Well, let me add with regret, that the editor who uploaded that image, and who was the most significant contributor to India related articles on the French Wikipedia, Nataraja, died of cancer a few months ago. deeptrivia (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm shocked. Nataraja was a long-time contributor to India-related topics in fr: and commons:, and we used to bump into each other many times. I once suggested that he put up a pic for FP status in commons:. I'd even given him a barnstar in fr: for his wonderful work. May his soul rest in peace. =Nichalp«Talk»=18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I never had the privilage to meet him, but he was the first user I noticed on fr.wiki. I had gone to award him a banstar for his India-related contributions, and...... God bless his soul. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK02:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded the image of the dabba from French wikipedia to Commons at Image:Dabba.jpg. It would still be excellent if we could have a picture of dabbawallas as well. In a few weeks would be fine :-) Thanks --A Y Arktos\talk05:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are some pictures available at flickr. You could perhaps right in to the user and ask him if he is willing to liscence it as CC-sharealike/attriution. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
We've recieved a complaint about the Maneka Gandhi article (this recent edit is possibly related). I'd appreciate it if you guys could take a look at the article (both current and previous versions), make sure it's neutral, factually accurate, add citations where needed or available, etc. Raul654 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
PS - I pointed the complainant to this thread, and the complainant may be posting here, so please keep this thread here for a little while. Raul65416:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the complaint about? She did have a falling out with the Family and they still hate each other quite openly. I don't think any of the bits that the diff removed are controversial in any way, except that I am not sure if she actually stormed out of the house. — Ravikiran17:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The complaint was that the article is "full of the most bizarre facts and editorial inferences which are slanderous." I have, however, asked the complainant to be more specific. Raul65417:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The article can be cited, but I think "walked out of the household" is supposed to be used in the figurative rather than the literal sense. The other substantive line that got removed was "Political upheaval caused by vested interests eventually forced her to resign from the position.", which is not unflattering to her in any way. That's puzzling till you realise that she resigned from a BJP government and she is still in the BJP. Whoever made the complaint may be concerned about the impact this will have on her relations with the BJP. (Incidentally, this article is the first result on google for Maneka Gandhi!) — Ravikiran18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the various versions, nothing IMO that can be termed "bizzare" is unearthed except this allegation, which vies with "Wikipedia is a CIA plot" for the Arrant Nonsense Award. Nor is there any much "editorializing" beyond these words: "Under her direction, unannounced inspections of laboratories where animals are used for scientific research were conducted, and abominable conditions and cruelty were documented and exposed. The CPCSEA imposed restrictions that brought some of the abuse to a stop. Political upheaval caused by vested interests eventually forced her to resign from the position." Who exactly can be indicting themselves by complaining about this being mentioned, and to what end, at this late date?
There is nothing slanderous or worshipful or even contentious in any version. As to her spat with Granny Gandhi, Menaka was asked to leave, and her walkout was not only figurative but also literal -- she moved out in the middle of the night, timed to catch the morning papers, who had all been duly alerted to take up positions outside the prime ministerial gate. He car stopped for several minutes at the gate to allow for the former model & her fatherless child to be snapped in poses of dignified but affecting distress. Her sister gave detailed and abusive interviews the next day. So says Khushwant Singh, repeatedly, and among other things. See how much worse the page could be, if one wanted it to be? And we have not even touched the emergency (but I agree she was cluelessly innocent there). There is IMHO nothing wrong with the tenor or attitude of the article as it now stands, but of course it could be improved. And I don't mean by the inclusion of all this crap. ImpuMozhi21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have weedled out a more specific complaint. The complainant contends that (a) the description of the falling-out is inaccurate (I have modified the article so that it directly quotes rathter than paraphrases the telegraph article; other sources would be welcome) correction: she claims it's flatly false, and (b) that it unfairly defines her in terms of her family instead of her own accomplishments (and this, to an extent, is true; I have tried to add more of her own accomplishments to the