not have read these old classics so they might not know (Kelly is a chef). In a recent piece, Ron Reed (who you describe as a "doyen" of journalism) claimed that Chanderpaul is captain of WI and Ishant is a left armer. If you can find independent booksales stats that say that Perry sells so much, then by all means add it, but in no way does this change the fact that he is regarded extremely poorly by the world of cricket scholars. When you look up google scholar, see how many citations there are for Haigh and Frith and compare it to how many there are for Perry. Also go to the library and check the bibliography and see how many cite Haigh, Frith, Pollard, Whitington and Robinson compared to Perry. The deluge in favour of the former is massive, just like Einstein or Feynman's of any Nobel winner's papers are cited thousands of times. Perry sells well but the likes of ] and ] do too; those two probably sell 10 or 100 times more than the likes of ], ] and ] but no serious critic rates them anywhere but the bottom of the pile; Rieu is famous for gimmicks and the latter for mini skirts and sex appeal and find their supporters among people who don't know what a ] or a ] is. ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, which third-party historian would read Penthouse for information about the US President? ''']''' ('']'') ] 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, which third-party historian would read Penthouse for information about the US President? ''']''' ('']'') ] 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 634:
Line 638:
:: Yeah, I've been extremely reactive and stern in dealing with this. Why? You can understand the seriousness when you have a look at and . Thanks-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="red" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:: Yeah, I've been extremely reactive and stern in dealing with this. Why? You can understand the seriousness when you have a look at and . Thanks-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="red" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, it does seem like 122. is V in accordance with the suspect tags. But The other guy's IP agrees with the statement on his user page that he is in the United States. ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
== A sincere request to you ==
== A sincere request to you ==
Line 734:
Line 740:
Hahaha - so you're Monkey, Sandy can be....sandy, who is Pigsy and who is Tripitaka then...] (] '''·''' ]) 05:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha - so you're Monkey, Sandy can be....sandy, who is Pigsy and who is Tripitaka then...] (] '''·''' ]) 05:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:Gee who wants to volunteer to be Pigsy? Hmm, Tripitaka has to be some pacifist who disapproves of my cynical and pro-active nature and likes giving me a headache... Is Sandy philosophical enough... Monkey says "Sandy, stop trying to think that you're a philosopher", Sandy says "That depends on your definition" Monkey says "That's exactly the kind of thing I meant!" ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
== Category:People executed by the Vietminh ==
== Category:People executed by the Vietminh ==
Is this your joke? I think the global warming cabal might execute me first. ] (]) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this your joke? I think the global warming cabal might execute me first. ] (]) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:Actually I hadn't meant it as a joke. I thought you could have added some people to those cats. Just forgot to put the colon in front ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
==Military career of L. Ron Hubbard==
==Military career of L. Ron Hubbard==
You commented a while ago on the WP:MILHIST peer review of ]. It has achieved good article status and is now being considered for featured article status; any input you might have would be very welcome. The discussion is at ]. -- ] (]) 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You commented a while ago on the WP:MILHIST peer review of ]. It has achieved good article status and is now being considered for featured article status; any input you might have would be very welcome. The discussion is at ]. -- ] (]) 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:Noted, thanks ''']''' ('']'') ] 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Leave your mark on YellowMonkey's welcome mat today!
FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE
Hard one! 1 has ball in it; 2 is better, but no ball; 3 has great shot of ball, but not so good of Trent. 1 or 2 Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm doing a simple replacement task on behalf of WP:WPOOK and I noticed you locked Philippines to sysop editing only. Therefore, I was wondering if you could help by please deleting the Outline of the Philippines link in the See Also section of the page and replace it with {{Main|Outline of the Philippines}} at the top of the section. It would be a great help. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
How come the images in the "Early Life" section in Miller seem to have been removed? They are of Keith Truscott and Bill Woodful. Aaroncrick08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes WP AFL isn't very good. Jeff White and Tom Hawkins the other GA's aren't very good players so they don't really interest me. Joel Selwood is good player already and will probably win a Brownlow. I'm guessing AFL isn't you cup of tea even though you live in Adelaide? Aaroncrick07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No I don't like it. There are too many thugs in there like Cousins, Hall and Everitt, although it looks good compared to RL. The athletic standards in AFL are very good but the ball skills are poor or aren't required, especially how some forwards can be considered top quality with a 50% accuracy rate (Tredrea). Especially how "traditionalists" like to criticise teams for passing the ball properly instead of the "classical way" of going for random long balls. Else it will end up like soccer matches between a good and a bad team where the bad team tend to get lots of defenders and block with 7-8 defenders and when the good team's attack ends they do a 50m bomb up to the lone striker; Iraq did that against Spain last week; about 6 defenders, 3 defensive midfielders and one striker, effectively. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
U can Add Dean Solomon to the list. Skills around the ground have improved drastically from past decades although kicking for goal hasn't improved at all really. Peter Hudson probably the best ever shot a goal rarely kicked a proper drop punt but he seemed to get them to go straight, but now emphasis is on kicking the magic goals from the boundary. There is currently a massive difference between Geelong and Melbourne. Aaroncrick07:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there is a big difference although not as much as IND/AUS/RSA down to BANG/ZIM or Brazil/Spain down to Asian teams other than Aus/JPN/KOR. Luckily in football for a bad team can block more easily, after all there is no point in losing 20-4 instead of 2-0. Most of the low teams when they play against Man U, Arsenal etc, they just don't try and are happy to lose 1-0 but in terms of shots at goal it is often about 20-2 or so. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV07:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And Ponting's form is giving me the shits... Hawkins is lucky to be in a side as good as Geelong. The only reason is that Geelong have a week forward link compared to their mids/defenders. Anyone with can review a GA. Some with very little edits review an art which they are a fan of and practically pass it without giving a good review like Philcha. It will be interesting to watch how Australia perform against England A tonight. Aaroncrick07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Well I'm hardly an expert, just a person who did a bit as a student and hadn't come across the Butcher group the other guys being experienced academics and professors but I did come acrooss and write about things that are in the general sphere of things like Quasi-Hopf algebra and Vertex model, in which the studies of Hopf algebras and the like are used to solve lattice models that describe solids, like ice, for instance. Nevertheless the additions that AKNole made by cutting and pasting from the Butcher group stuff about pure maths about graph theory/combinatorics into the Minimal subtraction scheme, which is about doing calculations on particle physics. He copied something apparently about an alternative technique on trees in graph theory instead of using Feynman diagrams, which is an orthodox tool in theoretical physics, into an article about renormalization calculations in physics, which is done in the Feynman way. I don't know/understand if this stuff that he added, which is predated by the MSS is consistent with it, but it's certainly not right to just whack it in like that unless he can explain why it's related (if it is), especially as there was a debate about making things more accessible, as the addition would only confuse people; the vast majority of people who do QFT (which I have taken a course in, although I wouldn't say that I understood it irrespective of the grade I got) and renormalisation calculations including tenured academics at QFT/QCD institutes do not deal with anything beyond the basics of Lie algebra, let alone highly detailed quantum or Hopf algebras. Also his comments on the talk page seem a bit odd in focusing on rather unusual things, and his comments in the first parts show a lack of conviction about some 2nd year maths, while things like Hopf algebras would hardly be taught in 4th year unless a student decided to do a project on it. I don't know about the history to know if there is a motive for deliberate stalking or trolling. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Philippines article; Spanish and Arabic as "Voluntary & Optional Languages"
I think both should be put in the Languages section of the Philippines column, under the heading "Voluntary & Optional Languages" and beneath the Recognized Regional Languages. Right now its all the way at the bottom of the Philippines column as footnotes. I think the change I propose is more appropriate, as both Spanish and Arabic are named in the constitution as promoted on a voluntary and optional basis, and I think any language named in the constitution should be put in the languages section of the column. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy YellowMonkey's Day!
YellowMonkey has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as YellowMonkey's Day! For your fantastic work with WP:MILHIST, enjoy being the star of the day, dear YellowMonkey!
In case you miss it, I've copied the newer draft of the Pietersen lead onto the WT:CRIC discussion - could you take a look (and change it as necessary) and then replace the version in the Main Page queue?
The template works a little differently now that FAR has switched to the stable subpage system, like so: {{subst:FARMessage|Algerian Civil War|alt=Algerian Civil War/archive1}}. See Template:FARMessage. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello YM, agree with you about Perry, Could you also delete my userpage and then restore 1 revision? Thankyou, Aaroncrick08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing, if a Misplaced Pages user looks up Playboy writer to use as a source to prove how good a certain cricket writer is, then the user is probably the subject himself who kept news/mag cuttings of praise of himself in a folder. Who else would look up playboy and porn magazines to find out information about cricket history? And if the original motive was an interest in pornography, I doubt it would suddenly motivate them to look up and write a 100k cricket history article. Personally I also wonder what inside knowledge they would need to know the subject's university results. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Have not been able to strike out material.Haruspex101 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I am a novice Misplaced Pages user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced editor.
