Misplaced Pages

User talk:Zuggernaut: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:21, 13 November 2010 editZuggernaut (talk | contribs)5,018 edits →Infobox famine: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 15:07, 17 November 2010 edit undoYogesh Khandke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,597 edits →Infobox famineNext edit →
Line 269: Line 269:
::Two current examples and one historical example seem fine. If theys could be given their 'official' titles, and linked to the appropriate article, it should minimise any ambiguity. ']' is not as clear-cut as it might appear. ] (as just one example) is a country but not a sovereign state. An article on the ] would have '''Country''' (I think) as ] and '''Location''' as Scotland. Is my reading correct? ] (]) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ::Two current examples and one historical example seem fine. If theys could be given their 'official' titles, and linked to the appropriate article, it should minimise any ambiguity. ']' is not as clear-cut as it might appear. ] (as just one example) is a country but not a sovereign state. An article on the ] would have '''Country''' (I think) as ] and '''Location''' as Scotland. Is my reading correct? ] (]) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, the Scotland example is correct. Wikilinking the documentation/example is a good idea. The only historical examples that use the infobox that I am aware of are the Irish famine, the Indian famines and the Ukranian famine or did you mean linking to the country? ] (]) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, the Scotland example is correct. Wikilinking the documentation/example is a good idea. The only historical examples that use the infobox that I am aware of are the Irish famine, the Indian famines and the Ukranian famine or did you mean linking to the country? ] (]) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
==Ganga move==
Please contribute to discussion on talk page. ] (]) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:07, 17 November 2010

Notices

Real and Fake Notices

Welcome

Hello, Zuggernaut! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

August 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Maharashtra. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. the statement you have referenced to two books finds no mention in either. If you continue to add this without consensus you will be blocked —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim is wrong. Please check the sources properly and you will find the following statements per the citation: The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune. This is no original research. I have reported the matter to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Deshastha Brahmin due to your belligerent attitude and derogatory language used here. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_dispute discussion. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maharashtrian Bhakti saints

The article Maharashtrian Bhakti saints has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, orpahned article with no content other than a list of apparently non-notable people.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Svick (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18 2010

STOP! Vandalising and spreading false info of your own or from unreliable websites in many wiki pages, like upanishad for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.80.122 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to one of those Islamic or christian fundamentalist who wants to spread false info against other faiths from unrelaiable source. STOP VANDALISING WIKI PAGES AND SPREADING HATRED OTHERS FAITHS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

You were already warned many times by moderators for vandalising and spreading false info and hatred against other faiths from unreliable sources. Watch it.

TempUser1234567 comment added by TempUser1234567 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayodhya debate

The article Ayodhya debate has been renamed to Ayodhya conflict by an editor without any reference or discussion. I must note here that Ayodhya dispute is clearly not an armed conflict like Kargil Conflict and neither the mainstream media or government refers to the Ayodhya dispute as conflict. Even the term Ayodhya conflict has never been used in the article itself. Could you revert the name of the article back to Ayodhya debate or dispute.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Sockpuppetry

You have accused me on the British Empire FARC page of being a sock puppet. If you have any reasonable grounds of suspecting this please request a check user as I said on that page I have nothing to hide. If you do not have any reasonable grounds then you owe me an unreserved apology. Outofsinc (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Khandoba

Khandoba

The discussion about Khandoba worship section is moved to Talk:Khandoba#Worship_section. Please leave your additional comments there. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Standard Marathi

