Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CarTick (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 21 March 2009 (→Caste articles: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Reply

Sorry. Thank you for explaining it to me.Deavenger (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Post

Thanks

Thanks for mentioning that. I am, however, appalled by his tirade against editors including myself. ] (] · ]) 01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR process is strange!

FAR can be strange, taking at least a month to complete, and the comments may play out in various ways. There are two stages. In stage one, Review commentary, the article is nominated with reasons for the nomination. Editors make various comments here, noting problems with the article and sometimes fixing the problems themselves. In stage two, FARC commentary, editors discuss whether the article should be delisted from FA or not.

An example of a FAR I nominated is Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Augustan literature. This article was written primarily one editor, and was owned by that editor who chose not to participate in the FAR process. Other editors commented, mostly defending that editor, and there was some unfriendly dialogue, including that by Disinfoboxman which he put in a hide/unhide box. Now the article has been moved to the FARC commentary stage.

If you read through the other listings on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review, you can see that there is no standard way that an FAR proceeds, despite the directions at the top (which I don't think are very clear).

My only other involvement in FAR was Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Augustan drama/archive1 was delisted, even though most editors commenting defended the article and its editor. The decision was based on the failure of the article to meed the FA criteria by the time the FAR reached the FARC commentary period.

My suggestion to you would be to examine the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria and evaluate the article accordingly if you want to comment more. It is unfortunate that the tone on the FAR for this article is so ugly, worse than my experience. Before the restart I thought your approach was helpful and neutral. However, with the nasty tone of the restarted FAR, I can see why you would not want to be involved. now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I hope you don't think I'm being rude or aggressive towards you on Talk:India. The last sentence of your last comment - the one ending "lol" gives me the impression that I may have offended or annoyed you or perhaps come across as being patronising. If so, I apologise - that was definitely not my intention. -- Arvind (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

reverted edits

"In the wake of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, his stance was further critized by the public citing the fact that many of the NSG commandoes deployed were not Marathis."

proper References have been made here. Pls dont delete.

"Please be aware that we have several policies and guidelines we need to abide by. Please also make sure that you click every link in the previous message and read them carefully and let me know if you have any questions. "

whihc message are u talking abt?

and also, what I had added was perfectly leghitimate...whats wrong there?

Please tell me what exactly in those guidelines I have violated!!

relevance. Docku: What up? 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

who else is it relevant to? his stance on outsiders was widely criticised, therefore it deservers mention in his article!!! that criticism of his stand - its relevant and significant and citation has been provided!!!

you want the SMS sent by an anonymous person added in this article? Docku: What up? 04:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

D! first of all, it was not a sole SMS. read both sources. It reported several instances of public opinion. Secondly it didnt imply that "NO Marathi Commando" participated - what it implied is that "a lot of non-Marathi commandoes particpated ALSO" - which led to questioning of Raj's stance on non-marathi employment in Mumbai. It therefore is perfectly relevant in this article of Raj, and if you dont want to put it there, thats fine, I have better things to do. There is nothing in the wikipedia rules that object to the edit which you deleted.

If there was public criticism on Bush's stance or actions, it would find a place in his article, which you can check.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Orissachap (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I have clarified my edit on Talk:Raj Thackeray#Biased media. Please have a look. Thanks. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

India

Could you look at this edit? Seems biased (countries in South Asia with lower HDIs than India don't have inflammatory pictures presented with misleading and decontextualized captions) Awareoftypes (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see: Requested move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Docku, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks

You are too kind, but yes, you understand what I was trying to say perfectly, sorry for my odd style of speaking.

As a human being, I'm sure that when human society had less concrete facts, they were more superstitious. Sceptics would have been considered not to be "team players", "partypoopers", "bah humbugging" Scrooges and discriminated against in many ways. I also think governments have exploited the religious sentiments of ordinary people to whip up support for their agendas, and to suppress minorities when convenient. Most importantly, I think these things are so likely to be true that serious scholastic experts will have explained them. Finally, I think Azure instinctively knows these things and is frustrated as a mean coyote because instead of finding people who can help him source and document them, he feels he's getting a dose of persecution unique to the Wiki environment.

To be honest, I think he's pushed way too hard, and others have been pretty generous and wise. But that doesn't change the fact that the article needs cool-headed, hard-workers, willing to be open-minded while addressing what is a more abstract idea than television, newspapers, and other parts of the internet provide.

But, you, you yourself Docku, by the perceptiveness of your reading of my comments, your willingness to respond to them personally and kindly ... you Docku, give me hope for discussion at that article and for progress. I could be wrong, but I think sourcing it is going to be hard, especially if it is supposed to be a list of "60 minutes" human interest stories, rather than a serious subject deal with based on the work of sociologists, philosophers and historians who are not being alarmist, but responsibly documenting human social vices.

I'm going to be busy for a month. But please, from February onwards, if you are still involved in the article and you need help there. I would be delighted to try to assist. And I would love to try to assist you personally Docku, in any Wiki "situation" in which you might find yourself.

Very best wishes, Alastair Haines (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2009

Happy New Year CarTick/Archive 6!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!

Lalit Jagannath

Hey, you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Lalit Jagannath. --Enigma Machine (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Please respond at Proposal. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

Congrats on the good job you've done on the article on Periyar! :-) However, I feel that there are some major issues with the article which need to be addressed. Please have a look at this and provide your comments and opinions. Thanks!-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to see ....

... that you're still around (). --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Flower ID

It would probably help to add some info regarding where you took the picture. That might help to narrow it down. Guettarda (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Non-Malayali Keralites

You may not have noticed all the other comments in this AfD discussion. Basically, the other editors had come to an agreement to keep most of the content, but within a broader article: Kerala ethnic groups and without some unsourced commentary on non-Malayam ethnic groups under the headings "Identity" and "Love for Malayalam language". This article's title would redirect to the broader article. I fully agree that "Ethnically divisive" is a wrong reason to delete an article. Nobody is now suggesting that the main content be dropped. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel Non-Malayali Keralites, itself, is an inappropriate name. I guess the fact that it is a neologism too matters as much as the fact that the article is not broad in coverage.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To simplify, be saying that it is "ethnically divisive", I meant that it was POV. There is a "Malayali identity"; so we have an article for Malayali people. But is there an unique Non-Malayali Keralite identity-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Caste articles

Hi! I've replied to your comments in WP:IN notice board Sorry for the late reply; I was occupied with other work and couldn't devote enough time-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DO you intend to reply here?-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess User:YellowMonkey will be starting the process soon. But before that, do you known any expert historian or anthropologist on South India. The presence of a recognized authority will be useful in this case.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

true. I dont know anyone though. But, we should be able to judge if these references

1. History of Tamil Nadu, 1565-1982 Page 277 By K. Rajayyan
2. Anatomy of a folklore, ottan kathai By M. Immanuel
3. Manadu(Tamil) Page 6 By Tacaratan (Madras, India)
4. Natar varalaru(Tamil) By Mocacu Ponnaiya

are reliable.. I am skeptical about these books. We shouldnt be bothered by authors who try to give Historic authentcity to widely talked about legends. The redflag would be if all these authors are themselves Nadars or otherwsie propgandists. --Docku: What's up? 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)