Jump to content

User talk:Awadhi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Awadhi, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Awadhi, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

[edit]

Hello, I'm 25 Cents FC. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Allahabad, because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You'll be blocked if you don't stop your malicious activities.Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your not only deleting my additions, made in complete good faith, but also calling it "total vandalism." You seem to have some sort of authority here, but you are apparently abusing the authority granted to you, since you cannot differentiate between vandalism and bonafide addition. I will let you know that I have done immense research on Allahabad just for this page, and was amongst the ones who laid the foundation of this page, something that has been immensely vandalised since then. My additions have since been adopted by various govt sites on Allahabad. If you think certain information is wrong for any reason, it is your duty to first discuss it -- that is what the codes of conduct at Wikipedia say. I'm totally against vandalism. You have not only deleted the additional information I had put, you have also deleted the grammatical and other errors I had corrected -- like the mention of the word 'snow' in the climate of Allahabad. I do expect a clarification. (Awadhi (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • First of you need to develop some editing experience.Of course it gonna take some time.I'm not having any granted authority.You're adding contents about dialects and all but let me remind you all these have been mentioned already.I'm not deleting any grammatical material as well.Since page is under copy editing,so the guild of copy editor easily remove the bad contents.Most of your edits are based on gov. sites but you dont know that govt. never maintain neutrality while updating anything on their sites.But wikipedia is very strict with neutrality.I can only suggest you that first discuss the matter on article's take page with the article's top contributors.They'll help you to as well as also let you know how to make good edits.and please read the whole article once before adding anything.If you still have any doubts feel free to ask .Thank You --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 08:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been editing for more than six years, you're here only for three months. I have done a lot of research on UP and other states and cities of India, including their history. You seem to know very little about the subject you're deleting, yet, you delete things as if you know the best, and you are some kind of police -- even calling edits made bonafide as 'vandalism.' This is totally against Wikipedia:Etiquette, and I may take this and your behaviour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. You do seem inexperienced as an editor, since it seems you are the one who has given this inappropriate 'welcome' message to me, after about six years of being an editor on Wikipedia.(Awadhi (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Article's top contributers? You have no idea what you're talking about. The article was a mess when I reworked the entire article several years ago. This article has been based on the same text that I wrote, but in the past 1 year, since I left, a lot of poor unsourced or badly sourced texts jave neem added, and the structure is indeed so poor. Yet, I have not really changed anything. I have a right to add contents as much as you have. I added only content that is common knowledge, therefore, did not bother to source it. But, if you wanted you should have asked for a source, instead of acting as if you own Wikipedia.(Awadhi (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some sources from the history about the regions that comprise today's Uttar Pradesh:

Source: Britannica Encyclopedia Quote: "The extreme north-western or Himalayan region comprises the native state of Garhwal, with the British districts of Dehra Dan, Garhwal, and Kumaun. ... South of the Himalayas, from which it is separated by valleys or thins, is the Siwalik range, which slopes down to the fruitful plain of the Doab (two waters), a large irregular horn-shaped tongue of land enclosed between the Ganges and Jumna. The great boundary rivers flow through low-lying valleys fertilized by their overflow or percolation, while a high bank leads up to the central upland, which, though naturally dry and unproductive except where irrigated by wells, has been transformed into an almost unbroken sheet of cultivation by various canals and their distributaries. This favoured inter-fluvial region may be fitly regarded as the granary of upper India. North of the Ganges, and enclosed between that river and the Himalayas and Oudh, lies the triangular plain of Rohilkhand. This tract presents the same general features as the Gangetic valley, varied by the damp and pestilential submontane region of the Tarai on the north-east, at the foot of the Kumaun hills. South of the Jumna is the poor and backward region of Bundelkhand, comprising the districts of Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, and Banda, besides several petty native states under the administrative control of the Government of India. The soil is generally rocky and unfertile, and the population impoverished, scanty, and ignorant. The southernmost portion of Bundelkhand is much cut up by spurs of sandstone and granite hills, running down from the Vindhyan system ; but the northern half near the Jumna has a somewhat richer soil, and comes nearer in character to the plain of the Doab.