Standard Marathi debate

I was scanning through the debate on this topic at Talk:Maharashtra, and looking up the sources you have quoted. Among the sources, Nemade's book appears to be the most recent and comprehensive. I would like to read the text on pages 98-101 of the book to understand the context properly (c.f. all other sources that seem to be talking of standardization in context of the Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary). Unfortunately the book doesn't seem to available online. Would it be possible for you to scan and email me the relevant pages ? Don't hesitate to say no if this is not convenient since I can get the book from my library instead (may take a week), and am just trying the lazyman's option first. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! It's gotten a little lengthy and may have been hard to navigate in some sections - sorry about that. There are actually two distinct dictionaries being referred to. I provided a source (Bloch) to bolster support for the Molesworth dictionary after User:Redtigerxyz raised doubts about it ("Some 1831 dictionary..."). Bloch also indicates that the dictionary is still current. The other dictionary is A Dictionary of the Maratha Language. Unfortunately, I am unable to scan and send you the pages but I have typed out relevant content from the book which you can find here.User:Zuggernaut I am using content from pages 101 and 139 only. The book is still worth getting from the library if you are interested in the topic. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Upanishads

Upanishads

Hello Zuggernaut, I don't think adhering to one style of citation is as important as keeping those quotes in the footnotes. They are among the best pieces of information in the article. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

{{tone}} on Upanishads#Criticism_of_the_Upanishads

Happy to help The initial sentence: "Criticisms of the Upanishads range from an ill-conceived and half-thought out bluster, to scholarly but scathing ones." is not encyclopedic. Either these weak arguments are really just nonsense--in which case, there is no point in engaging them--or they are legitimate and strong criticisms which deserve to not be disregarded by calling them "ill-conceived and half-though out bluster." Please post on my talk if you think I can be of further assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I've moved that quote to footnotes. If you think it still needs work, please feel free add back the tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Upanishads

The article Upanishads you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Upanishads for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Deshastha

Deshastha

You wrote, Shakher59, you have uploaded several pictures on Misplaced Pages, some of which are being used in Deshastha Brahmin. It'll be a lot of help if you can provide more information about the pictures. Things like location of the pictures, when they were taken, the occasion, whether they are Deshastha Rigvedi or Yajurvedi and perhaps their last names, etc will be of great help. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures' title has the period when they were taken. If I give names of the people, the photographs will be immediately deleted for being of non-notables. These pictures are there simply to show what deshastha people look like to the average wikipedia reader who would have no idea as to what a deshastha person looks like. That is why I am not happy about the picture of contemporary deshastha couple being deleted. I don't see anybody else putting a new picture of contemporary deshastha family either. All my B & W photos are from 1950s and 1970s. Having a color picture does make sense so if you have one, please add it to the article. By the way, all the people in the photographs are deshastha, mostly yajurvedi. The munj ceremony is of a yajurvedi family.Shakher59 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I;ve responded at your peer review page.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your content "disgraced and ruined...." because Arthur Crawford on page 127 of your reference in the footnote only alludes to Bajeerao disgracing one deshastha man for having a copy of Sahyadree khand and not the whole deshstha community. Also I have noticed that in recent edits,a lot of people including you and at times myself, have started relying on free books available on google as references. These are very old books by western authors and don't always have a neutral point of view. Use these references but even in the text mention that "according to so and so..... That way the reader can make his or her own conclusions rather than going through the reference list.74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi anon (74.9.96.122), Thanks for pointing out the detail - I have fixed the Crawford citation to accurately state that one reputed Deshastha Brahmin was disgraced. While promoting the article Upanishads as a GA, my reviewer pointed out that it is not a good practice to name a reference in the article . The use of Google books is quite helpful as long as we stick to WP:Sources and particularly WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiable. I have also provided another citation in addition to Jadunath Sarkar regarding the social war. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaggannath, Please provide solid references that all deshasthas are the original brahmin inhabitants of maharashtra. the reference below on Nasik brahmins speculates that Madhyandin yajurvedis came from Gujarat within last 600 years. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More than 95% of this article is about Deshasthas. You are welcome to start a new and separate article on Yajurvedis if you want to focus on the differences rather than the similarities. The current citations already substantiate the claim. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If current claims substantiate the claim then please cite it after "original"74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion to improve the article. Feel free to improve the article in places you think we can provide accurate information. Please consider signing up and getting a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Young Mr. Jaggannath, Send me your email address and I will send you the image of the article74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Take a look at Burden of evidence Go on read . The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources and that does not mean I don't have complete faith in the claims of the article.
  2. Per burden of evidence, provide the full citation. The following minimum details are missing from your citation:
    1. Full author names. done
    2. The exact page number. The current range 241-262 is too large for the simple one line used in the article. Can I conclude that you are not from a research or scientific background ? this paper ( Mastana et al ) is not a review but original research involving blood samples taken from the four groups. most of the pages are tables of data. from what I have read about Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability, I don't think I have to quote the results verbatim.
    3. Provide the issue number of Annals of Human biology. VOL. 21.
    4. Provide the month of publication of that issue. why ?
  3. The content we are talking is tiny. Provide the 2-3 lines of conclusion that supports your claim. You can type it out in the talk space of the article. I would be very surprised if the authors do not use the word immigrant to describe the Parsi.
  4. I am removing the entire line from article space as we need to establish verifiability of the source to satisfaction before we can add it to the article per WP:Sources This is as bonafide as it gets.
  5. Suggested solution: given the universal knowledge/multiple sources stating that the Parsi are an immigrant community, consider adding "immigrant" before Parsi and we can consider this closed. Your explanation of Paris being native in the talk space of the article is WP:OR
  6. Consider signing up and getting an account, go to preferences and add your e-mail address. We can then exchange e-mails. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) No, the authors don't use that term and so there is no need to. If you want to take it to higher level so be it. I have just started with one of your reference on "Social war" and you had put your own POV. So if you want to verify my reference, then get ready for a fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article!