The content of the YellowMonkey post was a speculation that an internationally successful Australian author (22 published books and numerous awards) was posting some sort of vanity advertisement on a Misplaced Pages bio page without declaration. This was duly refuted by a declaration of identity of myself as the user posting this content in what I am learning will need to be a more Neutral-POV style as the bio of a living person.
o Has worked with Tim Burstall and Roland Perry on film development projects
o Is a novice Misplaced Pages editor. Has never added Misplaced Pages content before, and would welcome assistance with the technical aspects of doing so.
o Collated factual sourced material on Roland Perry and posted this on Misplaced Pages in July 2009 using journalistic style to bridge the sourced material and some opinion. Material is not contested by Roland Perry, even though it includes a good deal of sourced criticism of Roland Perry along with the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career which includes journalism and 22 published books on US politics, British espionage and history (WW1), along with a variety of biography, fiction as well as cricket history.
{extract ends}
YellowMonkey's speculation was false -- and the persistence of that speculative material continuing to be published on Misplaced Pages imputes that the reviews of Roland Perry's works were only from Playboy magazine -- when this was only one example extracted in an unrepresentative way by YellowMonkey from a list of over 150 references.
Playboy article was coverage of Roland Perry's first fictional thriller novel, Program for a Puppet. There was also a Penthouse article on Roland's inside interviews at the White House. Roland has had a broad literary career, including cricket commentary. All of this is covered in the material that I believe should be posted, edited and contested as required for balance.
Hello YellowMonkey, as a novice user I am finding the Misplaced Pages site quite frustrating to navigate and communicate basic concerns in good faith.
As I have posted (or attempted to post) on a number of occcasions now: I would very much appreciate Administrator-level advice on how to more effectively communicate and see that the sorts of inappropriate material that the YellowMonkey user is posting in relation to Roland Perry is removed from Misplaced Pages.
Can you please help me with this or direct me to who could help me?
To date my experience has been that Misplaced Pages users (including Administrators who have been blocking me) are active and vigilant with regard to violations of the form of editing rules (deleting; blocking; third-reversions; strike thru; talk page dominance; etc); but not attentive, in my opinion, to the content that I am flagging should be removed because it is inappropriate for its reputational damage on Roland Perry. Clearly the removal of inappropriate material from Misplaced Pages is a priority over any contraventions of the mechanics of editing (which in themselves are unintentional editing rule breaches on my part as a novice user).
I would appreciate any assistance you or other users could please provide.
o In Jan 2009 YellowMonkey user added a series of selective sourced criticism on some of Roland Perry’s publications. There was no balance to the criticism. YellowMoney is a highly experienced Misplaced Pages editor and self-discloses as a cricket writer. What is YellowMonkey's motive for posting only selective critical/negative material? Is there a Conflict of Interest (COI) here?
...
o YellowMonkey please declare any Conflicts of Interest. Are you a cricket writer seeing themselves in competition with Roland Perry in cricket writing?
"the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career" On Misplaced Pages the expert opinions trump those of novices. The opinions of Einstein and Feynman trump those of the high school physics teacher. The opinions of science scholars trumps the large section of people in the street who believe in creationism. 40% of people might believe in creationism but they don't get 40% of the space because among scientific publications, almost nobody believes in creationism. Thus, the opinions of Haigh and Frith and Guha trump the opinions of the other people, as they are critically acclaimed cricket historians who widely read other cricket literature and know what is out there. The other people you quote are not cricket experts. That is why Haigh and Frith know that Perry's work is filled with errors on almost every page. The random reviewer from a newspaper who reviews all the books is not an expert and would have no clue. The random review also does not have 100s of cricket books in their collection and doesn't read all the books they can find, which is why unlike a world-class cricket historian knows that Captain Australia is just a paraphrase of Ray Robinson's On Top Down Under (per Frith) or that Miller's Luck is just lifted off Miller's autobio and Whitington's "Golden Nugget" book and that the Bradman's Invincibles is just lifted off Fingleton's "Brightly Fades The Don" (per CricketWeb). People like Teri Louise Kelly in the Independent Weekly might not have read these old classics so they might not know (Kelly is a chef). In a recent piece, Ron Reed (who you describe as a "doyen" of journalism) claimed that Chanderpaul is captain of WI and Ishant is a left armer. If you can find independent booksales stats that say that Perry sells so much, then by all means add it, but in no way does this change the fact that he is regarded extremely poorly by the world of cricket scholars. When you look up google scholar, see how many citations there are for Haigh and Frith and compare it to how many there are for Perry. Also go to the library and check the bibliography and see how many cite Haigh, Frith, Pollard, Whitington and Robinson compared to Perry. The deluge in favour of the former is massive, just like Einstein or Feynman's of any Nobel winner's papers are cited thousands of times. Perry sells well but the likes of Andre Rieu and Bond (band) do too; those two probably sell 10 or 100 times more than the likes of Joshua Bell, Maxim Vengerov and Gil Shaham but no serious critic rates them anywhere but the bottom of the pile; Rieu is famous for gimmicks and the latter for mini skirts and sex appeal and find their supporters among people who don't know what a rondo or a coda is. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not again -- it's the first time you're asking that, isn't it? A good question, though. Let's take it to the Roland Perry page where the quality and veracity of sources can be contested as required. That would be a productive way forward. Haruspex101 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Off-topic comment: I don't know about Penthouse, but Playboy has published original writings of some all-time-greats. See for example this compilation : I read it years back and IIRC it contains no pictures. :-) Sorry for jumping in without even knowing the context but I saw YM's edit summary and had to comment Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah makes perfect sense. Anyway were you meaning "sure thing" for deleting my userpage and then restoring 1 revision? Aaroncrick05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the names in the history and I don't think they would riot as a means of deterring FAR. Mostly the people in the history will disregard critics/FAR as not worth worrying about. In any case, if the owners are happy that their work doesn't need to be improved, we can go straight to FARC YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think in the case that the owner of the author refuses to change an article, either because they think teh nom is a trolling expedition, the article is perfect, or it is a stunt or whatever, the article can move straight to the FARC (voting)phase YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV02:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The original nominator of the article Colossus has not edited since Spring of 2008. However, one of his last edits addressed the problems with Names of the Greeks on the article talk page. It seems he agrees that the article's quality has fallen sharply, despite having many references. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I'll try. However the Google Translate feature is not very good. My first aim is 308 Division, and maybe more slowly after that. Do you know of any Vietnamese speaking Wikipedians who might be able to help? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's fine. I didn't look at the data to begin with but once I did it was patently obvious, although a lot of people who intereacted with it didn't seem to pick it, or if they did, they didn't bat an eyelid. I just mentally factored it in after that; I didn't think a CU would be worth the trouble. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
we can have a round table at WP:VIET. Some people are not so shy of talking even though they are in VN. I was told that a Communist policeman/internet monitoring guy turned up to a meetup in VN. LOL. And of course people who lived under the old South Vietnam or their family members have their own opinions. And also, religion can be very polarising in Vietnam, especially when it comes to people suspecting the nationalist loyalty of Catholics. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thankyou for your kind words, YellowMonkey. Mumbai has finally achieved GA status. This was a tough task. Do you think, it is somewhere near FA now. KensplanetC04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! How are you? I was just taking a break from controversial stuff and creating stubs on Indian villages when this person drew me into a conversation by labelling my contributions "rubbish".
Please don't mistake me. Yeah, I know that there are many ways to get someone blocked. But then, I had not started the sockpuppet investigations just to get someone blocked. I have had genuine concerns that User:Svr014 is (or rather, was) engaging in sockpuppetry and was previously using other profiles. First, there was extensive vandalism and POV-pushing by User:Vyaghradhataki who was adding hateful content using the IP range 122.*.*.*. As a result of these edits, the article was semi-protected. Soon after it was semi-protected, a new user appears on the scene and removes content from the lead. The prospect of the new user being a sockpuppet of a persistent vandal seemed to be a strong possibility as the article had been recently semi-protected and no person without a profile could edit it. And 122.*.*.* is obviously a sock of Vyaghradhataki as you could see from the similarities between this edit by Vyaghradhataki and this by IP 122.*.*.*.
