User talk:Zuggernaut
 | I take frequent Wikibreaks and edit Wikipedia intermittently |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| Contents |
|---|
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Jagadguru Rambhadracharya
Hi Zuggernaut! Wanted to remind that Jagadguru Rambhadracharya's GA review still needs to be completed, and all the issues raised like copyedit are fixed now, so can u review it now? :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I should be able to look at it in a couple of days. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- A very good first (correct me if wrong) GA review. A detailed and almost exhaustive one. Just 1 thing.. after passing please remember to list the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the proper category. I have done that for Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, will keep that in mind next time. Thanks for listing it in the proper category. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- A very good first (correct me if wrong) GA review. A detailed and almost exhaustive one. Just 1 thing.. after passing please remember to list the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the proper category. I have done that for Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of my comments at talk:MangoWong
I will AGF and presume that your deletion of my reply on talk:MangoWong was accidental rather than intentional. I would appreciate if you would restore my comments immediately.JanetteDoe (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your editing altered the meaning of my comment which was, in fact, rendered meaningless. Per my reading of the talk page guidelines that is not allowed. Sorry, I had to revert. BTW, the sources you provide actually weaken your position about the claim that the word is still in general use. 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I would argue that my change was appropriate under Sectioning, as the thread was developing a new subject. And since you were kind enough to quote WP:TPO, I presume you have read at least as far as the third sentence which says: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Perhaps you can explain, then, why you deleted my comment entirely. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- From TPO:
- Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
- Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than subsectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g. : This topic was split off from #FOOBAR, above.. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments.
- From TPO:
- Actually, I would argue that my change was appropriate under Sectioning, as the thread was developing a new subject. And since you were kind enough to quote WP:TPO, I presume you have read at least as far as the third sentence which says: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Perhaps you can explain, then, why you deleted my comment entirely. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I restored the meaning of my comment (which you moved to a different section) and I had no interest in deleting yours. This discussion is now closed here. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Cite templates
Hi, why do you change to the sfn template when there is an existing, working template in use? The latest example of this is at Kunbi. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, I have used the short cite format in some articles that I have created. I am just under the impression that, as with spelling, the prevailing format should be adopted by subsequent contributors and have tended to do that myself except where there is a barelink type of situation or a mixture of formats. In the latter case, I try to standardise and use the long cite template because it is the one that has tools which newbies can use etc, plus it does not require separate maintenance of a bibliography. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the Harvard notation in general and this is one of the template that offers it. Due to the advantages listed at {{sfn}}, my personal experience has been that it speeds up the development of articles significantly. I generally do not interfere with the notation/sources introduced by others with some exceptions. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no particular preference, aside from being aware of what newbies appear to be most comfortable with. I just thought that it was one of those things that should be standardised in usage throughout an article and that the standard was effectively set by the article's creator. It is this that was my query. Anyway, that's some good info added by you today: I can't see an awful lot of the sources which you have used but I'm pleased both to see more info and to see the weighting shift away from the Raj depictions. The Raj stuff can have its place in an article (& indeed is often trumpeted by members of the various castes themselves), but the weighting really should always be on more modern works, where available. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, will keep the newbie thing in mind the next time I use the template. I hope you won't mind if we standardize to the sfn template for the remaining 3 or 4 sources. I expect the sources to grow as the article grows. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The bit about newbies is just a frequently voiced opinion (ie: a lot of people say it, not I say it a lot!) You don't have to accept it. If you want to standardise on sfn for the article then I have no problem with that. It is the unilateral change of style that was concerning me but, hey, you and I are the two major contributors and I'm happy to go with sfn in these circumstances. Again, good work. I wonder if the same sources could be used for a lot of the single-sentence community articles? - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Singh's work for the AnSI is vast and exhaustive spanning many, many volumes. You can pretty much find every single Indian community in the volumes. Some of the information may be out of date but it can definitely yield two, three or four paragraphs for each community. Zuggernaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have a big problem with Singh as much of it is unavailable to me online & I am not in a position often to get to a library (health, etc). I also have a problem that I cannot prove, which is that many of the bits which I can see appear to adopt a similar approach to the Raj sources: massive generalisation, poor sourcing etc. But, hey, they are backed by the ANSI & so are reliable regardless of my misgivings.
- BTW, I use WP:RX quite often to resolve the online issues and it is great, but I can't start asking for 1000 pages of a single volume, obviously. I think sometimes that people forget that there are plenty of good faith contributors out there who are working with the tools available to them and that, yes, this sometimes can lead to weighting issues etc. I'm pretty experienced regarding judgement of a source and how to include it ... but I cannot include stuff that is not available to me and/or is completely unknown. For that reason, Wikipedia will continue to be a work in progress. I have learned much from my involvement with it and while I do realise that a fair few India contributors doubt my intentions etc, I really do have an open mind and have become fascinated with the history side of things (history has generally been my delight from a young age). I have learned much and hope to continue. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Mahararashtra volume of the ANSI work is in 3 parts (3 books) with communities listed alphabetically so all that's needed is the one part which contains entries from 'K'. Actually Google books does have a partial view of the book (I don't know why you are seeing only snippets). The volumes were published in India and cost somewhere around ₹2,000 (US$25) for the 3 parts a few years back. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Singh's work for the AnSI is vast and exhaustive spanning many, many volumes. You can pretty much find every single Indian community in the volumes. Some of the information may be out of date but it can definitely yield two, three or four paragraphs for each community. Zuggernaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The bit about newbies is just a frequently voiced opinion (ie: a lot of people say it, not I say it a lot!) You don't have to accept it. If you want to standardise on sfn for the article then I have no problem with that. It is the unilateral change of style that was concerning me but, hey, you and I are the two major contributors and I'm happy to go with sfn in these circumstances. Again, good work. I wonder if the same sources could be used for a lot of the single-sentence community articles? - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, will keep the newbie thing in mind the next time I use the template. I hope you won't mind if we standardize to the sfn template for the remaining 3 or 4 sources. I expect the sources to grow as the article grows. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no particular preference, aside from being aware of what newbies appear to be most comfortable with. I just thought that it was one of those things that should be standardised in usage throughout an article and that the standard was effectively set by the article's creator. It is this that was my query. Anyway, that's some good info added by you today: I can't see an awful lot of the sources which you have used but I'm pleased both to see more info and to see the weighting shift away from the Raj depictions. The Raj stuff can have its place in an article (& indeed is often trumpeted by members of the various castes themselves), but the weighting really should always be on more modern works, where available. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)