article). Raul65409:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added references and more text talking about her electoral record and the sex scandal that she revealed during her journalistic career. The article is more balanced now. -- Sundar\talk \contribs09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"strong criticisms" is an understatement. This previous discussion, and now this FAR have made me realise that we have started to treat most of our Featured content noms as RFAs. There is only one project which comes closest to the number of FAs that we have contributed, and that is Wikiproject:Tropical cyclones. I am not 100% sure about this - but their nomination are always on behalf of the entire project, and most (if not all) members of their project do not "vote" at FACs. Perhaps we could start something like this. Only those people who have contributed to articles in a major way respond at FACs. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism on the voting is another issue. But, Tony has raised a specific issue regarding substandard prose. We should probably do a round of copyediting. -- Sundar\talk \contribs12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have put it on my watchlist... but can't we recreate it? Is there a rule against it? While you are at the Indian freedom fighters, might as well include this one? -- Lost17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think having categories Indian Women and Living People is too generalised. Categories should be more meaningful and should have a smaller base to work with. The two categories are way too inclusive, not to mention "sexist". =Nichalp«Talk»=03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe something like prominent Indian women, or subcategories such as Female Indian politician, actor etc... Not to be sexist but say somebody wants a list of top Indian businesswomen, this may be a good place to start.. -- Lost08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Indian Adminstrators Noticeboard
Is it just me or do people find the Administrators Noticeboard a bit too messy and chaotic to get your points throught, there's too many things happening at once. So I propose we create an Administrators Noticeboard for the 15 Indian Admins we currently have to assess situations directly related to Indian pages. Only 'global' situations or situations where you need a lot of input can be posted on the other Administrators noticeboard. It'll also be easier to ask for help or comment on an India-related topic, at the moment one has to either post here if its important or post on the admin's talk page. This way, all 15 admins will get to know and will be able to help out. My last reason for having such a noticeboard is simply this: why not? I would be prepared to create a WP:IAN if people agree. Nobleeagle (Talk)05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be neccessary for the moment. Why not continue to use this talkspace to notify India-related admin tasks? =Nichalp«Talk»=07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know too much about the copyright laws that operate on Wikipedia but there are a large number of sites that have images on Bhagat Singh (for example, here and about his family here. They would be helpful for the Bhagat Singh article but I don't know whether they can be used. What about film pictures from Rang De Basanti or the Legend of Bhagat Singh. How can they be used? Nobleeagle (Talk)07:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Too bad it didn't mention the admin who locked the page.... Some other news reports about WP controversies name the users involved. Blnguyen | rant-line05:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, imagine a news story reporting on the actions of Can't sleep clown will eat me, the username would make the news sound so trivial. Nobleeagle (Talk)05:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Request
Would anyone/everyone please take a look at this? At current I (a non-Indian) have absolutely no idea what the article is about, much less how to clean it up etc. Major trimming and attention is needed here. Thanks you. - CrazyRussiantalk/email02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think CrazyRussian means the Avadhanam page. It does need some attention. I never knew avadhanis were exclusively Telugu! I have seen a Tamil ashtavadhani (someone who can do eight things at the same time) such as count the number of time someone touches his while solving mathematical puzzles, solve mechanical puzzles with his hands, recite Tirukkural poems when someone prompts him to such as "recite the 878th Tirukkural", etc. It is pretty amazing to watch. - Parthi03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It has its origins in Telugu literature and is more popular there, though nothing prevents the event from being staged in other languages. --Gurubrahma06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Concern about India portal
News and DYK sections don't seem to be updated often - this may lead to removal of featured portal status. btw, round 7 of the quiz is up and running. --Gurubrahma06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiIndia image