74.9.96.122 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure go ahead with "fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article" It will only help make the article better. The more errors you can find, the better! Please consider using a colon to indent your responses. And please also consider signing up to get a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Approach Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for copyedit. Moving {{copyedit}} to article as convention. --Redtigerxyz 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

British Empire

British Empire

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have raised the fact you have been canvassing over the India/British Empire articles at the Admins notice board here. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm going Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism before actually talking to the founders and co-owners... But before that, I'll make a sadbox out of the history section and present it for discussion and then let's see what happens from there...

thanks :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We are attempting to do just that :D ... I've more amendments to suggest :P

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DisruptiveConstructive behaviour

British Empire is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here . So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out a problem with the maps in the article - they are inaccurate because they show Goa, Daman, Diu and Oman as parts of the British Empire when they were under Portuguese and French control well beyond the 1940s. I've then provided a possible solution to how the problem can be fixed . Our FAs need to meet the criterion of the finest article so I am trying to help you keep the FA status. You have ignored several questions from unique editors over several months about the maps including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her . It is your behavior here that's disruptive. You've been wikihounding me for weeks to India, Famine in India, American Revolutionary war where you repeatedly violate a pillar of Misplaced Pages - WP:Civility as has been pointed out by multiple different and unrelated editors . You've added POV tags to the India and Famine in India articles because the article asserted 37 million deaths from starvation during British rule. From this pattern of behavior, it is easy to see that you have an agenda on Misplaced Pages - to glorify the British Empire and stifle any information (even though it meets WP:Sources and other WP policies) that brings forward the negative aspects of the British Empire. Clearly it's your behavior that's the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


"POV"

You are misusing/misunderstanding the term "POV". The purpose of this tag is not to denote "someone did something I don't agree with" or "something hasn't been adequately responded to on the talk page". It is "this section/article is not written using a neutral point of view", which in turn means it does not "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

  • Western/Christian - Yogesh asked which word the source used, without making any point. I replied. You view that as justification for a POV tag. Why? We can't read your mind, or his mind for that matter, even though you seem to think you can. Explain yourself please.
  • Bangladesh/other Indian conflicts - Yogesh took a sentence which was sourced (all conflicts listed there are explicitly stated to be legacies of the BE by the cited author) and then decided to add his own conflicts, without any supporting sources. You view that as a justification for a POV tag. Why? Yogesh violated policies on WP:V (adding unsourced material), that was why he was reverted. If he wants to continue the discussion, he can start a new thread on the talk page.
  • maps ... a mistake on a map (or indeed failure to be 100.000000% accurate by not showing something the size of 1 pixel which is barely visible when blown up to full size) is not a POV matter - regardless of whether your requests to fix things was actioned or not. (Incidentally, why don't you fix it yourself?)

In future, if you feel something has "POV" problems, I advise you first read WP:NPOV, find the section of that which you think is not being followed, then you quote the exact text in the article and on the article talk page, put the two next to each other and explain your thinking. Continuing to slap POV tags everywhere is not going to endear you to your fellow editors and is liable to be viewed as disruptive. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dickens

I've been through this once. See history of Dickens and came up vindicated. The mention of racism of Dickens in the article is the result of that effort. I too did not know about this angle of Dickens before I made those edits. Dickens is related to 1857 more than you think perhaps. These guys are trolling, I am too old to react wildly. Generally. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments

Just a couple comments. I can understand your apparent frustration about the British Empire page. There are a group of editors there ready to defend the page, perhaps to a fault. There are others, like myself who, if I may be so bold, might support some of your complaints. I think I might qualify as a neutral party: I have no vested interest in the BE page; I think there is a systematic pro-British bias in English language sources in general; and I have worked to rectify this in small ways on Misplaced Pages (mainly on issues relating to the North American Pacific Northwest). Furthermore, I know little about India and the BE's history in India--so while I may not be able to speak as an authority I might at least play a role as a neutral party. However, your methods have come across, to me at least, less as a desire for improving Misplaced Pages and more as a broadside attack on the BE page and a few others. While I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me. Taking the page to FAR was, for me, going to far, and since then I've been mostly watching from the sidelines out of curiosity. Perhaps the best thing at this point would be to step back, wait a while, and then bring up single points, resolving them one at a time, at some future date. Just a suggestion. Best, Pfly. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some advise

I really suggest you spend more time on article talk pages working with other editors. So far you have rushed issues to two forums without real discussion and now we have a nonsensical ANI report. Add that to your canvassing of pages hoping to create an anti-imperial alliance and your behaviour starts to become an issue. You are also (on articles such as British Empire) simply playing into the hands of the pro-British Empire lobby by taking too extreme a position. Please try and work with other editors, moderate what you doing and stop trying to game the system. --Snowded 06:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


FYI

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Would this be of help in handling a cabal?

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that Zuggernaut has managed to unite editors who normally have profound political disagreements I think calling it a cabal is a bit far fetched --Snowded 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Goa

No need for any compromise. Just vote that's all. Make your point that's all about vote.

There is no need to accept something that you don't believe in. It applies to all. So you make your point and vote for that point. Your saying is like Just because Hitler made others to bow before him, you have to bow before him as well because it's compromise. It's not my dear friend. Things can be anything. Especially in Misplaced Pages, everyone can make their point. There are things that you can compromise on, but not on values. That's a big no. So you just vote for what you feel deem fit. That's all and the result will determine what need to be kept on Misplaced Pages. That's victory for freedom. You are free to vote for any of the choice or make compromise or anything that you deem fit. And thanks for the suggestion as well. All the best.Bcs09 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Famine and process

There are two options when someone inserts new text. Ideally a process of modification should take place. If that is not possible then the whole thing is reverted and then discussed on the talk page. I suggest you think about modification not reverting material to your preferred text. At the moment your material read as advocacy for a particular position. --Snowded 08:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about the editing process makes sense. I will modify your changes many of which are clearly helpful in presenting material in a focused and concise manner. I disagree with your 'advocacy' comment though - I think you are bringing baggage from other articles or have a strong pro-British view point. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hope my intervention isn't seen as intrusive, but Snowded is more likely to be accused of having the opposite view-point, at least by some around here. Sen may have something more specific to say on the Irish famine which might be incorporated in that particular article. Please concentrate on content rather than the perceived 'baggage' of editors. RashersTierney (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No intrusion seen and I appreciate the advice. I will look for Sen or entitlement theory (FEE) material specific to Irish famine once I'm done with my current focus areas/articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been called many things on Misplaced Pages, but that is a first for "pro-British"! As a socialist member of their first colony (Wales) which has yet to gain independence I think I might take that as a mortal insult.  :-) Z, you need to use the talk page when something is disputed ... --Snowded 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It gave me a small laugh out loud moment seeing you accused of rabid pro-Britishness anyway Snowded. So thanks for the amuse-atron moment Zuggernaut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem Jamesinderbyshire. Glad to see some humor. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't mean to insult you Snowded. But I don't know whether I need to say sorry for inadvertently doing so or whether I should sympathize with you :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum Shopping

Its one thing to put objective "we are having a discussion on X, please join in if you are interested", without espousing a view. It's another to go around talk pages where potentially sympathetic editors might be found to rally them to the cause because that is WP:CANVASing. Please stop, or reword your posts accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the posts to address your concern. Please re-visit them to ensure we are in agreement there's no "Forum Shopping"/Canvassing. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting nonsensical

OK, every morning it seems we see a mass of edits from you. Many of these are very good, but there are always a significant number that take a clear POV. Please reverse these out and discuss on the talk page. Going through all your edits every morning to remove the POV position is becoming an unreasonable burden and I am simply going to mass revert if it carries on. --Snowded 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please point out which ones you object to and we can work on those. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Zug, I can't believe you don't know. You are constantly inserting material that says British Empire Bad, Government of Indian Good. If really necessary (ie you can't work it out) I will go through all the amendments again as I have done several times now removing or modifying controversial material. However it feels at the moment that you are attempting to get your own POV established by volume of edits, exhausting anyone who disagrees with you. PS, I have your talk page under watch so I will see any response here--Snowded 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The volume of edits is because I generally stay focused on an article until it's rating improves to GA status (someone has already assessed this one from start class to B class). I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page, please continue the discussion there. Here's what we can do to address your concern:
  1. I'll stop making additions to the article and limit my edits to the much needed copyediting, images, etc.
  2. While doing the copyedit, I will attribute opinions that may have been expressed as facts to the respective authors. I will re-read parts of NPOV policy to figure out where fixes are required and make them, if required.
  3. While the additions are stopped, you are welcome to go through all of my edits again as that will only help improve the article.
Zuggernaut (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


British Empire

Just wanted to say how delighted I am that your attempts to have British Empire delisted have failed. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox famine

I still think you need to be unambiguous regarding 'state' examples. 'China' and 'India' can mean many things historically to a broad audience, where, for example 'USSR' or 'Ottoman Empire' are at least referring to broadly recognised (historically and in a contemporary sense) political entities. Best to get it as right as possible. RashersTierney (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The title 'Country' makes it clear that a political entity is being referred to. China and India are relevant present day names but we can add The Kingdom of Ireland or something like that to illustrate older periods. I'll have to read up to get the nomenclature right but if you know off hand any examples from the past, please feel free to update.Three examples should be good enough - my preference is 2 from present day, 1 from the past. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Two current examples and one historical example seem fine. If theys could be given their 'official' titles, and linked to the appropriate article, it should minimise any ambiguity. 'Country' is not as clear-cut as it might appear. Scotland (as just one example) is a country but not a sovereign state. An article on the Scottish famine of 1780 would have Country (I think) as Kingdom of Great Britain and Location as Scotland. Is my reading correct? RashersTierney (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Scotland example is correct. Wikilinking the documentation/example is a good idea. The only historical examples that use the infobox that I am aware of are the Irish famine, the Indian famines and the Ukranian famine or did you mean linking to the country? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganga move

Please contribute to discussion on talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Zuggernaut: Difference between revisions Add topic