Welcome!
Hello, Himalayanashoka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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:Questions, 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! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content |
![]() |
|
Newcomers: Welcome kit |
Register: Indian Wikipedians |
Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard
Browse: India | Open tasks |
Deletions
|
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You have recently attempted to edit some text written in an Indic script on India. Your edit has been reverted because the original text was correct. The reason you are seeing spelling mistakes is because your system is not set up for Indian languages. Please see WP:COMPLEX for full details on how to rectify this. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop changing the formation information. The republic of India which is the subject of the article, formed in 1947 after independence from the British. If you continue to reinsert the text, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You recently removed content from this page. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
You can, however, archive the above talk page entries, if you would like. See the Talk:India page for how archives are created. If you would like help with it, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and the remarks made on Nichalp, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ragib 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Himalayanashoka,
I hope you don't take this in the wrong way. I am sending this email to be helpful. The one very noticeable feature of all your writing on both the Talk:India page and my talk page is that it is poorly written, judged by the standards of written English, be it Indian English, British English, or American English. Your writing is full of mistakes of both grammar and usage. Regardless of its viewpoint, much of what you write, would not be acceptable text for Wikipedia, in part because it does not conform (grammatically and stylistically) to an encyclopaedia style and, in part, because the grammatical mistakes rob the text of meaning. Here are a few examples of the mistakes:
Your text (from Talk:India):
I very strongly suspect about your POVs. You seem to be bent towards searching and imposing only Eurocentric POVs to an Indic article to give it a negative and Euro-dominant image. It is also for you to search for Indic views, if you weant to polish up the article in a positive way. Gandhi's views at that time is definitely constrained by Eurocentric POV. I again emphasize that the switch of the terms "Expelled" and "Colonised" does not further need any reference and search for the usage of words in books, since an Asiatic/Indic page must represent an Asiatic/Indic view.
Mistakes: The grammatically correct form is "I very strongly suspect your POV," not "suspect about," and not "POVs," since POV represents "Point of View" (in any case its plural is "Points of View," not "Point of Views." It shouldn't be "You seem to be bent towards searching ...," but "You seem to be bent on searching ...." "It is also for you you to search for Indic views ..." should be "It is also up to you to search for Indic views ...." "Gandhi's views at that time is definitely constrained by Eurocentric POV" should be "Gandhi's views at that time were definitely constrained by an Eurocentric POV." "I again emphasize that the switch of the terms ..." should be "I emphasize again that switiching the terms ...." "... does not further need any references ..." should be "... does not need any further references," or simply "does not need any more references." The "further" qualifies "references," not "need."
Your text:
I strongly advice you against supporting/searching only for Eurocentric articles/references to give a negative image to the India page pertaining to the change of the highly derogatory sentence "Colonised by...". If its not possible for you to search for Asiatic/Indic viewpoints/articles/references, then please refrain from arguing about Indic views and let others present it in a more positive way.
Mistakes: "advice" (a noun) should be spelled "advise" (a verb). It should be "for only" instead of "only for"—the "only" qualifies the Eurocentric. "If its not possible ..." should be "If it's not possible," "it's" is a contraction, while "its" is a possessive.
So you see, in the space of a few sentences, there are already so many mistakes that it is difficult to understand your intent. Again, I hope you don't take it the wrong way, but what you have to say would be taken a lot more seriously if you wrote it grammatically. And, I don't mean to sound condescending or paternalistic, but one way to improve your writing would be to work though a standard English writing book, for example, The Bedford Handbook or The New Oxford Book of Writing, which are both great books.
Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Himalayanashoka 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Himalayanashoka 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Himalayanashoka, Well, I have been looking up some objective sources, and it turns out the "Colonise" might not be appropriate for use with the East India Company. India was colonised, but it was by Great Britain (formally in 1857), not by the East India Company. I think "Politically controlled by the British East India Company ..." might describe the historical situation more accurately than "Colonised by the British East India Company ..." When I am sure about the accurate language, I will make a change in the text.
Since you have been clamouring for the change, I thought I'd let you know first; however, the change is not coming because I agree with your historical outlook. I feel very strongly that Wikipedia should be completely objective and neutral in its stance towards any country, be it India or any other.
Also, I would urge you to be more civil in your language. I won't report you, but threatening someone with "merciless and brutal" consequences (whatever the intent) could get you into serious trouble in Wikipedia.
Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
NB: Pls do not try to find spelling/grammatical errors here. I hope you get the essence.
Regards, Himalayanashoka 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Himalayanaskoka, there's no such word a "Eurocentric" when referring to a neutral term "colonised". As you put it, that is the dictionary defination. So why are you claiming it to be a Eurocentric view?
...has to present non-nationalistic Indic views regardless of literature references -- Sorry, as a wikipedian I cannot allow you to compromise our policy on citing sources. Please read the following:
Your claim on NPOV does not cut ice here. To claim POV, you need to cite sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for a week. Please stop trolling around and adding unsourced and personal biases to an encyclopedic article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In light of this, I have blocked you for a further 2 weeks. Please do not disrupt wikipedia and do not violate WP:SOCK or you will be banned from wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your appreciation regarding image created by me. --Indianstar 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Accurizer 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy provides a multi-step dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for guidance. Regards, Accurizer 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not in support of an Indian view or a British view, but for the truth. When they call an occupation as governance, it cannot be tolerated. It's not only a big blatant lie but they themselves are comitting a crime by supporting a henious brutal regime. Chanakyathegreat 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Himalayanashoka 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As you have continued to use sock-puppets to disrupt India while serving your 3RR block, I am increasing your block to 2 months. Please do not violate WP:SOCK and do not edit-war again. The next block will be much longer. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As you continue to use sockpuppets to evade your block, and continue to disrupt India, I am extending your block duration to infinite. Please do not disrupt wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)