User talk:Highpeaks35

Link

http://reftag.appspot.com/

Your revert

I do not mean to edit war at all. But restoring the previous content means red links and overlinking. You can change specific content can't you? Thank you.--102.162.96.23 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue of overlinking was raised in the talk page. My aim was to make the first para more concise as a summary, such as the first para in the History of India.--102.162.96.23 (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Trim

It'sup to you what you do with your talkpage, but trimming it may be seen as a sign that you're inclined to ignore warnings and good advice. Again, it's up to you, but just that you know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IVC, again

Bbb23 protected Indus Valley Civilisation for a week, after you were reverted multiple times by multiple editors. When the protection expired, you came back, reverting again. Your edit-summary Per User:Bbb23 comment, undid the unjust rollback by User:AshLin. Removed mainly unreferenced content, most since 2016, added a reference, and fixed spelling. misses the point here. You may be rigth about unreferenced content etc., but the page was protected because of your edits. I told you before: you're the one who will get blocked, or topic-banned, or whatever; not F&f or Ashlin. Just calm down, take your time, and discuss at the talkpage. Just take care, and don't let raw emotions steer your actions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, What did I edit here that was contentious? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), I have zero issue discussing in talk. However, there is almost near certainty FF will get involved just for trolling sake. It might be an alien concept for you, but I have to deal with lots of racism living where I live, last thing I need in my life is to deal with a racist POV pusher in Wiki bullying me further. Again, I would appreciate you inform me what was wrong with the above edit. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

It's not about content, it's about behavior, as explained above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), what wikipolicy allows unsourced material be put back as you did for that excuse? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)@Highpeaks35: Please be advised that continuous, unsubstantiated, accusations of racism which is attributed to me, constitute violation of Wikipedia policy. You know very well, that I had applied the term "Hindu garbage" to images you had uploaded on the Talk:India page, which had specifically and redundantly mentioned "Hindu," especially in the context of attire or apparel that had been introduced by Muslims into India. On that page, there was mention of the Hindu religious decoration of bindi; there was irrelevant, and unsubstantiated, discourse on the bare midriff in a photo caption. More troubling were two specific, entirely irrelevant, mentions of "Hindu wedding" in photographs that showed Muslim attire. Please see all of them here. Please examine them carefully. I have been a consistent and prolific contributor to the India page for upward of 12 years. I have played a major part in the article retaining in FA status for that period. However, I am also aware of the mischief wrought on that page in edits that promote the Hindu- or Hindu-nationalist POV. It was only in that context that I had used the expression "Hindu garbage." It meant the promotion of irrelevant Hindu attribution in the captions of images you had uploaded on the Talk:India page. This was especially troubling as the attire was introduced by Muslims into India. Allow me to politely and firmly suggest that you not keep repeating these racism allegations. Whether or not you experience racism in your real life is a separate issue, but please don't repeat this grossly inaccurate characterization of me. Please don't say later that you were not warned. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I fully protected the article on January 21 for one week because of edit-warring by the following editors: Highpeaks35, AshLin, Fowler&fowler, and Joshua Jonathan. I don't want to play a counting game about who reverted the most times. I don't want to resolve the content dispute. Your job (collectively) is to resolve the dispute on the Talk page or, failing that, in another suitable forum. That means, though, that Highpeaks35's revert (restore of their version) was out of line, and Joshua Jonathan's revert of it was also out of line. I'm going to let it go, but the next editor (warned clearly now) who was involved the edit war who reverts at the article risks being blocked. As an aside, Highpeaks35, my comment at ANI about AshLin's misuse of rollback did not entitle you to revert their edit. And your self-justifying, misleading edit summary only made your revert that much worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Highpeaks, this edit summary is a personal attack unless backed up by evidence. Please don't say stuff like that again. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you removed that talk page comment; a section about the politics of the IVC isn't an unreasonable idea, whether it gains consensus or not. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What was IVC?

Hi Highpeaks35, these are my personal views, but I am telling them to you in the hope that they might make it easier for you to deal with this topic. If you look at things dispassionately, it is fairly clear that the IVC was a "Pakistani civilisation" rather than an "Indian civilisation". The IVC people were more interested in their connections to West Asia and Central Asia than the subcontinent they were part of. They probably spoke Indian languages and followed Indian religions. But that did not bring them any closer to the rest of Indians. They were more interested in trading with Mesopotamian than with South India for example. It is likely that the rest of India was tribal and primitive, but there were also well-developed megalithic cultures there. Moreover, nothing stopped the IVC people from travelling down the coastlines and setting up colonies. They weren't apparently interested in any of this. As a result, when their civilisation died, there was no legacy, no heritage. They were simply forgotten. It was as if they had never existed. It was left to the Vedic Aryans to pick up whatever they could from the remnants of the IVC and propagate it to the rest of India.

The Sarasvati river is a red herring. It was probably flowing all the way to the sea, or at least close enough to the Indus river. It was part of the same river complex. So it was natural for the IVC people to trek up the Sarasvati and establish colonies in Rajasthan which was rich in minerals that they needed. But they didn't explore any further. India had hundreds of rivers, but they didn't interest the IVC people. The Sarasvati is a fringe river for India. It is not the centre of anything. The IVC spreading to Sarasvati was of no consequence to India. When Sarasvati dried up, even those connections were lost.

