Talk:Mumbai/Archive 9

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.

User:Lalit Jagannath is known for vandalising lots of India-related wiki articles. I would request everyone to revert his malicious edits until he uses the talk page to gain consensus for addition. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree--Suyog^{talk to me!} 08:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just keep deleting his vandalism until he realizes it's not worth it. Nikkul (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we complent about him?--Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike an unreferenced sentence in the article says, most Mumbai people do not use public transport. World bank says that only 39% use trains and buses. 44% commute by walking. I tried to add the source three times, but it was replaced with the unreferenced sentence every time.
• Housing affects everyone in Mumbai; it is perhaps the biggest issue the city faces. Yet every time I tried to add government housing statistics, they were removed. The article explains things such as F1 powerboats, which concern only a tiny elite, so it's extremely undue to censor housing information.

The user behind these removals has never explained more than "Reverted vandalism. This is a Featured Article. If you don't want to get blocked, i suggest using the talk page. This edit warring is NOT going to work. I gurantee it!)". Such comments lack a prolific basis for discussion so this is the last change for him to explain before I let administrators to explain him what is wrong with his edits.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really what you should have done from the start when people reverted you, used the talk page instead of reverting each other persistently. As for your first comment I have no idea why that would be reverted, your version seems better in every way and most importantly is referenced unlike the other claim. As for the second comment you do bring up very valid points in my opinion. However it is also true that we need to keep things condensed in a main article like this one. As I see it the best solution would be to move

Demographics of Mumbai

and put detailed information about demographics including housing there while the most important parts remain in the main article.

To those who called this user a vandal. Why? Any examples of clear vandalism you can show me? Otherwise please don't call users vandals just because you have a difference in opinion. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lalit Jagannath Edits Mumbai page and does major changes without discussing it on talk page. Secondly he is not experiance enought to do such major edits on a FA article. Edits od Lalit have a degenerationg effect on the article--Suyog^{talk to me!} 03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but to add a HUGE section like Housing into a FEATURED ARTCILE means that you need to first get consensus to add it before you can add it in. Your persistent attempts at doing this are NOT going to work. You will KEEP getting reverted. The format of this article follows the guidelines detailed in WP:Indian Cities. Please discuss changes to the format of Indian City pages there and get consensus there before you can get consenus to add that section here. If you keep adding stuff, you will KEEP getting reverted. I promise. Nikkul (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it's just me, but I smell

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Nikkul (talk

) 08:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Lalit Jagannath edits are genuine and more realistic. Just because Mumbai article is featured, it doesn't guaranty that the article is complete and has all the informations. The criteria for a featured article is - Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is going through edit war. It's better to put a request to delist the article from featured category, till there is no edit war and the article has all relevant informations. Btw, the link - WP:Indian Cities doesn't works? Manoj nav (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lalit has made major changes to several other India-related articles, some of them of FA status like Economy of India. I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss his concerns and take other Wikipedians into confidence but he continues to make controversial edits without discussing them. Take a look at his recent changes to the article on the Culture of India, Education in India etc. The good part is, that he adds sources to his material. But at times, the sources are dubious and he has a tendency to rely on one source too much. I seriously doubt his true intentions here since most of his edits seem anti-India. Anyways, I'm no one to judge. Just expressing my opinion. --Incidious (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing Bihar related articles for quite sometime and have observed Lalit. Initially I felt his edits were anti-Bihar because they were negative. But after going through all the edits I realized that many of them were very genuine and were making the articles more true and realistic. Our love for a city or country might make us prejudiced towards anyone who ties to alter an article against our wishes. But it's always good to have all POVs, else the credibility of the article would decline. People would start rejecting the claims of the article even though it's featured.Manoj nav (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I am interested in this article because I live in Mumbai! That's why I participated in the discussion.Manoj nav (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an expert on India and I'm not going to pretend to be. But I do believe it is possible some of you, like a lot of people from all countries of the world, are rightly very proud of your home and just a little blind to the reality. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make promotional material for the subject, but a lot of country or city related articles often comes out like if they were written by the the bureau of tourism. We are here to make fair and realistic presentations to the best of our ability. Every country has its problems, don't try to hide them. How can it not be relevant to use a fair amount of text on every day life in the city? Maybe it needs to be complemented by other views, but hiding it and just presenting all these wonderful financial centers and powerboat competitions and whatever is not going to change the truth. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think anyone here is trying to cover the problems of society. There is already one whole paragraph listing the problems in housing in Mumbai and other problems like lack of space. This is enough because this article is written in

