User talk:Sundar/Archive3
Remnant records of my early misadventures in Wikipedia[edit]
I removed the contact info from Example 4 in Context-Free Grammar page. - Sundar
I've replied to your email. -- Arvindn 08:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to Arvindn for helping me understand Wikipedia!
Hi! Nice to see you've become an active contributor. Cheers, Arvindn 06:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Arvind. -- Sundar 05:04, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Record of me getting my fingers burnt due to my edits[edit]
[text copied from User talk:Alterego]
Hi Alterego, I happened to read Angela's blog here where my name was mentioned. I wish to clarify my point to you. I never accepted Zen-master's conspiracy theory argument. I was only asking him proof by way of valid references.Please have a look at my edits here Talk:Google#NSA_.2B_Abu_Ghraib_censorship. Also, I've made detailed clarifications in your blog. I've nothing against you or Google. It appears that you've mistakenly thought I'm in favour of the conspiracy theory argument. I've also clarified here. Please take some time to go through all my clarifications and revise your blog accordingly. The mention of my name there along with all the arguments about the NSA theory makes acasual reader believe that I made the argument, which I did not. I make it clear that I don't buy the NSA conspiracy theory argument at all and my comments in that discussion pertain to other sections of the article like Google uses only Linux, Financing and IPO etc. Please update your blog indicating that I was never inserting POV into wikipedia as otherwise such an inaccurate fact will harm my reputation. Also, please change the title of your blog, because Yahoo has nothing to do with all these. Zen-master is not working here and I didn't insert the section. Please make all these clear. -- Sundar 05:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Alterego for your timely correction on your blog. -- Sundar 06:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Alterego. Had some thoughts on the recent unfortunate imbroglio that we were in. Though the talk pages are technically under GFDL, I feel such issues ought to have been resolved within our talk pages itself. The problem with blogs is that the blogs don't have complete context, read and spinned off by many others, mirrored by many blog aggregators that do not simultaneously change when the blog gets revised and more importantly are indexed by search engines. The current issue anyway was a result of a misunderstanding, which could've been resolved very easily had we sought/gave clarifications. In any case, it has left an indelible mark (unpleasant) in me. It was definitely a damage to my online and to some extent offline reputation. I don't blame any individual for this because I should've also been more careful and clear. -- Sundar 06:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't personally draw a dividing line between here and there. If it's online, anyone can read about it. Both my blog and the Google article's talk page are indexed by Yahoo, Google, and MSN etc...'s spiders. The information responds equally well to a search query in either place, no? My blog is a place for me to vent, ponder, and reflect, and considering the ludicrous nature of the claims made I did just that. I also believe in diffusion by detonation in cases where that seems appropriate. --Alterego 06:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
AFIK, there are some pages in Wikipedia (probably User talk) that are off the limit spiders, but I was wrong about article discussion pages. But, the information doesn't respond equally well to a search query in both the places due to the complexities of ranking. There will be fewer inlinks to a discussion page from external domains as opposed to blogs. The audience for the talk pages might have better contextual information than blog readers who might've arrived more randomly than in the talk pages. Usually people end up in talk pages either after reading an article or something similiar (not usually from external domains directly).
I agree that those claims were ludicr[u]ous, but they weren't mine. But, I had to undergo a lot of agony, right? If any, you could've posted my critical statements, but would've definitely not attributed somebody else's edits to me if I'd clarified before, right? Also, I wasn't aware of the post until a friend pointed it out to me. If he hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to clarify. I take your point that I can't do NPOV edits to the article, but in many cases competing POV (factual) edits by people amenable to reason will aid NPOV. Any way, let's try to forget this issue. -- Sundar 06:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough! --Alterego 06:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)