Hello, the WikiIndia image is a modification of the Wikimedia logo, which is not itself GFDL; so this image should not be. You may want to switch to a different logo, or make sure that you have permission to use this one. +sj +21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have been keeping an eye on deletion proposals, and I frequently find that peoposals are made and decisions implemented (often being "delete") within the space of a few (<24) hours. Yesterday (21 June), we has two India-related pages that were proposed and deleted before they could even be listed on WP:DSI -- Ambani school and some biography. I'm a bit concerned about the former because, although it seems to have been nearly empty, it may have been deleted in order to prevent its growing into a substantial article: read the comment of the first voter. Anything we can do to prevent recurrences? The rules seem to be clear: listings are to remain open for voting for atleast 5 days. Regards, ImpuMozhi02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there are a few wrong decisions in AfD, but the two there were deleted correctly. The first only repeated the name of the school in question, and the second was a guy - it said that he was a software engineer, is 27 yrs old, has a wife. The admin in question Redvers was nominated by none other than Gurubrahma, so I would say that he is a great admin.Blnguyen | rant-line02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
With reference to actions of admins who were my nominees, I plead the fifth, ;) which states "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." --Gurubrahma14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, it was the comment of the first voter that disturbed me; it basically said "if we allow this page any time, it may grow into a large article on a school, which is bad--" I did gather that both pages were nearly empty, but have no way of checking contents. I'm glad it was all OK. Regards, ImpuMozhi05:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tintin, the user meant that it fits the criteria for speedy deletion now but could evolve into a good article. So he was expressing his analysis of the situation. Nobleeagle (Talk)05:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong object to the deletion. As a citizen of Mumbai, the school is *highly* notable. It is one of the few in India that offer the IB, and the teaching style is a different from other schools in India. =Nichalp«Talk»=15:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have recreated and expanded on the article. One of the reasons why it was listed as "no clue of it's notability". Since the person in question was asked to expand on the article, sufficient time should be given before deletion. =Nichalp«Talk»=16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx, I do think the school is notable and this is warranted. I also find, on re-reading the comment, that Tintin is right, and what the person meant was exactly the opposite of what I hastily surmised. Not that I really blamed him or the admin; my point above was that these rapid-deletion cases are not uncommon, and does anyone have a view on that? Of course, many things are just clear-cut, like the second biography page, but Admins simply cannot be expected to know enough about everything across the world. Hence the vetting procedure. ImpuMozhi18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello folks! The cool, calm and wise Gurubrahma pointed me at this conversation. First off: apologies if I appeared to offend anyone on the AfD on these articles. The decision to speedy delete Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai as a CSD-A3 was not taken lightly. I never take speedy deletions lightly.
In this case, Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai was speedy deleted because it was a clear case of CSD-A3: No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. I was on AfD Patrol at the time and acted upon the opinions of three editors who all agreed that the article failed to manage to provide any information whatsoever. The article was empty, as far as I can tell. It was brought to AfD in good faith but the editors and the closing admin (me) agreed that it fell under the existing definitions provided by the Criteria for Speedy Deletion.
It's worth remembering that a redlink to an article is more likely to produced a good, fully-fleshed new article than a poor bluelink. Faced with a redlink, people will write a new, useful article. Faced with a bluelink, anonymous and new users have a built-in reluctance to edit the article, even if it is a sub-stub with no content.
Redlinks have a useful place on Wikipedia on that basis, although Wikipedia and my own personal policy are not based upon that idea.
An article with no content therefore discourages new writers. Whilst it may be possible to turn an article with no content into an article with content, such efforts in research are time-consuming beyond measure - whilst they are being dealt with, hundreds of other articles with no content will be slipping through to fester quietly.
Asking people who contribute to Wikipedia to provide an article that asserts notability, tells the reader about the subject in question and involves more than just a repeat of the name or a URL isn't asking too much. It's easily provided - as Nichalp has proved by creating a servicable, expandable and useful stub in its place.
I can't come up with an Wikipedia rule or guideline that allows for such an article to continue to exist. It was sent to AfD and thus would normally deserve a full debate, but three editors (and the closing admin) again all agreed it was CSD-A7, so the deletion was difficult to argue against!