WP:Summary Style. There are thousands of sections that we could add to this page (Housing, Water & Plumbing, Science, Technology, Landmarks, Roads, etc.) They all affect everyone in Mumbai. Unfortunately, this is not the place to keep adding more and more sections. And that too without discussion and consensus. Nikkul (talk

) 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain how your "summary style" simultaneously favors retaining that kind of information while deleting any sentence referring to housing (except two short sentences in the entire article, hidden in the middle of a paragraph)?Lalit Jagannath (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lalit It seams that you are really having geniune intrest to keep Mumbai article up to date! But problem with your edits is that you add too much of info mostly at wrong place. (for example you added slum info in intro section its not proper way to do) Since you have a great info on slums and housing in Mumbai I will sugest you to creat a article on Housing in Mumabai

transportation in Mumbai both has there seprate article and there link is also provided so summery style info (mention above) is sufficient. (PS comming to Water F1 no one has added its info at begning of article or at catchy place. Its in the end of article so there is no issue about it. As you say slum is fact of mumbai so is the water f1)--Suyog^{talk to me!}

05:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I did not write this page by myself. This page has been a joint effort over the years by more than a hundred hard working editors. So do not tell me that I am responsible for what they have written. Furthermore, everytime you change a small sentence, you add the huge section on housing sneakily and just mention why you changed the small sentence. The reason I keep reverting your edits is because you keep adding the housing section WITHOUT getting consensus. Your sneaky tactics will not work. When I delete your edits, I delete them because you keep adding the housing section. I do not delete your edits because I support/oppose the points you have mentioned above. Nikkul (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are changing all the time. First it was because it was "vandalism" and then it did not suit your "summary style".

Don't do dramatic edits. If you now agree that replacing World Bank figures with your own unreferenced opinions is wrong, don't do that again. If housing figures are your problem, remove them and leave the rest of the article as it is.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the other India

WP:Summary Style. Again, you need to get consensus before adding large scale things, and if you keep vandalising this page by adding the housing section, you will be blocked. Nikkul (talk

) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer the question which I have asked many times: Which is more important, A.)A few referenced sentences about housing, the most important issue in Mumbai. B.)Sections such as "sports", which is half unreferenced and has very little significance to the average Mumbai resident.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am answering you

Ans 1) As I told you, Few lines on Housing are enough creat a article on Housing in Mumbai and add this tag where this few lines are located {{main|Housing in Mumbai}}.

Ans 2) YES Sports section is important. Try to find refrences for it rather than objecting it. Use Neutral POV to judge such issues--Suyog^{talk to me!} 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered your questions still you did same edits! Dont test our patiencs. One this is last warning. DONT EDIT FOOLISHLY--Suyog^{talk to me!} 02:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Commuting

This is getting silly. Let's break this down into smaller pieces instead of you going "all or nothing" edit-war on the article. Give me a good reason for not using Lalits sentence in the transport section to start off with:

Almost half of Mumbai people rely on walking for commuting to work. Rail is the main mode for 23 percent of commuters and bus for 16 percent of commuters.

with this source: Baker, Judy / Basu, Rakhi / Cropper, Maureen / Lall, Somik / Takeuchi, Akie (01 Sep 2005). "Urban poverty and transport : the case of Mumbai". World Bank. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

instead of

Mumbai's inhabitants rely on public transport to travel to and from their workplace.

