User talk:AJ-India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RfC

Hi, I've started an RfC Talk:India#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_new_material_to_the_India_page_history_section. Any comments and feedback, at your convenience, will be welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Politics Image

That image was added by me. I could not locate Wheel image. Will modify once I get it. You can also try to locate it for me.--Indianstar 11:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

Please stop removing the factual sentence about the extent of the British Empire from the United Kingdom article. Your comment that it is pompous to say so is innacurate, it is merely a fact. If you persist, you will be reported for breaking Wikipedia rules which say you cannot revert something more than 3 times within 24 hours. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did warn you. GSD2000 is not breaking 3RR, you are. Please revert your last revert. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have just made your fourth revert.

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. Gsd2000 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat (in response to your comment on my talk page) that you must revert your last change, otherwise you will be reported and possibly blocked. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of an introduction, AJ-India, is that it introduces. By definition, this is going to repeat information in the main article, the key points of it. Repetition is not reason alone for removal, and just because you view a fact as pompous is not reason to remove it, when that fact is probably the most notable one in the history of Britain and its relations with the rest of the world (whether you like those relations or not, and I suspect you don't, which is the reason for your removal of it). Gsd2000 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Viridae^Talk 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I realise that you may temporarily be unable to respond, but I think it only fair (and, hopefully, constructive) to point out that, currently, there seems to have been a consensus reached on the opening paragraph of United Kingdom at its talk page Talk:United Kingdom. If I am in error, you now have approximately 98 hours in which to persuade all other editors THERE of your particular predilictions for the opening passage.

Suggestion to Admins: If a consensus does hold, can we then lock down just the opening passage since it is extremely unlikely that in the near future (and always excepting the death of the reigning monarch), that the facts delineated therein will become outdated or wrong? ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

What was happening here AJ, were you experimenting to see if you could unblock yourself? MarkThomas 09:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

lol. Nice one. Obviously you dont mean that do you, as it borders on suggesting you dont know how Wikipedia works:) Well, suffice to say, was only following the instructions, to appeal. For the record, despite the outcome, I firmly believe I didnt overstep any rules. And have communicated the same. My first "revert" was after the revert by User: Gsd2000.AJ-India 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to give you a laugh at the end (or is it beginning in India?) of a hard day. :-) MarkThomas 17:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough:) But am not in India btw, am in Canada.AJ-India 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Beginning then! MarkThomas 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Mughal Empire

I did not add a flag, but uploaded the SVG of the flag that already existed in PNG on Wikipedia. Chaipau 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you explain what your're doing?

As someone with no history of editing the British Raj page, can you explain what you are doing edit warring? The least you can do is to explain yourself on the talk page first. British Raj is a "euphemism?" Really, according to whom? Can you give me a citation? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid what was already there. This is how the page was, for some time, and had nothing to do with your edit warring with a particular user. Infact, I am not interested in that thats why I removed the tag. So it is really you who changed a whole lot of things, in the guise of reverting that user's edit. Lastly, I dont need a history anywhere to get legitimacy to edit. Thats not how wikipedia works.AJ-India (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you still feel justified, go ahead and revert the edits. I assure you I will not indulge in a revert. It's neither my desire, nor do I have the time to spend trying to discuss this endlessly. I like to build constructively, not spend time fighting uselessly. You must have noticed I dont edit on teh India page. The reasons are the same.AJ-India (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to know your reasons for reverting because I knew you from the India page and had found you to be reasonable. But no problem.  :) The British Raj lead had been stable (in a version I had participated in) for over a year, until user:Abecedare and I changed it again on March 17 for more readability. The controversial sentence about the British Raj being "a euphemism used in Britain to refer to the British occupation" of India was snuck in on April 17 without any citations whatsoever, in a flurry of edits and reversals. So, I wasn't aware until yesterday that the change had been made. Of the 70 references on the Raj by both Indian and British historians, I haven't found a single one that supports the view that the term British Raj is a euphemism used in Britain. It is really used more in India, and in journalistic and academic sources. The average Briton is not only unaware of it now, but was so a hundred years ago. I did open a talk page thread on "occupation," but don't know anyone will respond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I read something during those multiple edits, as I had been reading the British raj page for a while, and had seen the version I reverted. And since it seemed to be there during my readings, I assumed it was an agreed version. But if your version was agreed upon, thats fine.

Again, given my limitations of time, and frankly even interest, I cant persistently discuss the "occupation" thing, but as I had explained in the India page, it is really a matter of how one looks at it, and the fact that History is written by people of a country of origin, it is natural for them to have a leaning. And isnt it true that history is written by the victors? Thus, what the British historians have written over the past century of two (or by "Indian" historians during British "rule"), is invariably in line with their nationalistic view of their empire (or out of allegiance to the rulers). I mean to me it is so obvious when a person removed "Indian Automaker" from the Jaguar Cars page, when there was a multiple mention of it being "a British Car maker", what the intent is. And I understand. Bias is inherent. So, if stuff published in India is "nationalistic" (probably is, fair enough), it should be born in mind that so is the stuff written by the above.

Thus, while I am clear that the British "rule" was an occupation (meant to serve teh mother country, at the cost of the occupied territory), similar to the Japanese in China, or any other country, and that it was not extension of some ruler, like say the Ashoka or the Mughals, as there is one principal difference, one of home rule, and foreign rule (Mughals came from outside, but did not owe alligiance to their country of origin), I unfortunately lack the energy and time to have a lengthy and endless argument on this, especially when (while you seem atleast interested in discussing) there are many pro British elements around. By the way, in your free time, do read teh United Kingdom page. It is near impossible to not see the hyper excessive pomposity, begining from the lead itself (look at those adjectives, as if nothing should be left to hail it to the skies).

All the same, trust me I am reasonable, and if there happens to be somewhere I can help, in a "not so polarised issue" (I am sure there must be some area where people dont have such extreme views), do ping me.

Take care.AJ-India (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)