User talk:Bhumiya/Archive 1

NOTE: This is an archive. New messages should be placed here.

Welcome!

Hello, Bhumiya/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 05:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

Hi, just to let you know that "Spongebobcruft" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Kappa 20:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lauren DOB

Hi, sorry about the rv on Ralph Lauren 15:13 . . Raul654 (Talk) (rv to Bhumiya - this is the correct format for someone who is still alive) I had seen both styles used and had not seen a statement of 'format' in the style guidelines for a living person. After extensive searching I did find the reference now and stand corrected. Thanks. Doc 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fusional language

Hi Bhumiya, thanks for re-writing the article - my English is still a little poor. However, I have undone one of you changes, namely the addition of Bulgarian as an example of a near-analytic IE language. It is true that it kept little of the Old Bulgarian case system, but the verb is still quite complex. Moreover, it still has three genders. Altogether, the language is quite a lot more fusional than English and Afrikaans. Caesarion 09:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlism

Hi, you recently changed the head of the article substituting, among other things existing for the purpose of establishing for purporting to establish. When I reworked the article, i tried to show that carlism was more than just a dynastic quarrel. This was one of the reasons I kept (or wrote, can't recall) the purporting adjective. I'm aware this sounds strange (as if they had a hidden agenda), but I feel your redaction fails to acknowledge the other fundamental aspects of carlism (God, Fatherland, "Fueros"). I'm not a native English speaker, so i'll appreciate any input for a better writing. Anyhow, i thank you for your improvements to the article. --Wllacer 08:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Airline meal.jpg has been marked for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Airline meal.jpg, has been marked as dubious claim of copyright status and marked for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you dispute this claim. Thank you.

- Mailer Diablo 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

José Millán Astray

No problem, I'll check it in a few minutes.--Fito 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is fine, except for the word "intelligencia" which I'm not sure if you wrote it like that for a reason. Also, I'm very sorry but I've never heard the expresión "¡Coja el brazo de la señora!" in my life, and I'm not sure what it means, it probably is what you wrote in the article.--Fito 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am travelling and not online often. But I will check sometime this week. Cheers. Anagnorisis.

So far as I understand I think you translated correctly all the text. The expression used is, like Fito mentions if not extremely rare, at least dead by now as thankfully all those facists, so your literal translations is good. Askewmind | (Talk) 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vishva Hindu Parishad

I think the sentence: "While appropriate and justified to represent and defend over 1 billion Hindus in Bharat and throughout the world from extremism of other communities" is a specific example of POV. what makes the writer think that the VHP defends and represents all hindus?

although I did not add the NPOV tag...I think the person who did was probably refering to the the last paragraph - Place in History and the Future, which is blatantly POV. (Saurabhb 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think the NPOV can now be removed ( at least thts my opinion)...the article focuses a bit too much on controversial issues in India which have involeved in the VHP rather than the Vishva Hindu Parishad organisation itself..I would need to do a bit of reading before cleaning it up. Removed the NPOV tag (Saurabhb 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your sig

Just so you know, the signature you generate by typing the four tildes links to the article Bhumiya rather than to your user page. I don't know if you did that on purpose or not, but either way you should make it link to your user page to avoid confusing people. Angr/talk 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is! Angr/talk 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi. I've noticed that you're making use of political or religious userboxes on your user page. They can be a nifty way to share about one's personal preferences, but I realized, after a while, that they often detract from the real purpose of Wikipedia, that is, writing an encyclopedia. I'm inviting you to consider these words from Jimbo Wales, the site operator:

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?

Thank you for your time.

{{User:Vacuum/sig}} 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the form letter, Vacuum. But it doesn't change my opinion on the issue. Bhumiya/Talk 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with a grammar dispute?

Hello. I am a new wikipedia contributer, and I seem to have gotten myself into trouble with one of my edits. I recently saw a reference to "The national bird of Puerto Rico" and changed it to "official bird". I did this because Puerto Rico is not a sovereign state, but a US commonwealth that has come very close to requesting US statehood. Unfortunately, in doing this I seem to have offended the national pride of some other writers.

The reason I need your help is that only people with interests in Puerto Rico have entered the discussion, no one but me seems to have any interest in grammar and word usage. One of them keeps insisting that a spanish dictionary's definition of "Nación" is more official then anything in English. A ruling from the Mediation Cabal in my favor was ignored. Now they are having a poll, but only contributers to Puerto Rico articles were informed about it, and the ones who supported me were excluded.

The article is about a bird, not politics, so I fear that a passing reference to Puerto Rico as a nation might be accepted without much thought or skepticism. But the other contributers only seem interested in their "right" to refer to Puerto Rico as a nation. Can you please come over and provide another perspective, and perhaps vote in the poll?

Thank you! Algr 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the dispute is heated, but you seem to be outnumbered, Algr. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on this issue, so I will not weigh in officially. If you think something I say is useful, feel free to quote me.

I agree that many Puerto Ricans consider themselves a nation, though obviously not a sovereign one. I think it would confuse the issue for anyone to claim that the Spanish term "nación" is completely different from the English "nation", however. They have different connotations, but can be used to refer to the same concept. However, in English, to use the term "national" could be controversial, because it tends to imply sovereignty. On the other hand, Scotland, Wales, and other entities have "national flags", so the argument could be made either way. Bhumiya/Talk 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]