or maybe something like this if we want to get away from exact numbers:

The most common way of commuting to work is walking, however public transportation by rail and bus are also extensively relied on. (supported by the same source)

Njaelkies Lea (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Common way of commuting is walking is next to impossibe. Walking might be a part of commuting but its not a common way. Common mode of transportation is Trains at first place and Buses at second followed by private vehicals--Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I support "The most common way of commuting to work is walking, however public transportation by rail and bus are also extensively relied on".Lalit Jagannath (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On What Basis are you supporting it? Any one of you Njaelkies Lea and Lalit have you visited Mumbai? Who told you most common way of commuting to work in mumbai is walking? Justify and Support your Answers--Suyog^{talk to me!} 16:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability. The probably most basic guideline we have. I may not have been to Mumbai, but that is irrelevant as the people performing the census referred to have. We thus have a source that supports the claim that walking is the most common method of transportation for commuting to work in Mumbai. You, on the other hand, have not presented any evidence to support your claim that this is not true. And what's the big deal about that anyway? In European cities a fair portion of the population also walks to work, I often do anyway.. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to get you evidance. Previously I didn't provided a evidance because it is a known fact. And I see how people commuting in Mumbai. Its a open fact that majority of people use Train and Bus as mode of transport. Yes its important If Housing section ans Slums are importans so is the Commuting. Coming to europe thing. your citys are as big as our suburbers. A native person knows in details about his city than google.--14:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability doesn't work that way. Everything written in the Wikipedia must verifiable by a credible external source. That is the base of everything, we can't accept things that people claim to "know" is true, if it can't be proven. You can find the following quote in the link I gave you: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You might also want to have a look at WP:No original research. All of this is especially important in articles with FA status as people expect them to be of higher quality.

Many things which are, as you say, "known facts" normally don't need inline citations, like that Mumbai is in India for example. But it can easily be verified by an external source, should the claim be contested. City size is not relevant to the issue, it may affect the number of people walking to work, but people in cities of all sizes walk, even in Tokyo. The entire sentence has been deleted by Nikkul(?) anyway, so at least this information, which none of you have been able to verify and I strongly believe was false, has been removed. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since its impossible for people to walk to there working place in Mumbai so there is not a single source which states it. Residential area and office Districts in mumbai are atlest 5Km away and people as fare form 70Km come for job in mumbai. No one will go for work walking not even 3Km in Mumbai weather. I cant give you refrence saying that majority of people dont go to work walking but I can you you refrence where it says majority of people go to work by train then followed by bus then by private vehicals. Will that refrence satisfy you?--Suyog^{talk to me!} 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

...that would be a good start. But the World Bank data is the same as Mumbai government data so it's unlikely that you find such reference.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

World Bank told that in 2005 and Just because world bank say Mumbaikars go to work walking that dosent mean it is. If its so then why are Trains and Buses are so crowded? Plesase dont say this again in front of othere mumbai citizen that we go to work walking they will make fun of you lol--Suyog^{talk to me!} 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Centres of Commerce

You are talking of Master Card study not real economic study Mastar Card is not a official Bench mark to assest Finincal importance --Suyog^{talk to me!} 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to be very "official" until someone found out that Mumbai was 48th, not "top ten"...Lalit Jagannath (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Transport Section

The transport section refers to public transport. I think any idiot knows that people walk in every city. There is no need to mention that people walk in Mumbai, as this is the case in every city. Nikkul (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the intro section so that there should be no more objections. Please stop trying to change everything without discussions. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Specifically mentioning that majority of people walk in a city or in a country definitely beats common sense. --Incidious (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if people try to discuss you'll just say that we have to do it at some Indian city wikiproject you can't even link to.. I don't know what Lalit's purpose is with editing this article, I can however assure you that I personally have nothing against India as a country, nor Mumbai as I city. I agree fully that trying to add info by edit war is a very bad method of editing, which can and should eventually lead to a block. I have also written to Lalit about my concerns about his or hers edit wars (I still won't go as far as calling the user a vandal as I assume good faith and so should you).

But the article does have problems with neutrality. You removing a sentence, rather then letting something you believe may reflect badly on the city stay, is very symptomatic of these problems. Yes, people in every city walk, but to a different extent. If I could find these statistics for my city I would include them in a heart beat. It is important for you to keep in mind that none of you have the

authority to rule over this article, we act on consensus. Even though I'm not from India, not even from Asia, that does not mean I have anything less to say about it. Njaelkies Lea (talk

) 08:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the guidelines agreed upon for Indian city articles. We all abide by these guidelines, and you should too. If you have a problem with these guidelines, please discuss them at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities page. Nikkul (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Njaelkies, I've been going through your comments and they unfortunately seem more like these constant, annoying rants. Anyways, the problem is not with statistics on how many people are walking. The problem is the manner in which the information is being presented. I'm sorry, but I fail to see any encyclopedic value in the sentence walking is the most popular mean of transportation. It is plain common-sense. --Incidious (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that User:Lalit Jagannath has an agenda. All of his contributions are anti-Indian, and he's not trying to make this page neutral. He's trying to make this page have a POV. It would be stupid to think that this user has good intentions of making this page neutral, judging from the fact that he's continuously added unencyclopedic pics of dirt poverty to this page and proceeded to change the sections so that it talks of only poverty.

Let me reiterate that this page is neutral as is. There is one WHOLE Paragraph in the demographics section about slums, cramped living conditions, etc. This article is written in

WP:Summary Style

and one paragraph is more than enough to describe living conditions. The other pargraphs have to describe the people, religion, languages, etc. If you were to add any more details about this, then the article would have a POV.

This debate is getting absolutely ridiculious. I can not believe we are wasting our time being

civil about a user who is a clear vandal, going around edit warring without discussions. Nikkul (talk

) 09:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I share that opinion. Lalit added the sentence India is one of the poorest countries in the world to the article on the economy of India and didn't even add a source to back it up. He once removed all images of industries in India in that article and replaced them with images of rural India. For the culture of India article, he added an image of a man begging. For the electricity sector in India article, he added a completely non-relevant lead image with the caption Tea is often prepared over a fire as electricity is not available. I'm myself supportive of the idea of showing both sides of a coin in articles across Wikipedia but for this user, the priority is to show only one side of the coin. --Incidious (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidious is a sock puppet of blocked Enigma Machine (talk · contribs) [1][2]. His account was created to attack me after Enigma Machine was blocked.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

friends. i have modifed chembur wiki page. pls go there and review it so that i may know where are the anamolies. thanks u for ur precious time

mumbaikar (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mumbai. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

South mumbai is teh most controversial word till i ever heard. different ppl give different boundaries. is there any reliable source or reference for south mumbai. lets discuss and make it consensus

mumbaikar (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has a

No chance because this article lacks any information about migration, slums, chawls, and the housing shortage that affects even the richest. The article could be renamed "Rich people in Mumbai" because it tells nothing about the ordinary people in Mumbai.

The arguments heard from Nikkul are not convincing. Should we begin Wikipedia:Mediation? Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you meant mediation, not meditation. To be frank, after this excessive argument what I need is more of the latter. No seriously, WP:Mediation is a good idea. --Incidious (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the only person who needs Mediation is Lalit Jagannath himself! He has consistently been vandalising this page by adding his own stuff without gaining consensus or even discussing it on the talk page first. He's not trying to make this page neutral. He's trying to make it so that people who are uninformed of Mumbai come to this page and end up thinking that everyone in Mumbai lives in dirt poverty and filth. I've been in the slums of Mumbai and I know that even if people there are poor, they do not all live in the filth that Lalit Jagannath is trying to portray.