So I don't see why Indians want to keep beating the drum of the IVC. It is far more natural to accept it as the origins of "Pakistan". Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you can’t be serious? Even Pakistanis don’t consider non-Islamic IVC as part of Pakistani Civilization. Pakistani nationalism in general is based on history after the birth of Islam, and they rarely consider pre-Islamic history worthwhile; as most Pakistani nationalist see it as “dark period”. Indian claim to the IVC comes due to their opposition of the Two-Nation theory and vast majority of the sites are found in these two countries. Plus, though early, DNA studies are showing the IVC peoples did not just move outside the subcontinent or disappeared, they just mixed in with the new male dominated Aryans or moved southward. Just as Berbers did in N. Africa against Arab migrants, Iranic tribes in Central Asia with Turkic migrants, or Mesoamericans did with Iberian migrants. Their DNA or culture did not completely disappear, just absorbed or superseded by the newer migrants. This is how human history works, it is in layers. Indian nationalism celebrates these layers and migrants that were absorbed in; from the Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, to even the Mughals, everyone who called the Indian subcontinent their home. That pluralism is not part of the uniformed Islamic (Sunni based) Pakistani nationalism. Again, this is my take. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), based on the above opinions, which do you think is valid and which do you think is invalid? Based on what was provided by me and K3. Will love to hear your opinion as a neutral editor, and assuming you are someone who is non-Indian origin. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

I am not interested in any "Pakistani nationalists", whoever they are supposed to be. I am talking about proper historians of Pakistan, such as:

• Dani, Ahmad Hasan (1967), A Short History of Pakistan: Pre-Muslim period, University of Karachi

They certainly regard IVC as a proper part of Pakistan's history. Now, the relentless Indian attacks claiming IVC to be "Indian" goes against the grain. They are also pretty silly because there are no known connections between the IVC and what we call "India". Was there any part of India (other than the Sarasvati vally) with which the IVC traded even a tiny fraction of what they were trading with Mesopotamia? Were there any IVC ships seen anywhere in India? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the population density in India, especially combined with Indian climate, does not allow anything to survive for long. Ships or evidence of trade would not survive much for 5,000 years in a climate like South India in comparison to a dry or drier climate like Central Asia or West Asia. It is that simple. Heck, there are large hordes of Indian ivory material found in ancient Pompeii, than from the Deccan where much of it was produced. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

I was asking for IVC trade with India, not Pompeii. Without any such evidence, my theory stands. What more is there to say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Trade is only one aspect. Also, their trade with early Malwa culture and other cultures in and around GH is evident. They did not have the iron technology to clear the dense forests of the North Indian plains and south India. But, even in Gujarat and coastal Maharashtra we have now found their settlements, as such, anywhere they found resources or they had the tech to make settlements, they did. We have evidence for those, though early. I also pointed out, DNA evidence and migration. There is enough early evidence they mixed or migrated south in present day India. DNA, genetics and migration is as important or if not more than just trade. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Kautilya3, also, to clarify, I used Pompeii as a non-connected example to show the importance of dry climate, and its ability to preserve artifacts and evidence in comparison to wet climate like much of India. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Your draft article, Draft:Damstraat (Amsterdam)

Hello, Highpeaks35. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Damstraat".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Oudezijds Voorburgwal

Hello, Highpeaks35. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oudezijds Voorburgwal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your message. It seems like you are still doing a lot of good work here and I hope to see more from you. ML ^talk 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

Hi, I am becoming increasingly bewildered by your changes so that articles say Indian subcontinent rather than whatever they said previously. I wasn't around for a few months last year and that seems to have coincided with a batch of such edits, hence my delay in spotting them. If, for example, an article says that caste X are present mostly in the "Mathila region of Bihar and Nepal", I simply do not understand why you would change that to "Indian subcontinent". The latter can include, for example, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and a huge, irrelevant chunk of India itself. The only gain seems to be that you are able to link it, whereas we tend not to link individual "major" countries. So why do you do it? Surely that isn't the rationale? - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be over 400 edits (this link is slow, so please give it a few seconds) all with edit summary "improve accuracy," most involving inserting "Indian subcontinent," many in place of edits that previously had "South Asia," "Pakistan," "Nepal," "Sri Lanka," and so forth, but also more local references, such as "Indus valley," for example. That is a lot of edits in several hundred pages. Please explain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

These edits began in earnest in the second half of 2018, when I was away, and have continued apace until now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one of the many is this. How on earth (sic) is Indian subcontinent an improvement on the specific India and Pakistan. I know you could argue on the grounds of anachronism but there is a better way to fix that than changing it to a massively larger area. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, you answered your own question. You would be correct, anachronism is the reason, modern nations did not exist. Also, please read this article from the Diplomat to understand my view here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler, I have requested this earlier, please do not comment on my talk page. In my POV, you are a racist and white supremaist of the worst kind. Using your influence and privilege to be disrespectful, arrogant, calling me and my work “Hindu garbage”, making fun of Indian women and their skin color, etc. Get away from my talk page. I have zero issues with editors like Sitush or K3, they engage with respect, even though I disagree with them in many cases. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC))