User talk:Dwaipayanc/Archive 40

Bot

Thats fine but I have made it a bit clearer than before without the graphic. I've seen FAs pass with the FAC pages full of ticks before but obviously standards seem to be considerably higher than ever. As long as you make it clear with a Done and then leave a gap to any FAC reviewer it just makes it easier to see progress is being made. It may seem trivial but I think it is important to indicate these points have clearly been met even with just scanning the article. I'm very much tied at present. Currently FritzpollBot is uploading the entire world directory of missing articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places. Bangladesh alone is on 21 seperate pages! Naturally they all have to be dabbed accordingly to prepare for the bot! At least 1.4 million articles pssobily nearer 2 million will be added within a few months ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the wait for approval for the Bot has exactly the same flaws that FAC's have these days. I've never seen publicising an event or candidacy a crime if you ask editors to review an article or a proposal innocently at random but these days you'll be called a canvasser for publicising something. Personally I think decisions should be made between a much wider range of people, we had 40 people turn out at the FA last time and evne this is tiny compared to how many use wikipedia. I've lost count of how many times I;v emissed an FAC or RFA where I would have liked to give some major input but nobody told me because of the "canvassing rules" ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I absolutely agree with you this is exactly the problem. But either way somebody would try to claim unfair requesting. Oh about the missing lists -remember Mr.Bot will be generating these articles too at the rate of 600 articles an hour. I'll probably tackle a few manually as well while we are waiting e,.g Bahrain could be done later, but the idea is to let the bot create 1.8 million articles too. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The frightening thing is that 10 articles a minute I think is the legal limit on here for new articles. I am under the impression the bot is capable of generating them even faster than this. But given the global size of wikipedia this really should have been considered five years ago if people had bothered to plan things!! Lets hope things go according to plan. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I mean - I have to go through the lists first and dab them if they are wrongly blue linked. Several other editors will help I hope, you are more than welcome to tackle a few. The more the merrier. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again now. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't affect the bot recognition as it reads off the district and coordinates listed anyway. The bot will only run across red links. It will bypass any links which are blue. This is why all blue links that show up need checking initially ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you do manage to tackle a province or even a small country sometime so they are dabbed correctly leave a note at the top of the section to indicate they have been checked. I know we are all busy all across wikipedia!! but it can be done gradually as the bot won't be adding them all over night! Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Chandpur, Sirajganj. dabbing by province or district if there are multiple within a province or country. However the problem arises if there are five with the same name in one district. In this case it would be best to find it on a google map and find the nearest settlement and dab it as e.g Chandpur, Sirajganj (5km north of Durma). But ideally the main town should be seperated from the Upzila. Often Upzilas can contain a large number of settlements. (note the differences in coordinates too). If we want to be precise they shoudl be seperated. At present most articles like this are merged, chiefly because of lack of detail in the articles. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Yuck. Something alarming has been identified. At present google maps recognize 28,000 places in India. The 2001 census indicates there are 638,000 settlements in India which is enormous. What would you suggest? The best we can do is fill in the missing articles that google recognises I think but we may need to see if there is a source for India. I can't think why so many places aren't covered. I can't even begin to imagine what the total number of places actually is. 638,000 articles on Indian towns and villages alone? Is that realistic? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I;m not debating the reliability of that figure I can see it is an official source. I mean could you imagine it would be possible to obtain data on all of those places and what sort of a site wikipedia would be with that number of articles on Indian settlements alone? That figure has made me weep! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page21

Have tried to answer some of your question on this one Fritzpoll (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta FAAA!!!

The Special Barnstar
I hereby award Dwaipayanc this Special Barnstar for his continious and amazing work on Wikipedia, particularly for his involvement with numerous India-related articles, and his willingeness to reach the highest standards for them. This is also for Dwai's amazing politeness and courtesy, and above-all his great help on the Preity Zinta article. Thanks for always being there, friend. Your work is terrific, please keep it up. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Dwai. I also have a lot of respect for you and your work. The bot is scheduled to do a 100 articles trial run later so fingers crossed hey. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the hard work it took to make Zinta FA, I'm a bit tired. :) I would obviously like to raise articles like Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Rekha, Manisha Koirala etc. to a higher standard, but they lack net sources. The Bollywood 90s are not covered that well on the net, and most of their work happened in the 90s (with Bachchan and Rekha, it's even tougher, cause their careers have spanned almost four decades), so I'd like to help User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ with the Kareena Kapoor article (I was implementing all my experience with the Zinta article on it). So I would like to improve many other articles which I unfortunately had to abandone due to my work on Zinta, and do what I mostly like doing on here: creating articles. It's just amazing to see how a new article gets shape after an hour or two, isn't it?
Apart from that, there are several film articles I have started working on, and I'm willing to reach at least a GA status for them, which is not that difficult I believe. Shahid • Talk2me 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeh I forgot Shilpa. I worked on it before - I expanded the lead and the career section two-three months back, but there's a problem - the article seems to give too much scope to her controversies, which are huge and far bigger than her career section which should be the longest one. Shahid • Talk2me 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Half Barnstar
Presenting you with one half of the great barnstar of collaboration for the Preity Zinta article. The other half goes to Shahid. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) and fully endorsed by Mspraveen (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Bachchan-saab may be a tough nut to crack, but I would love to take part in a collaboration around the B. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! Good to see Zinta's FA-hood! It's simply great. Its a round of beer from my side. Cheers to User:Shshshsh and you! WP:India's Tango and Cash! ;) Cheers again!!
Hello Dwaipayanc, Bollywood Dreamz (Rahul) here. Even though I hardly know you, kindly accept this barnstar for your dedication and contributions on Preity Zinta's article.
The Working Man's Barnstar
In recognition of all the tireless and prolific work you have done on Preity Zinta's article. Regards, Bollywood Dreamz 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Shahid, you nicely handled the FAC. I've yet to give you a formal welcome to the assessment department since you applied as a new member (ages ago!) - on my return will do that (and once the grading scheme is ready), will go through the other formalities etc. Keep it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh

Yes I've thought this should be a priority for a long time. I expanded the career section a few weeks back but I really think somebody needs to get hold of some books to take it to FA level. Something tells me it would extremely hard to write without sources like this and also wouldn't give it as much justice as possible ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing of course we can do for any article is research and if people could obtain the right books on most articles and subjects this encyclopedia would be massively a lot better for it. Its been killing me that my local library has been shut for years as it is STILL undergoing renovation. Details that are found in books for many subjects are rarely found in abundance on the web and this is what makes articles that bit more special I think. Imagine what could be done if somebody bought that book on Amitabh written by Jaya. I have long wanted to develop the main Dalai Lama article but again I need the books to do so, there is only so much you can do without. ANytime you need a hand with any of Ray's films let me know and I'll gladly work with you. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly the sort of book I'm talking about. I bet that would be a great read. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that book is $112! very expensive indeed but here you can access some of the pages in the book. It looked as if it had something on his film film perhaps you could have alook. Hope this helps ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola's review

I have taken care of some fixes. You can carry on now with the rest (without edit conflicts :)) GDibyendu (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one sentence of plot always sounds a bit weird. something like, Durga cannot afford what her friends enjoy. What is not clear is what she cannot afford. GDibyendu (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Bodil Awards

Thanks for pointing out that problem. The problem with these pages is that the Bodil Awards changed categories twice -- trying to be inclusive of film from outside Europe or the US. From 1961 to 2001, the Bodil Award for Best American Film category was actually called the Best Non-European category (meaning all films outside Europe), and then changed back again in 2001. So Ray's pictures (which won twice in the 60's) ended up being listed on the American awards page. Which is foolish, of course. I guess, the best thing is for me to create two new pages which will list the Bodil Award for Best Non-European Film (1961-2001) as well as the Bodil Award for Best European Film (1948-2001) which later became the Best Non-American Category. CactusWriter 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwai if you have questions in future please address them to me rather than in the talk page of one of the lists,

IN answer to your questions posted May 25. Solution is to stub an article on the town in the district. When Amtali Upazila was created it wa sprobaly done using the coordinates of the town The Patuakhali article should now be for the town ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm it seems not everybody is happy with the bot idea. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot creating millions of new articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 21 19 May 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 22 26 May 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali language

It's the same sources mentioned in the bibliography. I explained my point of view at the FA review of Bengali language. --Zaheen (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Kolkata

Hello, recently a large unsourced section was added to the Kolkata article. The addition has some merits, because some of the points that we have ommited seems to be neccessary. However vide, WP:SS this section may not find a place in the main article. We may consider creating a child article. I think you can do a summary of that para, and move the rest to a sub-article. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Chak De India

Hey there! Sure, if you make some edits to the section I'd be happy to take a look. Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am online :) Pather Panchali looks fantastic - isn't it ready to go up for G.A. yet? Let me know and I will vote when the time comes. As for CDI, yes - the plot summary is beyond the Wikiproject film guidelines limit and needs to be reduced. The production section does need a re-write. I'm hoping that other editors will chip in at some point to help upgrade the state of the article. We also need to add one or two reviews that are more critical of the film but I haven't been able to find any from reliable sources. I know you are busy with PP at the moment - perhaps when that has made GA you can take a look at this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! The important point is to make certain that the facts are presented in an accurate fashion which is what you did with your edit. When dealing with controversial material, I tend to like to quote directly from the source though I have always felt, as you pointed out, that there were too many block quotes. I'd really like to push this article to GA and eventually to FA - it's a unique film and one which I think could make a great FA article. But I can't do it alone and appreciate help from other editors. Thanks for your input, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI . Your comments are requested -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PIB photos

On this page - http://photodivision.gov.in/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=2 refer to the website section. It mentions Firstly the archive images are being put into the net so as to give an opportunity to the people from any corner of the globe to have an access for their research and cross-referencing purpose. PIB also offers hardcopy photos - meaning posters and photos with designer frames for both color and B&W images. But for this you need to pay. Internet photos are free. But most importantly, just as we can upload images from www.whitehouse.gov under public domain license we should be able to do so for nic.in websites too. I have seen hundreds of photos uploaded from nic.in websites under GNU free license in commons. Also, none (admin or bot) questioned them ever. Was this decided by Wikiproject India earlier that nic.in website photos are not free? --gppande «talk» 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DYK medal

I thank you, Dwaipayanc - its a beautiful and meaningful award. I'm addicted to DYK anyway, and while the frequency of contribution will change, the drive will not diminish. A million thanks and the warmest regards, Vishnava talk 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc, has this come up before? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Kazi Nazrul Islam

Hi Dwaipayanc - as you are a major contributor to this article, I request you to take a look at the debate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kazi Nazrul Islam that Banglapedia is an inherently biased source; they also object to books published by the Nazrul Institute. Its a complicated argument that Armanaziz and I have sought to counter, but its time to have more views or we'll keep going round in circles. Regards, Vishnava talk 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Unbrahmachari.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Unbrahmachari.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Unbrahmachari.gif|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJTalk 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]