I'm always happy to be challenged on my decisions. I'm not an ogre, although I have the courage of my convictions! If anyone here has a problem with my deletions, please get in touch with me directly. I don't promise to undelete, but I actively campaign against the current "CSD-G4 applies to speedy deletes" nonsense that doesn't allow for a better article replacing a dud one! ➨ ЯEDVERS20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The bot is currently in pause mode. :) I will start it later tonight. I am still open to suggestions and improvements like the one here. It is at alphabet C right now and has a long way to go. - Ganeshk(talk)15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I stopped the bot now for sorting out an issue with a stub sorting proposal. I will start it after I propose adding missing state stub templates. Thanks Ambuj for the tip. See related discussion here. - Ganeshk(talk)07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could someone with greater knowledge of Wiki formatting (particularly) with regard to tables have a look at this page and rework the text to fix it?--Kaushik twin16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ive mentioned on the talk page that it falls under R2I. But then i went through the act and i cant find anything that says materials from govt websites falls under public domain, although im sure i saw this reason used before for uploading media into wp PlaneMad|YakYak20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Do you guys have these two articles on your watchlist? It seems that not many do, as a POV rant was left on Rajiv Gandhi for 8 hours - it was mainly some kind of angry criticism and looked like a memorial to the Tamil Tigers. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
I know. <boast> I am responsible for at least 50 of them, if not more including the rare got: one. I personally created many of the stubs in other language wikipedias, or contacted editors there to create the stubs </boast> :) =Nichalp«Talk»=12:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Infobox
I propose we remove the image_map tag out of the infobox so that all articles have a consistent look. This would mean customized maps on articles such as Bangalore and Kolkata would be gone. Is that okay. Please comment. - Ganeshk(talk)15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to get the map displayed if the latitude and logitude values are entered. The locator position can default to right. This way we can avoid going back all exising cities and towns and adding the "locator_position" tag. - Ganeshk(talk)15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, but it might take some convincing, since many of the custom maps (e.g., Bangalore's) took a while to produce. Saravask16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The base map for the many such maps (eg. Bangalore) is POV (with regard to Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh). That's a good reason to change. That said, I really like User:AreJay's work on both the maps. May be we can request him to create a similar map (that shows the city alone) and move it further down in the article. - Ganeshk(talk)18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We could also put such zoomed-in maps into the infobox, à laSeattle. They would hav to be very small compared to the main standardized map, though. Saravask18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I updated the template now. The map will get displayed if the latd and longd parameters are entered. - Ganeshk(talk)19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No convincing required here, I'm ok with the new locator maps :) However, a detailed city map should probably be added to Kolkota when one is available. I know that Bangalore already has a detailed city map, albiet an outdated one. Per Ganesh's earlier observation, I also feel that the new locator maps should identify the country (India) as well as neighboring countries and water bodies as is proper convention in cartography. AreJay19:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Re to Arejay: Locator maps are not supposed to have clutter. Naming the country, rivers seas etc would take away the focus of the real purpose of a locator map – ie to pinpoint the position of the city. I've listed a few locations that have clean locator maps: Munich, Sydney, Marseille, Auckland, Shanghai and Birmingham. =Nichalp«Talk»=18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Fellow Indians,
Last few months has seen a deliberate attempt by some Indians and non-Indians to tarnish rajputs. This campaign is led by someone named Impumozhi who has shown utter cluelessness about rajputs. Here are certain instances of editing by Mozhi which show his lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.
I am wondering what can be done about such an editor.
Incident 1: Impumozhi accuses rajputs of fabricating history on Hada page
Impumozhi says:
Read this page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? Leave aside veracity, just the choice of words? Yet nobody dare change one comma or fullstop in that page: it is "owned" by that presiding deity of obduracy, the learned protagonist of every page with a remote "rajput" connection.
Impumozhi's lack of knowledge exposed
His claim about Hada's character being funny and un-encyclopaedic is actually taken from James Tod's Annals and Antiquities page 384 and 385 Vol-II:
On the death of the queen Joda Bae, Akbar commanded a court mourning; and that all might testify a participation in their master's affliction, an ordinance was issued that all the Rajput chiefs, as well as the Moslem leaders, should shave the moustache and the beard. To secure compliance, the royal barbers had the execution of the mandate. But when they came to quarters of the Hadas, in order to remove these tokens of manhood, they were repulsed with buffets and contumely. Then enemies of Rao Bhoj Hada aggravated the crime of this resistance and insinuated to the royal ear that the outrage upon the barbers was accompanied with expressions insulting to memory of the departed princess, who it will be remembered was a rajputani of Marwar. Akbar, forgetting his vassal's gallant services, commanded that Rao Bhoj should be pinioned and forcibly deprived of his moustache. He might as well have commanded the operation on a tiger. The Hadas flew to there arms, the camp was thrown into tumult, and would have soon presented a wide scene of blood-shed, had not the emperor, seasonably repenting of his folly repaired to the Boondi quarters in person. He expressed his admiration (he might have said his fear) of Hada valour, alighted from his elephant to expostulate with the Rao...