Source: Political Divisions of the Indian Empire Quote: "The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh ..... The Great Plain.⎯This occupies the great bulk of the province, and is one of the richest, best irrigated, and most highly cultivated regions of the earth. It may be divided into two parts: (I.) The Great Doab, or country between the Jumna and Ganges. This is a stretch of perfectly flat country, very fertile, and splendidly irrigated, bearing great crops of wheat, barley, sugar-cane, cotton, millets, indigo, and opium. The people are famous farmers. In some parts of the Doab, however, there are usar lands⎯that is, patches made sterile by reh, a snow-like deposit of salt which comes to the surface after rain and destroys vegetable life. (2.) Oudh, Rohilkhand, and Gorakhpur. This region, comprising the rest of the plains, is also very fertile. It is damper, cooler, more wooded, and less troubled with reh. Being damper than the Doab, it grows more rice and less wheat."

Source: Jagran Post Quote: "the state can be divided in different regions like the Doab (including the upper Doab and the lower doab with the Brij bhumi in its centre), the Rohilkhand in the north, Awadh (the historic country of Koshal) in the centre, the northern parts of Bagelkhand and Bundelkhand in the south, and the south-western part called Purvanchal in the east."

You don't own this article, and you're not the sole authority to decide what is relevant at a place and what is not. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You have just been given some authority as a volunteer to check edits that are malafide or biased, etc. In that too, you're not required to jump in without thinking deleting and accusing the editor as a vandal or novice.
Btw, it doesn't matter if this issue has been covered already. If you have a sub-section called "Regions of Uttar Pradesh," then you simply cannot avoid repeating it. If you have to delete do it elsewhere the information appears. You cannot unilaterally decide an issue like that and then threaten with blockage, abusing any powers that may have been vested in you by the Wikipedia as a volunteer. I expect a resolution to this issue. (Awadhi (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Can you show me the relevant Wikipedia codes, where you are authorized to unilaterally delete something if you personally consider it 'non-constructive,' without having to discuss with the editor -- and going to the extent of threatening with blockage. Is it allowed for an 'adminstrator' or whatever that you are -- to go around threatening editors with blockage without being answerable to anyone?(Awadhi (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
hmm would that mean I have the right to block another editor as well? In any case, I can see that you are a sincere editor, and if you are really uncomfortable with the information I am presenting I can see if it can be reworded. Perhaps, you can reword it, if you really feel this would be counter productive, I can even think about not insisting on it.(Awadhi (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
No those are just for check number of edits.No one has to reword anything at all.Since every editor has given a right to stand and raise their voice.But try to understand,I've rewrote Uttar Pradesh and Allahabad completely.And Most important thing is I'm not against with your edits but the editing you made will let article quick fail in nomination.(Because there is strict rules and conditions you've to follow to get article GA and FA status) If you're really intended to develop any article try to develop those which are in pretty bad conditions like Gorakhpur, Agra and other cities of U.P. But editing in Allahabad and Uttar Pradesh means just copy editing nothing else.Thnks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have issues with the information I am giving, then why do you think it will be a hindrance in getting the GA and FA status? I would happily do the editing for other articles, but for that I'd have to research even more. I have already information on these two topics, and I want to make the articles better using them. I know there is need to know about these details, which currently people are forgetting. Eg, I wanted to research what exactly the language of Allahabad was called, no one seemed to know. Not even Allahabadis. Some people said its Awadhi, but, its not really Awadhi. Many people are misrepresenting Allahabad's language as 'Bhojpuri.' It was after a lot fo research that I finally understood the unique position of Allahabad as lying partly in the east and partly in the west (as has been documented -- no personal research). And, also that the language was actually a mixture of neigbhouring Awadhi, Kannauji and Bundelkhandi, and most people just call it 'Allahabadi.' It's also been documented as 'Doabi.' I felt it would be important to include it in Wikipedia.(Awadhi (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

