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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. --Ragib04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You are a good info-searcher. Do not be a spell checker. Please spend your energy to search for some Indic viewpoints. Do not spend your time in finding stupid frivolous spelling mistakes in discussion pages. Now start your search and come up with some Indic views for the India page. Your wiki behaviour is indeed very suspicious and has to be observed very closely. And will be dealt firmly at an appropriate time. Your third-class Eurocentric views will be crushed mercilessly and brutally.
Dear Himalayanashoka, The message that you left on my talk page is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Besides, the message too has a grammatical mistake. It is not, "And will be dealt firmly at ...," but "And will be dealt with firmly at ..." Your mistakes are not spelling mistakes (which we all make), but mistakes of grammar and style, which are much more problematical for an encyclopedia since they detract from comprehension. Wikipedia is an English language encyclopaedia and it needs to be written in professional English. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, I must once again point out that the language used in discussion are just for expressing the ideas. They are not part of any FA. So please do not emphasize on the grammar. Queen's English is obsolete. In International English, as long as the meaning is clear and it does not show different interpretations in IN, US, SG, NL, CA, IE, AU, NZ, PK, BD etc etc., it is OK. I request you not to spend efforts on grammar and spellings as long as there is no difference in interpretations. English is just a language of convenience. Do not try to put Britishness in it. Those stages passed 100 yrs back. However, if the Indic ideas and Indic views presented in the India page contain grammatical mistakes and spelling errors I would heartily welcome your edit reviews. Your edit reviews have to be as good as in this page. Please note it will be only limited to edit reviews. Your Eurocentric views will not be accepted, whatsoever references you may give.
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.
==="Colonize" itself is inappropriate (no minute changes)===
Fowler&fowler, I am still strongly against your researching on Eurocentric views in framing sentences to give the India page a negative image. The India page will have Indic views which are not at all nationalistic but simply Indic. Hence the word "Colonize" has to go and switched to "Expelled". The subcontinental population never viewed it as a subjugated colony, but as non-native traders tresspassing and trying to occupy and govern. Colony is a British POV and european term when they spoke amongst themselves. Any literature references will always show colony because all English literature pertaining to that time originated from UK or language used by non-UK people trained in UK. However, Indians always view it as expulsion/quit India (e.g. the invasion of Goa by Indian Armed Forces to expell PT from Goa). Also the India page will not have minute changes such as switch British EIC to BCrown. These minute changes are completely immaterial in the Indic views. Indic views presented in the India page will denigrate the British as just "non-native traders" or "non-natives", blanketing them alongside other failed invaders (PT,NL,FR,DK etc). I am in complete disgreement with your eurocentric views, and will go to any extent over any period of time (weeks/months) to change such sentences, and put in the Formation info in the Infobox.
NB: Pls do not try to find spelling/grammatical errors here. I hope you get the essence.
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:
NichalP, I do not want to cut ice, but sculpt it in presentable way. It surprises me when you say that there is no word like Eurocentrism. You are again repeating that "...YES...India...overnight..." kind of statement. Pls type that word in Wikipedia and read what it says (the very first sentence). Pls note that it has no reference at all and still has active contributions coming in. I am also an avid Wikipedian and want to see the India page as being the best and reflecting a highly positive image of an already (not emerging) major power. I will emphasize again that the word "Colonised" will not appear in the India page but will have the Indic view of "Expelled". In addition I hope you have noticed how User:Fowler&fowler is loyally trying to minutely differentiate between BritishEIC and BritishCrown to put it in the India page. Can you at least show this kind of loyalty to come up with something Indic without being nationalistic? Do not be bound by just references. Try to frame postive images within the boundaries. There are thousands of pages in WKPD which have no references but regularly updated & exist without conflict of opinions. From an Indic view I once again say that the very term British should be blanketed as "non-natives" and clubbed alongside PT,FR,NL,DK. They have to be absolutely denigrated in the India page.
You still have to get the concept of wikipedia. We work with credible references, not biases and personal opinions. There is nothing wrong with the word colony. And I reiterate, the independent nation-state of India was formed on 15 August, 1947. If you have any issues with the last statement, please request the goverment of India why they observe the date as independendence day when India was formed centuries earlier. =Nichalp«Talk»=08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.
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. Accurizer14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Himalayanashoka, thanks for your note on my talk page. However, 3RR applies to all editors with few exceptions, as set forth in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions. Now that you have been alerted to this, you may be blocked for disruption if you revert again. It would be better if you could take a step back from the article today. Thanks for your understanding. Accurizer15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Chanakyathegreat16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chanakyathegreat, I fully and completely agree with you on the views and presenting the truth. When I say Indic view I mean it coupled against another view (GB, PT, FR etc) not in isolation. Neither do I like to present anything factually wrong nor ultra-nationalistic, but there is a way to write and to explain it logically so that the writing stays. I think your logical explanation stepped in perfect time and maybe I got carried away happily! Historically, half the time Indians have been fooled because of interpretations (writing or verbal) perpetrated by foreigners.
But I must also explicitly write that I do not like the words 'British', 'UK' popping up so frequently as if India was setup by them. They are a tiny 100 yr chapter in a continuous resilient 4000 yrs majestically galloping Indian history. This also has to reflect somehow in our main article.
I will now seek your guidance and support from time to time. And yes it is for the truth presented in a befitting manner for the India article.
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