If James Tod thinks this incident is worthy of being mentioned in his book, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, what is wrong in this incident being mentioned on Wikipedia?
Incident 2. Deleted the name of famous rajput lady, Maharani Gayatri Devi, from rajputani page, saying she is not a rajput.
His response was countered on his talk page: [6] and till date he has not responded. The reason he did not respond is because his lack of knowledge on the topic was thoroughly exposed.
Incident 3: Impumozhi tries to get the page of a famous rajput king deleted, but is thwarted.
In another incident he put a tag of db-nonsense on the article Hammir Dev Chauhan : [7].
He was asked on the talk page of this article on why he put the CSD tag: [8]. No reasons given till date. Another user, Dvyost, had to remove this db-nonsense tag: [9]. Here again Impumozhi had no idea about the subject matter but just because a rajput had created this article he put the db-nonsense tag.
Incident 4: Mozhi accuses rajputs of writing poor history
Certainly, these people genuinely believe what they write, even on the Hada page -- they would not know otherwise, their views being informed mainly by an execrable set of caste-glorificatory pamphlets. My views on the famous and oft-cited list of 65 reference-books is available here (please scroll to the red-lettered section towards the end of the "changes comparison").
I have previously expressed the same views, for instance here, never to any effect, and I despair of ever obtaining recourse if nothing avails me on this forum. I think it is essential that, rather than confine their final decisions to the Rajput and associated pages, the arbcom should take a broader view of the contributions-record of the protagonists, and encourage the permanent departure of those who simply are not equipped to contribute to an encyclopedia. The sad alternative is to have less belligerent, more bookish people gradually depart WP in despair and disgust. Regards, ImpuMozhi08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mozhi's accusations are baseless
In the reference section of the current rajput page there are chapters, page numbers, publication houses and ISBNs for the books used to create the rajput page. Please click here to see them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=43113774#References. These books are written by eminent historians who have Phd's from universities. To claim there books are useless, without reading a single one of them is a grave insult to these learned people.
Incident 5: Impumozhi removes references from the rathore page and inserts the un referenced template on that page multiple times.
Incident 6: Impumozhi created a category called rajput chiefs and he has put all rajput kings in this category.
This is a deliberate attempt at denigrating hindu rajput monarchs as chiefs, a term indicative of vassalage. If one just uses google one gets 124 hits for searching maharana pratap as a "rajput king" and 3 hits for the chief search and of these three none were talking about Pratap. One wonders why this fellow and his entire team has so much hatred for the glorious heritage of India?
Incident 7: Impumozhi removes "ruling clans of India" category from names of rajput gotras.
"Ruling clans of India" category is far more descriptive for the rajput clans but he just wants to insert the category that he has created himself. Look at page Sisodia'e edit history for example.
Incident 8: Impumozhi is aligning with Muslims who have called all Jihad mongering terrorists of the world Rajputs..
Read here : [10] (This above was written by a muslim and mozhi and gang support this group of muslims). How does one digest this?
Incident 9: Impumozhi is clueless about the origins of rajputs.
Mozhi calls Shekhawats Gohil rajput[11]. This is utter non sense.
Then he calls Tomar's are descendants of Pandavs and are chandravanshi too! [12]. This again is blatant nonsense as the rest of his work. All this just shows this editor is not knoweledgable about rajputs and should keep his hands off.
This is quite convenient. You delete the comments here and your buddy deletes them from where you moved it. Is censorship and kicking of India's heritage your main aim? I can understand a swiss but an Indian? Sirohi S08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
When I consider the company I keep, I cannot repine. Nichalp is a brainwashed idiot, Bachmann a racist, Zora a jehadist. And up there, on that same firmament, twinkles the star of Your Truly, brighter than the best of bureaucrats, admins and veterans. Its all I can do to keep my head on my shoulders. ImpuMozhi12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is for the Kochi page. Could somebody familiar with Sanskrit provide an English translation for the word Go Shree. Thanks! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK13:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it certainly has something to do with cows. But why would anybody name a city "cow wealth"? Because it has so many cows? :? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