See, people say lots of thing but that doesnt mean one will add some folk saying.where you found tha language of Allahabad is Allahabadi.It isnt mentioned.As long as i know native people speaks khari hindi.There may be chance that the language was actually a mixture of neigbhouring Awadhi, Kannauji and Bundelkhandi according to you but you know if you're saying it so confidently,some editors wil ask reliable sources to prove this.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, in this particular matter, I don't have ready sources, so we can avoid it. However, considering the entire article as it stands today has so many unsourced claims, it may go (we can leave it, though). I did read a study about the language of neigbhouring Banda district, which is called Bundelkhandi, but is exactly the same as the dialect spoken in Allahabad. Khari boli indeed is the language of the city, however, Allahabad has its own beautiful dialect, which is alas dying. The page however mentions 'Awadhi' as the language of Allahabad, and as far as I am know, this is not based on a confirmed source as well.(Awadhi (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I also read an old English text on the Hindostani language, and it divided Allahabad into Allahabad west (Doabi) and Allahabad East (area bordering Mirzapur). It said, the Hindostanis consider the language of the eastern part as "Purbi" and an eastern language, however, the linguist scholar disagreed and said, its part of the western branch, even though some words were indeed like the eastern languages (I suppose words like 'ba').(Awadhi (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Note that the information I gave above lists Kannauji as the language of the lower Doab. Now, it would be totally justified to say that the language of Allahabad is a mixture of Kannauji and Awadhi. I even have a source that says that talks about this mixture in other areas of lower Doab.(Awadhi (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop

[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Uttar Pradesh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 07:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I have included is not only such a basic fact it is also easily verifiable. Surely, it is not such a widely researched subject that published information is readily available for every single line. However, most of what I have written has been gathered from published sources only. You could have asked for those sources instead of acting like an ignorant cop. Should we start deleting every non sourced line from the Uttar Pradesh article?(Awadhi (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
There is something immensely wrong with Wikipedia if it has given any authority to someone who flouts the codes of conduct of Wikipedia so blatantly.(Awadhi (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Here are the sources-

Hindostani, Encyclopedia Britannica "Quote: Of these the most important from a literary point of view, proceeding from west to east, are _Marwari_ and _Jaipuri_ (the languages of Rajputana), _Brajbhasha_ (the language of the country about Mathura and Agra), _Kanauji_ (the language of the lower Ganges-Jumna Doab and western Rohilkhand), _Eastern Hindi_, also called _Awadhi_ and _Baiswari_ (the language of Eastern Rohilkhand, Oudh and the Benares division of the United Provinces) and _Bihari_ (the language of Bihar or Mithila, comprising several distinct dialects)."

  • Here the consensus is about your editing.As far as editing duration is concern,this doesn't matter to me.If you have done so many research then try to develop it on your sandbox with reliable references.Most of your edits are already exits in article then what is a point to add them again and again.I may have little knowledge about indian cities and states according to you but i'm no novice. You can report me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance,You're free to do whatever you want.but remember this may could lead yourself in trouble.

Because some of your editing like this depicts nothing --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not competent to decide on your own whether it depicts anything or not. At best, you can ask for sources, if you are not sure about the information. You have no right to delete or threaten with blockage, simply because, you think the information is irrelevant. This action is only required when there is malafide tempering with the article -- like some people have been doing recently. By acting as the sole arbitrator of what goes into the article and what not, you're flouting the norms and spirit of Wikipedia. If you have reservations, then talk about it. I have not added anything which is controversial or unique or 'personal research,' to be treated like this. If you cannot respect other editors then don't be a volunteer.(Awadhi (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
And where is this consensus you're talking about? Do you even know what consensus means? I see only you as a vandal, noone else.(Awadhi (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
And, I am an editor/ writer by profession. So, I can say with fair confidence that I know how to structure an article, and I wouldn't just include something which is irrelevant or repetitive.(Awadhi (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • I dont know based on what you're saying Do i even know what consensus means? I dont care about your profession whether you're writer,editor,examiner,philosopher or whatever. I can only suggest you that if you're going for any major editing first discuss it in article's talk page.After getting some response add it.If i dont revert your edits,someone else will do this job with no hesitating.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a little piece of relevant information is hardly major editing. I know it is not safe if I am going to do something to which someone may have a serious objection, then I may be deleted, but I still have a right to persist, and then it can be taken for consensus, failing which arbitration. That is Wikipedia. However, its an innocuous piece of information in the current case. Besides, the article as it exists today is in pathetic shape structurewise -- from what it used to be at one time. I am sure, I can once again do a decent job and put things in a better shape (not changing the information, just restructing it. Repetitions, if any can be taken care of in the process.(Awadhi (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Both the Articles are is in perfect shape and undergoing a major copy editing.After having some little work they gonna be either nomination for GA or FA.which shape is pathetic structure wise according to you? can you bit descriptive 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The organization of sub-topics. Culture is thrown way down towards the end, after economy and tourism, which is inappropriate. The information section is unnecessarily loaded with history and detailed geography, which makes it not only uninteresting, but also repetitive. Information is interspersed all through the sub-sections, without regard to whether or not they fit there. Eg, the Geography section starts with the fact that UP is the 5th largest state. That is not strictly geography, and belongs in the introduction. Climate belongs towards the latter part of the page, perhaps before toursim. Regions and cities is not such an interesting combination. In any case, "Cities of Uttar Pradesh" can be an interesting topic on its own, because, UP has several interesting cities (and regions) each with specialities of its own (like the copperware of Moradabad, ceramics of Khurja and carpets of Bhadohi). In fact I remember there used to be such information in the article before.(Awadhi (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
If we start writing each and every thing every point then what is the use of having main articles.regions and cities part should say about name of regions and cities.If you think that cities has really importance then create "Cities of Uttar Pradesh". That would be more appreciable.You may also like to develop Kanpur.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Demographics has half-baked information on the dialects of Uttar Pradesh, but then you have a separate section on Languages. Why then include it in demographics? There used to be a beautiful piece on festivals of Uttar Pradesh. It's just a stub now. Where are the important festivals like teej and Ramlila and Krshna lila and such grand festiivals of UP. Holi of UP is special, yet, the article only briefly mentions lathmar holi.
This article on Uttar Pradesh, in my view, fails to give any relevant information in an organized, effective or interesting manner.(Awadhi (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
And, there are so many wrong, unsourced information, like -- Tahri is a dish of eastern UP. Or that Reshmi Kebob is an Eastern UP dish. Or that, Paneer is a special dish of Rampur. It is like anyone is writing what ever they want.(Awadhi (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Paneer is relished all across the state.

Such sentences are considered as POV violation.I'm enough warned already.I'm pretty sure you're in big misconception.The materials mentioned in article is strong enough.It could get passed easily.It needs some works related to reference.I'm working on it.Adding those festivals which are celebrated in few villages in not a bad idea(you said this).You forget to read "other notable festivals" statement. Paneer is not a special dish at all.Its just a kind of food.Please refer West Bengal and Karnatka i'm sure you'll get to know what a good article means.Whenever we try to wrote any article we write it in such a way that the western reader also must be able to understand what it this state about.Article covers each and every topic significantly.Your view is different thiing.Most important article sould satisfy wikipedia policy nothing else.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Paneer is a special dish of Rampur" is not POV? What are you talking about. I just reworded the statement and included the whole state, because it is relished all across the state. I am not the one who wrote it. But apparently you never noticed the earlier discrepancy.(Awadhi (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Also, the entire article is very sloppy as far as making it suitable for westerners is concerned. I write for westerners all the time, I should know.(Awadhi (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I didnt said you wrote this,Whoever wrote is a violation.Lets do one thing you choose some of the article related to U.P you like to develop, since you're claiming yourself an editor and did so many researches.So that both of us can develop page in an accordance manner.so please list the pages you want to develop right now.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if we manage to bring something good, we can work as a team on other articles :-) (Awadhi (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Let's work on these two pages first, and then we can work on any other page you suggest.(Awadhi (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Uttar Pradesh

[edit]

If you have any queries or doubts ask it on article's take page and make your doubts clear.Kindly post you questions here Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Uttar Pradesh concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Uttar Pradesh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Central Uttar Pradesh

[edit]

Hello Awadhi. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Central Uttar Pradesh.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Uttar Pradesh}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Allahabad
added links pointing to Kashmiri and Chitrakoot
Kuru Kingdom
added a link pointing to Kaushambi
Vatsa
added a link pointing to Kaushambi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awadhi&oldid=1049664139"