They are held to have been the “land-lords“ and “head-men “ of the Brahmin villages called agraharams. The supposed rule by pagan “vijayanagar” and “nayaks” was completely illegal and illegitimate. This group of “brahmins” is heterogenous, coming from various racial backgrounds, converted and admitted on basis of utility. The literature of this period is both obscure as well as dubious. Some pseudo-scholars have by taking out of context and misinterpreting a few words of sangam tamil , have attempted propogate falseful theory giving the existence of this group in tamilnadu during sangam times. This is both ridiculous as well as absurd as the words using which they have constructed this pseudo-history could hardly have referred to any community. The rest of the rogues have cited an obscure and fabricated migration chart and put up a date of 800 .C.E for this group, this is absolute gibberish, as we know that period was the hey day of chola /pallava emperors whose rule was absolutely blemishless and that the rogue deccan dynasties which housed this group were inveterate enemies to these illustrious clans. The ones who attempt to propogate such non-sense are such a perfect and habitual liars that they can make A.Q.Khan blush for shame. No puranic literature known till date, however vague, re-written, corrupted and irrelevant, make a mention of existence of this group or explain its origin. The fact that these groups do not have worship rights in any of the ancient temples(let alone in the south) further establishes its duplicity and fraudulent nature. Certainly the heterogenuity points to a classless budist/jain predecessorship. It is further noted that this group was behind the smuggling, forgery and re-writing of many ancient documents belonging to previous dynasty and also smuggling the leftover of their bronze works. To attempt to manipulate evidences, history, thieving identity etc are extremely evil and points to the excessive wickedness and oppurtunism of the group that can certainly be dangerous for its survival. Citizens are forewarned against any cheating by this group members and alerted to approach law and order agencies including the federal ones incase of any suspicion.
the third paragraph of this edit by Vyaghradhataki
Disputes concerning origin
The kingdoms of deccan in particular alongside some kingdoms to north, south, east and west of India were from the beginning great enemies of chola/pallava emperors who ruled the subcontinent from ancient times. Punitive expeditions were dispatched to deccan regularly by successive emperors belonging to chola/pallava clans. It is understood that those kingdoms that they fought were what we can regard as axis of evil of those days. The wars were conducted with exceptional brutality that saw the invading forces slaughter any thing that they found in that territory. Man, woman, child, infant and animal. The fact that expeditions were undertaken with such impunity should definitely point to the excessive wickedness of those kingdoms. The chola/pallava epigraphists have often compared these expeditions to the great wars between gods and demonic races and also wars fought to crush the evil of the age of kali.Many of these kingdoms like their more well known successor the vijayanagar dynasty of the deccan have known to been in the same league as muslim kingdoms during medieval ages.
The end of chola /pallava rule by the end of 13th century resulted in chaotic conditions. There were numerous wars . As a result what formed the demography during their rule had almost completely perished along with them.
The vijayanagar dynasty which came to colonize the peninsular region, did so only by default. Apart from the vijayanagar dynasty , the colonists also consisted of those sponsored by the muslim kingdoms of deccan. All these colonizations are held to be strictly illegal and certainly they would have been tolerated in the previous periods. This insurgency was not without the help of local vested interests and rogues many of whom could be affiliated to pandyans.No ethnicity can be claimed by these migrants and also the fact that they were medieval colonists to south cannot be used as a distinguishing factor from others. This apart the incoming lot were mean people. They encouraged practices like prostitution and bestiality in the name of being “devadasis” or temple dancers. There were creatures who asked for it and so there were creatures who provided the same.
Besides this it is also true that the incoming cheap nayaks of vijayanagar and far deccan marathas were no great military powers like cholas/pallavas who possessed sophisticated weapons and skills. Their very existence depended on creating and maintaining domains of influence through business. In summary it was a merchant kingdom.
These colonists along with their pagan nayak chiefs are responsible for many acts of criminal solicitation like land grabbing , intimidation, terror tactics , cheating , subversion,etc. The brahmin identity of many of those in the group who call themselves so can be questioned. Those who came after the rule of crowned kings ended do not have do not have worship rights in any of the temples of ancient tamil country a good number of which were independent priesthoods.The forgery of available ancient grants is reported to be their work.
The present day srilankan “tamil” conflict and terrorism of LTTE can be seen as an out growth of this illegal migration from deccan during medieval times.
This apart they also brought in some new customs like chariot festival in temples, celebration of festivals for an extended period with philanthropic practices etc. The practice of forming cult focus around temples akin to buddhist/jain practices also started during this period. Such changes should point to the attempt made by that dynasty to commercialize religion. Such was the impact of these changes that even extraordinarily divine and ancient abodes like srirangam now look like mere extensions of market places. They have lost entirely their spiritual effulgence and divinity that was bestowed upon them due to performance of innumerable yaagams by devoted and virtuous ancient sages and royals. During this period there was also an attempt to convert the great temple at chidambaram to a “vaishnavite”/buddist/jain shrine.The chariot procession in temples was some thing unknown during the previous chola/pallava period. The ” annadanam “ practice in temples that is seen even now was prevalent during 17th century and can be considered an adoption of a similar philanthrophic act in buddhist shrines(as can e seen in srilanka). This makes one think that “vadamas” could also have been sramanas(buddhists and jains) of the past. Buddists and jains come from various sections of society like brahmins, farmers, traders, professionals etc. The sramans are known for their emphasis on education and many well known universities of past like nalanda were run by buddhist clergy.
During the same period europeans were also dominant in India. Their industrialization led to large scale migration of working class. Even though the migrants came from many parts of India, the deccan people made the most of the oppurtunity. This affected and changed the demography by large. They introduced many western innovations. They brought to india western schooling system . The also brought products like chemicals, FMCGs, bakery, printing press etc. Even today iyengars are excellent bakers. The immigration from the Upper Deccan during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries is noted in the 'Malabarische Manual' and 'Conversations in Tranquebar' by the German missionary Zeigenblag who was stationed in the service of the Danish East India company at Tranquebar during the late 17th and early 18th centuries in his works. He observes that these immigrants were referred to as "Vadugas” a term stll prevalent in silanka(vaddugan).
Thanks for your input regarding the complaint by another user. I am an American and I did not move to the USA from any other country. Please assume good faith in my account. I am not a sock, and any admin can verify this fact. I do not know who Mr. V is. Please help me and please protect my account and interests on WP. This is my sincere request to you. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please also note that I am a new user and am unfamiliar with the WP culture. Please enlighten me with methodology and ways of communication, if you would like to, so that I can be a strong, happy, editor. Please do not block me. This is also a sincere request to you. Please assume good faith in me and please do not bite me. I am a newcomer. Svr014 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. If you see any other FARs that are close to "keep" territory, ping me and I'll take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
England ahead I think. England have runs on the board and Australia to have bat last. A lot depends on the Aust. top three tonight. -- Mattinbgn\ 06:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think it would come to this but the inside cover of Miller's Luck claims that he won "Book of the Year" from the cricket society when he wasn't even shortlisted. I wonder if it was a "deliberate error"? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV06:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Now I don't know who "Aaronclick" is but unfortunately he seems to have caused a bit of a stir a while back at Talk:Australia. He probably should have mentioned this on the talkpage but he didn't so we must move on. I think he was hoping that this will promt action in fixing refrencing issues. (For the record a little birdy tells me he did the same to Canberra) Some of the natives obviously didn't like this and got a bit upset as he was supposidly just "throwing in tags without really considering if they were necessary." Maybe if Aaronclick removed unsourced info it would cause quite a stir.... Maybe if we started work on Australia along with Canberra we could save some work for our selves when FAR comes around. Just a thought. Do you have any idea when you think the articles would come around for FAR? Aaroncrick11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Strange you didn't tell me who the complainant was and I didn't think that Tony1 would be it. NeEvertheless there are lots of unsourced stats there which need reffing. I see at WP:URFA there are 9 WP:AUS FAs that were written in 2005 and were unreviewed. At the rate that those are being nominated, I would predict that about 60% of those 2005 FAs will be nominated by the end of this year, so 6 Australian FAs will be in trouble. At the moment I don't think any of them pass the standard, not by a long shot, although I won't be closing those FARs as I would be trying to salvage them. Most of them are short-looking flora/fauna articles a la cane toad and Lake Burley Griffin and might need a complete expansion. Quite a lot of them are Canberra articles. Need to get the locals involved but judging by the response to LBG and Cane toad on AWNB I think it's inevitable that some won't be saved unless there is a broader set of people chipping in. Bilby can't do 70% of the work unless he is going to rewrite about 50% of the FAs as a lot of them were/are unbalanced and had odd sections while missing important stuff. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Even things like Bodyline, Bill O'Reilly and Don Bradman need a content overhaul although only a cricket enthusiast would know that there is missing content. For a lot of FAs I wrote even last year I am discovering all sorts of content and and adding more all the time. A lot of the FAs could have content problems that aren't known unless a would-be reviewer or revamper read up on books about it an the general topic, or unless there is an expert who has already read 20+ books. I also have an excel file with a list of Australian FAs by citation density, although citation density is only one of the potential problems. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, although I wouldn't say that FAR is back on track if you mean preserving stars. Most are outmoded and haven't been improved since they passed three years ago, so FAR is more a result of three years of apathy than anything. Only 15% of articles at FAR have been saved since the start of May; it's the result of a whole generation of articles not moving enough with rising standards. I've only got enough time to try and fix some old Australian FAs and it's mostly up to the WikiProjects to fix their old FAs. Only the Australian one does FA saves, and Yannismarou does the Greek ones all by himself. But even then, although all seven Aus FARs since late 2007 have or will be saved, the continual rise of FA standards means that a lot more have been rendered unsatsfactory and will be inevitably be FARed once they all pile up. WP:INDIA has lost 20 in the last 24 months and the FA count has stayed stuck to around 65 for the last two years. The same thing could happen to Australia if there an underclass of FAs gets left behind because it's hard to deal with lots of FARs at once on the run unless there are a lot of people from the same WikiProject all working on them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I'm willing to pitch in at FAR, since you seem to have set yourself up with a pile of work. What's the best way for someone new to FAR to help out? Is there a checklist or a priority list? The more specific, the better -- I don't do well with vague instructions, but if you give me detailed requirements, I can be John Henry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well in short I list the ones that need review at User:Deckiller/FAC_urgents. Basically what happens at FAR is people tend to pick out the most deficient articles first (usually ones with no refs) and they make a very short nomination statement in maybe 5 minutes (since the articles are usually GA quick-fail standard there isn't a need to spend 40 minutes writing up every problem and subtlely if nobody cares). In most cases, nobody does care which is why the article hasn't changed for 3 years and is in such a state. If they do care, then they will do some fixes to get the basics in order and try to save it. This is where the problem is because most people do a five-minute review job of a way old FA because the deficiencies are so obvious, and in 75% of cases, nobody wants to fix the article up big time so then in the FARC voting stage they can just do a driveby "delist"; nothing else is needed really, it's just like PROD. But if they do some fixes and references often the reviewers don't check too hard to see if the references actually work or cover the material or things and so a apathetic keep often results due to incumbency. I've also ranted at the bottom of WT:FAR and linked to an earlier post about inertial/friction tactics at FAR. A lot of the time the article is all formatted inconsistently, and people will only fix up the exact examples of center/centre that one cites and then they come back and act blind again until you point out organise/organize and then June 3/3 June just do that until the reviewer gets pissed off and thinks "I don't want to fix this article for them" so they just fade away, and the article gets kept. Your FAs are way better than most of the old ones that have been half-shoddily-cleaned up so you can just do it analogously to a FAC and look for problems still outstanding and just deal with it in the same way. I should really get my FAR FAQ page done. It'll save a lot of time. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I would say that the clean sheet by WP:AUS is pretty good but more pro-active stuff will have to be done. In the bit above I said to Aaron that I expect about 6-7 more Australian FARs this year....Fauna of Australia being the least referenced of them...is only a matter of time....We'll be hard pressed to keep the clean sheet going, but it would be good. All eminently doable really as long as we subscribe to a pro-active culture of self-improvement without waiting for the threat of the star-debt-collector. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV05:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There isn't, but I placed it on one of the award pages (Personal User one I think) - I was going to use this one, but I think I will reserve this for improvements on sourcing of fungi articles (mushrooms with sauces, hehehehe)...I am sure there are some good pix of nice curries...to improve the saucing of subcontinent articles..as there are over 500 sauce pix on commons... (gawd, I crack myself up sometimes...)Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Gee who wants to volunteer to be Pigsy? Hmm, Tripitaka has to be some pacifist who disapproves of my cynical and pro-active nature and likes giving me a headache... Is Sandy philosophical enough... Monkey says "Sandy, stop trying to think that you're a philosopher", Sandy says "That depends on your definition" Monkey says "That's exactly the kind of thing I meant!" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This user is a cricket pundit for the Times of India, the world's largest distribution daily English language newspaper. Details/disclaimer 
also .jpg)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 6 July 2009
