Sayitaintsojoe

Indian election infobox

Its good that we are having a discussion about this issue. The 74 seats represents pre-poll alliance, and they were under a banner on forming a non-BJP and non-Congress party. After the election, since their alliance didn't win enough seats, it makes sense, that parties are leaving the third front. We could note the fact that parties left the third front at the end of the article. If you believe that 74 seats seems questionable, the 262 for UPA is also questionable especially now, since DMK left the UPA, and other parties actually joined the UPA alliance after the election. I think if we have a pre-poll alliance in the infobox, the election results should reflect pre-poll results, not the post-poll results. If for example, something like 1996 happened, then we have no choice but to put the post-poll numbers towards the alliance.--Harish89 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

I'd be happy to. It would be my first adoption, so it'd be a learning experience for the both of us. To be honest, we probably wouldn't be able to get on at the same time many times, except days that I don't have work (well, this week that's three days). But, it shouldn't be a major issue. What types of edits are you looking at making? In other words, are you looking at focusing at low-key article improvement (edits here and there, with prose or whatnot), or looking to edit major amounts of content (re-writing articles, et cetera)? JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

About the image, when you put in the image the wikitext should read like this: [[Image:Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg|39x39px]]. The size will depend on however you want it (that size is from the image in one of my userboxes, so it should be similar). In regards to credibility and debating on an article's talk page, credibility should be established through reputation as opposed to supposed authority (whether by stating what type of degree you have or having userboxes; they will certainly increase your credibility, but on Wikipedia all of that must be taken with a grain of salt, regardless, since "everybody on the internet has a PhD"). So, the best way to gain that type of respect where people will consider your opinion or what you are telling them (fact) is to begin debating, and doing so without getting into personal attacks (or attacks in general). There will be users who will frustrate you, and in those cases perhaps it's just a better option to back off (I have ran into them before). Slowly, but surely, you'll see that your comments on talk pages will receive a lot of positive feedback and responses. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's a controversial edit, I would suggest finding a reference for it. As the type of editor that likes to take articles to featured article status, I'm a strong believer in referencing. Sourcing reliable sources is the single largest establishment of credibility on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Because, when the fact is referenced to something that is reliable it no longer becomes a question of your personal credibility, as opposed to it now becomes fact because it has been "proven". Ultimately, even on talk pages, your credibility will be factored from your ability to prove what you say by using sources. Perhaps, if you have books, I would suggest creating a personal library; something similar to mine.

In any case, I agree, when arguing on talk pages I would suggest avoiding being over nationalistic. I still have not really shown any major nationalism towards nations that I have a special patriotism towards (such as Spain or Israel), but then again, I tend to stay away from really controversial articles. Your ability to stay cool will radically improve your credibility and the respect you hold in the community.

I don't really know the rules for adoption, but I'll add the userbox. I'll have to read the adoption page. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is true, and it's something that you can bring up on an article's talk page. I was looking at the adoption page, and I guess I'm supposed to set up some sort of assignment or something. Is there an article you are currently discussing something on? I can take a look at how the debate is going. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is done by consensus. All members of the discussion have to come to an agreement, and this is normally done through negotiation ("this for that"). You can ask other editors to join the argument in an attempt to persuade the case either way, or you can ask an arbitrator to arbitrate the discussion (if it's getting out of hand and there's no consensus in sight). The problem with just editing is that it's likely to be reverted, in which case an edit war becomes very likely (which could get you temporarily blocked). So, once you get your internet to a point where it's stable (which is good, since I have work pretty much this entire weekend until very late at night, and then Monday I have a lot of work in my house to do), I could look over one of the discussions and go through the steps of arbitrating, et cetera. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Are you the creator of those images? Otherwise, the tags are incorrect. If you are, when you upload them upload them through "these are my own work" and fill that out. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to re-upload them, but you need to change the summary template. It's easier to just re-upload them, and tag the existing ones for deletion. If they are your own work then upload them as your own work, and fill out the template. Otherwise, right now the template says these are non-free fair use images, whereas you releasing their copyright is impossible since the template implies that you don't have the right to do so. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Regarding your image uploads:

• Logo - tagged non-free, instead of public domain.
• Photographs - taken from the university website, so deleted as copyright violations.
• Paintings - listed at Files for deletion, because the copyright holder is the painter.

PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Shahrukh name

Hey friend! I have just responded on the talk page regarding the issue. I've always been aware of the fact that "Shah Rukh" is his own preference, even when we decided to use "Shahrukh" on Wikipedia. It's just that his official name remains Shahrukh regardless of how he himself spells it. Unless there is an official name change from his side (and his name, officially, is still Shahrukh), he is still Shahrukh. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)