Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 21 March 2011

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Netball reprise

After I offered to jump in on the GA review, User:KnowIG posted a comprehensive review before I could post my concerns. He subsequently became emersed in editing the article himself. I have posted a comment on the GA1 page suggesting that I be the one to close out the review, although I will defer to you if you are still interested. Apparently, we have now developed a nomenclature problem. The article says that in 1968, "women's basketball" ceased to be an accepted term for "netball." In fact, New Zealand had a women's basketball team compete in the 2008 Summer Olympics. Its victory against the Mali team drew favorable press attention. However, the nominator insists that any suggestion or comment that I make using the phrase "women's basketball" be refractored as ambiguous or intended to be read as "netball." What is your preference, as the ball is in your court? Racepacket (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting why this nomenclature is even an issue because after 1968 (or more precisely 1970) "Women's Basketball" and "Netball" are two completely different terms, and i guess its now globally accepted, whether it is U.S., U.K., Australia or South Asia. What's the point of ambiguity, anyone who's advocating that using both "Women's Basketball" and "Netball" together is generating some kind of ambiguity than they should provide some valid proof, the proof which should mention that still in Commonwealth Nations term Women's Basketball is treated as Netball. For me you're the only reviewer of the article if User:KnowIG doing your job, than it is his choice. I think it would be better if you do it by your own way. If you need any of my assistance than i'd be pleased to help you. Tell me if you need any help. Bill william compton 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I could use a bit of help. Perhaps you could place a paragraph on the Netball/GA1 page under the "GA procedures" heading indicating that you are designating me, unless you want to do it yourself. I am very tollerant of people disagreeing with me, of using typographical errors in communicating with me, or even using British spelling and vocabulary. However, I have never before seen a Misplaced Pages editor try to avoid difficult quesitons by changing the subject to ask why I am using American spellings or wiki-mark-up language to communicate with her. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it now, i thought it was clear to all that you would be the only reviewer of the article. Racepacket, this is the same problem i was facing with her, she was just trumpeting that she couldn't understand me, i'm less communicative, she's unable to understand mine language, i'm Indian, etc. It was the first time that somebody blamed my language as obstacle for comprehensive communication and KnowIG supported her because he's British, well it doesn't matter to me now. Perhaps my note will clear some sort of misunderstanding about you position in the procedure of this article review. Bill william compton 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Now why would I do that. Racepackets American and so is Laura and Laura also lives in Aus. The only one being racist is you Bill. And if you know anything about GB, USA and Aus we have a rather common rivalery. Since I have worked with many nations on here its a bit rich you saying I supported her cause I'm British. i'm disgusting by your comments. see Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts KnowIG (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Me Racist, is it some kind of malicious joke, i'm Indian we even don't know what is Racism (its a metaphor). You're misinterpreting my comment, i was trying to tell that you supported Laura because you're British and both use same language (Laura at least using now). The actual racist here is you, who are repeatedly slanging me. And you even can't imagine how much i know about U.S. and U.K. and i've nothing to do with your common rivalry. I didn't use a single abusive word against you, and you're saying you'll appeal to an admin, actually i'll go to admin for your such misbehavior against me if you won't stop. Bill william compton 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friend Hitler movie

Reply: Dear Bill, Please refer to the following links. This link clarifies that the only the first look/promo was screened at Berlin. . Also, refer to the movies official website for the real story. Both these links clarify that the movie does not show "Hitler's love for India" or Glorify Hitler. I would appreciate if you remove the controversy section, as its based on an article which is not written on reliable information or facts and this is even clarified in this article :

Thanks,

Gaurav Gauravmendiratta (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)--Gauravmendiratta (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaurav, didn't you notice that there was a note - which clearly says This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page, so keep it in mind that whatever you want to discuss, you've to do it on my current talk page (because if you leave anything on my archive than Wiki software doesn't notify me about new message).

Now comes to your problem, as you see your link itself saying that "A first look of the controversial Bollywood film Dear Friend Hitler", so how can i remove the controversy section of the article, and why ain't you digesting this point that its a completely neutral section which is mentioning the two different views (one of media and other of film-makers). This section is for showing Wiki's viewers that "yes there were some controversies", it doesn't support that "these controversies were genuine", i'm again saying this article doesn't say that The Guardian was right about the movie but whether right or wrong we just can't ignore its point; yes i can do one thing that if you'll provide me some other reliable sources (which support your point of view) than i can add their points also, which may give weightage to film-makers view.Bill william compton 10:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bharat Institute of Technology

Hi, you recently added a multiple issues tag to this article. I have since then wikified the content. Though the article needs a lot of work, I think some of the maintainance tags could be removed. Suggestions for imrovement are welcome. Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

keep your gob shut

There was no need for this. It was reviewed days ago. Ever heard of working together. Thought not. No need to stick a template on when Race had already announced his intensions and 2 of the 3 contributors had also commented and asked you to comment under that section. Sort your conduct out, all you needed to do was comment where that was not stick a template on. But considering your earlier comments maybe you just don't like me, so don't start being pathetic. KnowIG (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)