Mediation is a last resort if discussions fail and consensus can't be reached. Lalit Jagannath has NEVER discussed this in a civil manner and has continued to edit war on the page, despite EVERYONE rejecting his actions. I think there is already a consensus that Lalit Jagannath's actions are hostile. Nikkul (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest Lalit take a wikibreak come down to mumbai do some field work, visit Dharavi and see where do the spend 1bn

Slum people live in better condition than peopel who live in Appartments. Slum peopel get free apartment from government, this people dont pay tax, they get free water, just go and see people in Slum has Satellite Tv, Fridge etc. Also take a walk from Bandra to Nariman Point.--Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are thousands of people in New York City and Los ANgeles who live on the sidewalks. The government doesn't even allow them to build slums/homes for themselves and doesnt give them homes either. As a result these people have to live on top of subway exhaust vents so that they don't freeze overnight. Atleast, people in Mumbai have a home. Every city has poor people who live in bad conditions. We have made it clear already that Mumbai has a lot of poor people in the demographics section.

P.S.- there are thousands of homeless people living in LA, NYC, Chicago....there's no mention of them in their respective articles. Nikkul (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Outsider looking in I've been to articles describing several Indian cities and it seems this "slum avoidance" or "Poverty airbrushing" is quite apparent in all of them. Mumbai is a case in point. Although it is an understandable decision that some editors do not want this portrayed to avoid readers getting the wrong connotations, it is unreasonable to not portray it at all. The point that was made earlier about NYC and LA is not applicable, as there are significantly higher numbers of people living in poverty in Mumbai than there are in these American cities.

Mercury News Reports:

Before we debate the validity of the source, or any other contentions enlisted here, one point is clear. This article is not neutral and something needs to be done. I support mediation. Colipon+(T) 15:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that these slums exist. There are lots of slums in Mumbai, we know that and we are NOT denying that! But this information has already been included in the Demographics section! There is nothing more that can be added! There is a whole paragraph about this in the demographics section. Hence, we are not trying to hide or deny that slums exist. We have already mentioned all the stats about them in the demographics section. Please go read the article before commenting. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only is there information about slums, this paragraph also mentions "widespread poverty and unemployment, poor public health and poor civic and educational standards for a large section of the population" and "long commutes on crowded mass transit, or clogged roadways". I dont know what more can be added! Nikkul (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. I am aware of the demographics section, but I definitely do not believe that it has been given enough weight or coverage in the article. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the urban challenges the city faces its own section. To me it striked me as though the images put on the page were purposely attempting to glorify Mumbai's image, portray it as a modern financial capital to clear misconceptions in the West that it is an underdeveloped, cramped, and filthy place. Dharavi houses 800,000 people, as the article claims, but there isn't a single picture of it, even though there are numerous pictures in the wiki database. I am not advocating for highlighting Mumbai's poverty, but more so simply trying to neutralize the article. And right now the article does not appear neutral. It makes the world see what the upper-middle class sees in Mumbai, while fails to depict ordinary life of the vast majority. Colipon+(T) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article follows the guidelines put forth by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities project. These guidelines were based on numerous discussions and consensus. If you would like to add a whole new section on Urban Challenges, please discuss that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cities. All Indian City pages are uniform. This is an encyclopedia, not a MySpace page, hence uniformity is essential. The WP:Indian Cities project lays down strict guidelines which have been agreed upon by consensus for all Indian city pages. Nikkul (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me put forwader few points :-

1. Slums and Housing condition of Mumbai is really Important! So why dosent some one creates article on it and put {{main|Slums of Mumbai}} under Demography section?
2. If some one says Slums should be mentioned in this article, they are important etc, etc. Then why didnt you all people add it befour? Why you people are concentrating about Slums after Relese of Slumdog? Before it wasent you people aware of Mumbai Slums?
3. Seniour editors has alreadly created a policy that major changes done with out ganing a cencus will be treated as Vandalism.--Suyog^{talk to me!} 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Suyog: it's important to create an article on slums in Mumbai; there should be many references for theese slums. As italian living in India, I've been many time to Mumbai, and it's important also to write about the extension of the slums in the city (since I've seen them, I think the percent of metropolitan area for slums is less than 50%). About population, the data of 2001 census are discordant: 1, 2, 3 and 4 show a different percent of people living in slums, between 48% and 54%; I think it should be a very good idea to show all stats (with <refs>, of course) on the article. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 17:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Seniour editors has alreadly created a policy that major changes done with out ganing a cencus will be treated as Vandalism." There is no such Wikipedia policy. Quite the opposite. See Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Be_bold. What is a senior editor by the way? 91.67.129.173 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear your doubts

• There is no such policy Please click on edit button on Mumbai article you will see a Comment place by User:Nichalp He is a Burocrat okey?
• Seniour editors. They are the people more than one year old and having good main space edit count.
• One more thing Seniour ceditors never comment anynomously --Suyog^{talk to me!} 05:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

* User:Nichalp's comment refers only to "NAMES IN HINDI, GUJARATI, AND OTHER LANGUAGES". Besides I think he is wrong there. The fact that he is a bureaucrat is, of course, irrelevant to whether he may be wrong about something.

* Senior (note the spelling) editors make mistakes too. For future reference: If you have to appeal to authority to support an argument then perhaps you should examine whether you really have good grounds for supporting it.

* You are wrong. I am a "senior editor" by your criteria, I made the comment without signing in. Thehalfone (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support for mediation : I agree with Lalit Jagannath. The article doesn't appears to have many relevant informations. The pictures in the article look good for a calender. As far as editing is concern wikipedia gives uniform weightage to all editors. Manoj nav (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Two places that this article mentions -

Your edits were fine and useful. I am quite certain that Suyogaerospace inadvertently undid them, while undoing some other IP edits he thought were

Essel World and Kala Ghoda Arts Festival

.

By the way, you took the exactly right approach (see

WP:BRD) in raising the issue here. Hope you continue to help maintain and improve Mumbai and other articles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk

) 02:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I had breached protocol in adding those links. :) --Belasd (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

O, I always wanted to create an

DYK. Kensplanet (talk

) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out my clerification on this page(talk) --Suyog^{talk to me!} 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

apparently there is some dispute over whether the signboard near TAJ Palace hotel displays mumbai written in marathi or hindi. first things first, the script for both the languages is the same,, DEVNAGARI. so it is the same either way, in marathi or in hindi. as u like it..58.68.38.194 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) prakash

Hindi and Marathi is Diffrent thats why on Railway stations names are written in Hindi as well as in Marathi, Second point is that this board is placed by Mumbai Muncipal carporation. Corporations working language is Marathi. Therfore its a Marathi Bord.--Suyog^{talk to me!} 09:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the recent edit wars over various minor tweaks on the page, I noticed that Vijay Hazare keeps being added as an 'eminent cricketer from Mumbai'. His own page says that he was born in Sangli, why does he keep getting added? Khcf6971 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While I somewhat wary of getting involved with this article, unless someone can provide some evidence of Vijay Hazare being an "eminent cricketer from Mumbai" (nothing on his page relates to being from/playing for Mumbai), I will remove his name from th section. Khcf6971 (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Since at least early March, Nikkul and Adam been reverting each other constantly on the Mumbai page, without either even attempting to start a discussion on this talk page. While this behaviour by itself is unacceptable, what makes it worse is that in the effort to revert to their prefered version, some intermediate good edits made by other editors (including corrections and additions of references) are being lost, while some (previously removed) poor information is being re-added (see diff, diff). This has to stop!
Both are experienced editors and should know better. Continued editwarring and disrputive behaviour is likely to lead to blocks and/or topic bans. Discuss whatever issue you have here, or use

I was only trying to format according to Wikipedia:mos. If I have reverted anyone's edits by mistake I apologize. I actually thought that it had stopped so I don't know why this has just come up now. From now on I will not revert but simply make minor adjustments as new edits. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding upright format to portrait images as I have been advised that this is the correct way of doing things. I cannot understand why the other editor would be against such a minor change, also making false claims that India related articles are supposed to be formatted differently to other articles and that any simple change needs to be discussed before being made. Adam (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I have reverted all edits, nikkul has been doing this and I have reverted his mass revert of other peoples, but once again if I have done so I apologize. If you have a look at nikuls edits over the last few weeks you will see that after several days of absence from Wikipedia that his only contribution is to revert all my edits and all other edits that were made after mine in this article and one other India related article. This has happened quite a few times . Adam (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to apportion blame or even suggesting that either of you should be sanctioned for past conduct (unless it is continued). But both of you should have known better than to revert each other multiple times; you are experienced enough to know that

Yes you are correct in everything that you have stated and yes I was using the thumb option to specify size, and the upright option to mark portrait images. But Nikkul was trying to point out that this rule did not apply here according to his edit summaries. He was implying that india related articles had different rules to that of other articles, he also tried to point me to so called project pages (in his edit summaries) were the rules were made clear, but when I checked I could not see anything of the like. Adam (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy that before making controversial edits, you have to discuss them on the talk page and gain consensus. I have been urging [[

I don't think that formating according to Wikipedia:mos is controversial, it is the norm. Like stated before by myself and Abercadare, we should use the thumb option to specify size, and the upright option to mark portrait images. This article should not be any different from any other Wikipedia article. All portrait images should be thumbnail and upright and should remain in that state until you gain consensus to deviate from this policy, not the other way around . Adam (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No... until YOU get consensus to change the size of the images and put restrictions on the thumbnails, the images will stay as they originally were. Discussing controversial edits before adding them onto the page is funadmental wikipedia policy. Nikkul (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikkul, can you explain why you think the portrait images should not have the upright tag as per the guidelines ? Also, note that you have made 3 reverts in the past day; please be aware of the

3 revert rule and note that edit-warring, even at a slower pace is disruptive, and can lead to blocks. Abecedare (talk

) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding the upright format to portrait images seems to be such a minor change and in favor of mos. It is rather strange that this editor would worry about such a minor issue, also calling controversial, rather strange indeed. I think Nikkul has a grudge and is trying to be disruptive for some reason. If you have a look at his contribs a lot of what he has been doing is to return after days of absence just to revert what I have done in this article. I also find this very strange as well. Adam (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I need to point out that this article seems to have to way to many photos and should be reduced somewhat. I know I had a whole heap of images of my taking in the Sydney Harbour Bridge article including the lead image and that article was reduced to the point where there are barely any pictures at all. I think this article may need to follow suit. I do know of some other editors, who if this article was pointed out to them would come along and re format the entire article with less pictures. Adam (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Portrait images should not have an upright tag because it makes different images have different sizes. When reading an article, this means that images will not be aligned properly. This makes readability harder and is distracting. Fyi, I dont have any grudges and I'm definitely not trying to be disruptive. I've worked on this page for many years so I'd be undermining everyones effort including mine if i were being "disruptive." User: Adam has continuously kept edit warring despite my requests of discussing this issue before he adds it on the page. By not discussing his edits, it is he who is being disruptive. Nikkul (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, changing to upright format does not make the article any harder to read, if that were so then it wouldn't be a part of Wikipedia:mos. It actually makes the text easier to read. Also formatting according to mos is not disruptive but reverting it is disruptive which is what you are doing, and just because you have edited an article for many years does not mean that you have dominance over it. Also you mass reverts are not just reverting my changes they are also reverting every other edit since my edit. You need to be more careful in selecting the content that you revert. So you need to stop being disruptive by reverting Wikipedai:mos format. You should also stop trying to lead me to a list of bogus rules that do not exist, for example, WP:India and Wikipedia:Indian cities. I have skimmed through these and have found no law stating that this article cannot have an upright format. You should stop trying to claim this in you edit summaries as well which is a false claim. Also the article has to many images. I will be looking into this further on down the track and cleaning up the entire article. Cheers . Adam (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just cleaned out some of the images from the article. I was careful in my selection of image deletion and no offense should be taken. Some of the image were really not needed and I do think that more could be removed. The article was starting to look a bit cramped and I though it was time for a minor clean up. There is still plenty of photo left in the article and the ones that were removed were not helping the article (no major loss whatsoever).

I also think that the Haji Ali Mosque image could be removed as well. It is an image of poor quality and due to the fact that the image was taken facing towards the sun has made the subject appear dark. I think the image adds gloom to the article as well as the Chowpatty sunset image. This image was taken at sunset with the camera facing into the sun with dark shadows accross the entire city. Not much can be seen in the image and is not helpful to the article. The caption also mentions that the beach has many restaurants and so on but the picture does not show this. Therefore I think this image should be taken out. 3 more image removals and a few more higher quality replacements of the others would do the article a lot of good. I might be heading this way soon soon so I might take a few myself for the article . Adam (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not own this page. You can not delete images before you get consensus on the talk page. Please stop deleting important information such as charts and pics. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not own this page, but editors are allowed to edit, add content and remove what isn't needed. No one else seemed bothered by my removal of these images and you are the only one that seemed concerned. The article is full of cheezy poor quality images, some of which are not helpful to the article. The picture of the bus is not needed, even though the text is about transport people do not need to see a picture of a bus, most people know what they look like and I am sure that there is a link in the text that would lead to a related transport article that would have a picture of a bus. If I tried to add a picture like this to the Sydney article it probably wouldn't last five minutes. The picture of the terminal near the bus picture covers part of the topic. My other reasons for image removal are stated above. I will look into this later, there's no rush. As soon as some better quality images can be found to replace the poor quality images that are there they should be replaced. I'm coming over for a visit soon. Adam (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article. So you can not just add and delete images as you like. You need to discuss them first. This is the way everyone has done it. I'm happy you have nice images to add, but in order to add them you will have to discuss them on the talk page. Nikkul (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

FA is not something set in stone. no one needs to get consensus for changes that does not alter the content substantially. Nikkul, you are the one who behaves like you

What's up?

15:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikkul, I can also apply to have this article delisted as the format is not up to scratch. Also I discussed my changes and you reverted my changes without proper discussion, only saying that I did not own the page. The image that I swapped is still of poor quality but better than the one that was there before. You should also take solace in the fact that most of the pictures in this article are yours. It seem as though Nikkul does not want me to make the slightest of changes to this article for some reason reverting even the most minor change that I make . Adam (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also if I do travel there to take photos and I think the images are okay, I do not need to discuss before changing them unless heaps of people object, but so far it seems to be only you. I do agree with this image being reverted File:Mumbai2.jpg though. Adam (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Look I do not own the page whatsoever. I just think that there should be discussion before serious changes are made to the page. This is why I requested Adam to discuss the changes regarding the upright addition. I have since stop reverting his "upright" images after this discussion. This proves that I don't own this page. I just want discussion before important changes are made.

The images that are on this page have been there for a very very very long time. You can not just add your own images without discussion. The people that added images to this page discussed them here first before adding them. You must do the same. I am not opposed to having other images. And if there is enough consensus for your picture to be there, then I will be happy to keep it. But you must discuss it first because all the other images on this page have gotten there after discussion and consensus.

Nikkul (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to stress that the images that I am adding are not mine, they belong to other editors and they are better than what is already here. Just because an image has been here for a long time doesn't mean that it can't be changed. If you have a look at the commons cats you will find that there are many images that can replace what is in this article. I can see that you have not reverted the upright so I will leave the images along for a while. In the mean time I will be reviewing other images for the article.

Some of the images that should go are, the beach image which is to dark, the bus image which shows a bus that can be seen in any country and shows nothing of the surrounding area and the mosque image at the top. There is a public transport cat on commons with pictures of train stations and so on, so one of these could replace that bus image. Good quality replacements will do this article a lot of good and make it even more featured. Adam (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)