User talk:Kaustuv/archive 3

Hi, Sorry - was that what happened? I saw an edit conflict but then my version seemed to save. Please add your comment back in (I've finished editing so there shouldn't be another clash). Dlyons493 Talk 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your proposed Warcraft deletion, and wanted to comment on it. I believe you should make it more clear what portions of WP:NOT you're citing as a reason for deleting the articles. Carefully read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and cite something specific; you mentioned "game guide" but I don't think that's applicable. The relevant text is:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.

The articles you're proposing are not instruction manuals or anything similar. This is the context in which "game guide" is intended; it doesn't mean "articles about games." The articles are "descriptions of (fictional) people," which WP:NOT specifically states IS valid content. I believe notability and verifiability are important points here, but I don't think WP:NOT applies. TomTheHand 17:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is not my preferred rationale, but it is extremely commonly cited in these AfDs, which is why I included it in the draft. I am happy to remove it if you think it will make the case stronger.. If you read my earlier AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles, then you'll see that that my rationale was purely centered around WP:N (mainly), WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's very common. It bothers me a lot because I feel strongly that it's being used incorrectly. It seems clear to me, reading the above excerpt, that "game guide" refers to instruction or advice about a game, but "Wikipedia is not a game guide!" is applied to many articles that fall outside that. I think WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR are more than enough in this case, especially WP:N. TomTheHand 18:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Kaustuv for his mind-boggling effort in putting together the imposing Warcruft characters AfD. You rule! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't we have a subsection for the votes on that warcraft afd thing?--Paraphelion 08:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire section after the nomination is an area for voting. If you observe closely, you will see several votes already cast. Note that "vote" is used loosely in the sense of participating in the discussion as AfD is not a vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know there are votes, I myself voted. What I'm saying is, can't we have a subsection for the 'votes' (or whatever you want to call them) part because the rest of the article is filled with other stuff - it would be good to have a little header for the actual votes.--Paraphelion 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is too early to refactor the discussion. I will myself do it if it gets unwieldy, but it isn't that bad yet. I am waiting for a response from the editor who raised the challenge on the indicated articles, but if nothing is forthcoming in a day or so I shall summarily remove or compress the individual challenge sections. These are all my opinions and you are free to disagree and BOLDly do what you think is right. I just ask that you leave the text of the nomination alone. By this I mean everything upto the horizontal line after my signature. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, I should have just put the section header after that line, right? I don't really mind that those other sections are there, but the current voting area is sort of free floating.--Paraphelion 08:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your most recent edit is acceptable to me. The horizontal rule can even be removed now (it wasn't my doing to begin with). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt attacked, but for people who have spent many many hours creating these articles, and then having someone say that their work was for nothing, it kinda makes people a bit mad. I apologize for any harsh words said, it was never my intent to attack you or anyone else voting them for deletion. I would be happy to work with you on finding a way for these articles to be keept, and keeping them up to the standards which Wikipedia strive for. I would urge you to visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Warcraft and voice your concerns on the talk page, where we might all discuss a resolution for your concerns. Kind regards Havok (T/C/c) 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When half a dozen editors openly accuse me of bad faith, I can see the writing on the wall. I am actually going to voluntarily resign from video game articles on WP. It's not my area of interest, and I've gotten myself needlessly drawn into it from other AfDs. Perhaps someone who watched this AfD develop and cares enough about it will take up the torch. If not, I am sure fifty extra articles on crufty topics is not the greatest failing of Wikipedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say I don't see the reason in wanting to "help out" on stuff you say you have no care for, and something that is "not (your) area of interest". That is most likely the reason people tell you that the nomination is a bad faith one, seeing as you state you have no knowledge of the subject, but yet you want it removed from Wikipedia. And fan cruft is not a policy, or even a guideline, it's an essay. Havok (T/C/c) 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to prolong this discussion. Good day. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your speedy close on this AfD; since you indicated on the talk page that you understand the relevent policy and are aware that your change of heart does not automatically shut down discussions, I won't bother to explain in any further detail. --Aquillion 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a completely needless reversion as multiple admins are aware of my action and have not chosen to intervene. However, as I mentioned in the talk page, I have struck my own comments and the nomination out. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is some additional information regarding your view on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin. I request you to take a look.

Comment: Terrorism: random or correlated? Please see the following.

Articles

Terrorism pipeline flows to Pakistan, Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2006 [1][2]

Pakistan missing link in extremist battle, Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2006, [3]

Just whose side is Pakistan really on? The Sunday Times - Britain, August 13, 2006 [4]

Pakistan’s Help in Averting a Terror Attack Is a Double-Edged Sword, New York Times, August 12, 2006[5][6]

Books

Book: Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America's War On Terror, Hassan Abbas, Jessica Stern [7]

Book: Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, Owen Bennett Jones [8]

Book: Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military, by Husain Haqqani [9]

Other

Congressional Briefing: Rep. McKinney 9/11 Congressional Briefing[10]

May I also suggest another article. "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [11]

They're just fanboys overreacting. Half of them are probably paid by Blizzard to add content to wikipedia. I'm starting to suspect a large percentage of wikipedians are either corporate or government agents hired to further products or public image. You engaged in civil discorse and were cordial each time that I saw, which is more than can be said of most who posted in that discussion, so you have nothing to apologize about. You changed your mind; a concept completely foreign to these hotcock WoW assholes who only know how to respond to it with a demand for an apology.--Paraphelion 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your vote of support in removing cruft from Wikipedia, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you regarding the motives and means of those who opposed me in that AfD. I further strongly disapprove of the label "wikiasshole". Lastly, I think I should make it clear that I changed my mind about tactics, but not about the encyclopedic worth of those articles. It appears that mentioning this off-wiki discussion was yet another in a chain of poor decisions on my part, as I certainly wasn't fishing for support. I don't wish to discuss this further unless official proceedings are brought against me. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to lend my support, you were civil in your arguments, which means you are entitled to express yourself without being mobbed by a bunch of fanatics Fyver528 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I really hope you reconsider your departure, it is not harmful to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is also about being bold. Although we might not see eye to eye on things, I still feel that you are entitled to your opinion on any matter, and that the same entitlement goes to everyone else. Your work in Notability (fiction) is commendable, and I would love to discuss that matter with you and the rest so that Wikipedia as a whole can grow and become better. If consensus is to delete information on fictional places and persons due to lack of notability, then consensus rule. I have never felt that we stand above policy in any way, we only vote for what we think is right. Anyway, please do stay and continue contributing to the project, as you have shown dedication in your pursuits and that is all that can really be asked of anyone. Cheers. Havok (T/C/c) 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You got me twice with unsigneds. Haha. I usually never forget to sign my commentsBakaman _Bakatalk 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a lot of the categories you put at Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics and other conferences. The purpose of Wikipedia categories is to organize information. Then it does not make sense to put an article in both Category:Computer science conferences and in Category:Computer science which is a much larger supercategory which should contain only things which cannot be categorized more specifically.

I also removed the math-stubs you placed. While those conferences do have some connection to math, they are primarily computer science, and it is good to keep things focused on the most relevant descriptions.

You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you're sticking around Kaustuv, would have been a shame to see you stop contributing! Anyway, hope you have a good day and as a matter of interest I'm starting a computer science degree myself this year at Newcastle University in UK (I noticed that on your webpage it was the area you were in) you may well have heard of it?. Really looking forward to getting started :) Fyver528 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fyver. Sorry for the late response: I somehow seem to have missed the notification of your comment. Thanks for the voice of support, but it appears that I've been taken on a wild goose chase with regard to the threats of ArbCom action or whatnot. I was perhaps over-cautious: in future I will disregard such threats until any actual motions are filed against me. About starting university, I say great and good luck! I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Newcastle U., but I don't know much about U.K. universities to begin with. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've noted your invitation to edit the page, or at least to express my disagreement more coherently (and persuasively). I hope to do this a few days from now. Unfortunately, even then I shan't be able to provide an alternative explanation that's clear and precise.

(I was rather hoping that my edit comment would prompt an earlier editor who's better qualified than I am -- and the article suggests that there are several who are considerably better qualified -- to look again and think "Ah yes" and do it him- or herself. Yes, call me lazy.)

Hoary 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that most of that article is my work, I do take credit for any mistakes there might be in it. That particular section is, in fact, almost entirely my creation except for the labels "proximal", "distal" and "mesial", which I don't particularly care for. I certainly don't see how soko is situated half way between asoko and koko, as those labels seem to imply. However, I have (perhaps foolishly) believed that the person who added them knew what he was doing.

I unfortunately do not presently have access to my copies of Martin's or Shibatani's reference grammars, but my impression is that the Demonstratives section is essentially what you'd find in any (Japanese) grammar textbook. The nature of technical matter on Wikipedia is such that they should all be taken as white lies (intended to educate rather than mislead, of course), so I am sure a specialist would find plenty in that article to quarrel with. The question always ends up being how perspicuous the fine details would be to the untrained eye. I think the Japanese grammar article tends to stray too far into the overly detailed side of the fuzzy line. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First, simple matters. I see that you're using "mesial". In the article, I first took that as an obvious typo for "medial", and thus "corrected" it; but since you're using it here too, I start to think it could be intended. The word doesn't appear in either of the dictionaries of linguistics I have here, but certainly it does appear (and moreover in this very context) within this paper. So perhaps my "correction" was a miscorrection. Further, "mesial" may mean something very different from "medial"; if so, my apologies. -- Hoary 06:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I liked it: [12]. Yes, you are telling facts applicable to a number of administrators. --Bhadani 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I routinely see very impressive mainspace work done by admins, so the situation isn't at all as bleak as that passage suggests. I'm optimistic that if it ever becomes a serious issue then the policies and processes of WP will change. It's just that recent events in Wikipedia involving the departure of valuable members have made me a bit reflective about the pitfalls of administration. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a prod if deletion is opposed. If this happens, you need to follow the procedure layed out in WP:AFD. Please don't revert the prod removal, as you'll end up violating WP:3RR. Thank you. --NMChico24 11:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion is not freaking opposed. Only speedy deletion is. Have you bothere to look at the history? You are forcing me to jump through hoops that are absolutely unnecessary. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is a perfectly healthy process. It allows discussion of a particular topic to ensure community consensus on how appropriate it is for the project. --NMChico24 11:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, dear friend, I don't need a lecture on Wikipedia processes. Have a nice day. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You too. Although it's night where I am. But I wish you smiles in whatever time zone you exist. Peace and love be with you. --NMChico24 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to this comment: I was the one who listed Stranger101 on WP:AIV for repeatedly removing the speedy tag from the article he created, which I understood to be against Wikipedia policy. Do you think I ought to have acted differently? If so, I'd really like to know; I'm always a bit uncertain what to do in cases like this. Heimstern Läufer 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Tough call. I think you were right to warn the user for removing the db tags, but I would have taken it to AfD after the first recreation. But this is only an opinion. The article and its subject are not all that important, so don't lose any sleep over it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You voted Keep at the article's AfD. You may wish to make your voice heard at its deletion review. Thank you. -- Avi 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt I have a voice. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaustuv! I appreciate the message. I was not aware of these guidelines (I was trying to adhere, however loosely, to a common sense approach) but will certainly heed them in the future, and will read through each of the pages you suggested. I will do my best to add to the Cornerstone page -- particularly sources -- over the next several days. In answer to your question, the companies I was thinking of were Analysis Group, LECG, and NERA.

As an aside, this is my first time communicating using wikipedia's user talk pages. I scanned through some help articles and think I am responding correctly to your message (by leaving a message here), but if I have committed a wikipedia faux pas please let me know and I'll avoid doing so in the future. Thanks again! --Benski 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All right. Some of them, such as Analysis Group have been through AfD already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analysis Group. The consensus seems to be that these articles should be kept. I hope you weren't offended by the speedy deletion tags. Wikipedia gets a lot of spam, and sometimes it is not immediately obvious when something is an advert or not. Don't worry too much about committing a faux pas here: just be bold. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To: User:M-le-mot-dit, User:Kaustuv, User:SlaveToTheWage, Talk:List of castles in France#Organisation of this list, Wikipedia talk:France-related topics notice board#List of castles in France - request for suggestions

List of castles in France: I have looked at the users' suggestions and comments and have made a new draft that I think could be the way forward. It uses the basic format drafted by User:M-le-mot-dit and the sort of layour used in the French Wiki.

My proposal, with notes and explanation is at User:Emeraude/Castles2.

For information, other versions are:

• List of castles in France - the present page
• User:Emeraude/Castles - my first draft, grouped by dept.
• User:M-le-mot-dit/draft - M-le-mot-dit's draft, grouped by region, then dept

What do you think? Emeraude 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the closing administrator for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Afd, the result was to delete all non-disambiguation articles. However, I made an exception for Nandini because after viewing that page and the Kamadhenu page it is clear that this article is not solely about a name and therefore should not be subject to the consensus drawn in that Afd. However, since you were the one who brought it up in the Afd I ask that you make it clear in the text of that, that it is an article about a mythological character and not about a name. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I can, but I'm not a Hindu, nor particularly clueful about Hindu mythology. It will have to be expanded by others. — K. Chaudhuri 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst you're not an admin, it'll be hard to become one if you use rollback-like tools on non-vandalism edits. And before you say it was vandalism, check the policies. Cheers, 137.222.189.198 17:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire whatsoever to become an admin. Non-admins should not close *fD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite little note. Guts are not part of the question when the decision is plainly the right one. Non-admins should not reverse AfD closures, surely, in your book? 137.222.189.198 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a book. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reporting it. It seems to have been an edit conflict, but the bot should pick them up. My only other guess is that the Wikipedia software made a slight error in not noticing the edit conflict, or threw an error which confised the bot, making it resave the page. Hope this makes sense! Martinp23 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued in User talk:Martinp23#MartinBot problem — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You say in the edit summary for this edit that "Eye of the North" has no release date. Actually, in the PC Gamer May 2007 article it says that GW:EN is scheduled to be released during "Holiday 2007", which most people think is either the third or the fourth quarter of 2007. I'm not sure if this subtlety can be conveyed in the infobox, however, so maybe removing it was the right thing. Eric Sandholm 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up on Talk:Guild Wars. I have no significant input, but others might. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)