User talk:Amrita62

June 2020
Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bangalore without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I already stated very clearly in summary. The sources are unofficial and moreover they are old. If you look other city articles such as New York City, London, Beijing or Berlin all of them provided GDP data from their official website rather than third party source. Whereas Indian city articles provided with three different sources with three different gdp data; therefore its better to omit Indian city gdp data till we get official data.--Amrita62 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi The Indian city articles and their Economy of ... articles such as Bangalore/Economy, Chennai/Economy, Delhi, Kolkata/Economy, Mumbai/Economy. They have all provided unofficial old data moreover with three different source mentioned in range. Is it fair to provide unofficial data rather than official Govt data especially in a city article. Other city article eg New York City, London, Beijing or Berlin all have provided official govt source; no third party source. Pls advice what is correct way.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not an adequate summary and is certainly not based in policy, if you believe that only official government should be used then you should at least attempt to discuss it on the talk pages of the respective articles. The page for India itself uses International Monetary Fund as the source for its GDP data which is a third party source as well. As far as I'm aware GoI does not provide metropolitan GDP data so it is redundant to ask for it when there are reliable third party sources which do provide it, please do not remove them. If they are old you can always add the year beside it or update it yourself. You also seem to be making mass removal on various other articles, that isn't a constructive process (please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:CAUTIOUS). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please advice what is the correct way forward. Should we mention GDP data of Indian city articles without official Govt source or keep with old third party source. Two of the sources are very old.--Amrita62 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In general policy would support what is saying above; reliable third-party sources are preferable to government sources. If there is a clear-cut reason for using the government source, that is something you would have to establish consensus for on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles; it is possible that third-party sources are out of date, but it's also possible that government sources are incorrect, or are using different book-keeping methods. If you want to establish a rule that government sources are preferable in this context, you would need to initiate a discussion at WP:RSN, but it's extremely unlikely that that will be closed in your favor. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanamonde93 for giving us valuable advice. I'm reverting my earlier edits & maintain status co.--Amrita62 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay
Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contribution. I noticed that you have removed many unsourced details from the page Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. Instead of removing those details, you could have added there just the citation needed tag, so other editor can add references there. Or you could have added the source yourself instead of removing those details. See WP:PRESERVE Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi There are way too many bullshit information added therefore how many "CN" tag I shall add. Moreover I looked for reliable sources about those materials but couldn't get it. I guess those materials were added by random IPs. Whatever reliable sources are their at present I have kept it. In future I 'll find more RS to add new information that person, but like I said very few RS is available at present.--Amrita62 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Note on your mass removals
I've noticed that you have continued to remove material from various articles such as the National Library of India, Zoological Survey of India, Institution of Engineers (India) with the same copy pasted edit summary of "unsourced materials removed; provide sources for the information". These edits include mass removal of over 1,000-5,000 bytes sometimes extending over 20,000 bytes on individual articles with no attempts at discussion or improvement whatsoever. Add to it the fact that some of these removals also include sourced content (such as this one), I would suggest that you immediately stop this activity as this kind of conduct is a direct contravention of the wikipedia's editing policy. Please try to understand why this is not a constructive way of contributing to the encyclopedia, if there are unreferenced text then they are more likely to be provided references if they are left so (as long that don't contain contentious or controversial claims especially with regards to BLPs) and if you really want to improve those articles then you can provide them yourself. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I already told you earlier I have kept important information which are sourced even if they are unreliable, still I have kept it; nor I didn't verify those sources. But, the one which are completely bullshit I have removed. If you can added reliable sources then please contribute however if I find any good sources to back that information I will add. Unreliable bullshit information added by various IPs must be removed. Good information backed by good scholarly sources or at least reputed news based sources should be their. I'm 100% sure those shit information were added by various IPs now they couldn't find any source for those information. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of what you have removed don't at all look like "unreliable bullshit information". For instance you have removed the entire body of Institution of Engineers (India), the removed material would still be included in a well sourced article. The same pattern is followed in a large quantity of articles where you have practically removed everything from the body. It is highly improbable that any attempts at finding reliable sources were made considering the scope of your removals and lack of any addition of references during the process. This is disruptive to a constructive process, please understand that wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not a requirement. Neither is there anything wrong with IP editors, their edits are subject to the same policies and guidelines as all other editors and their edits are also worth the same. The general populace who make edits through IPs are not generally aware of wikipedia's policy so no it is unlikely that "they couldn't find any source for those information" rather than them just not knowing that they need to source everything or even how to add references. I'm sorry but if you keep disregarding the editing policy (please go through it as linked above if you haven't), I'll have to report you to ANI. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I categorically said it earlier whatever information is added "must be" properly sources I already checked thoroughly before removing those bullshit information. If you want to complain on ANI go ahead ping me. Always remember you have to provide reliable source (such as scholarly source or at least news based source), unsourced materials shall be challenged and removed. As simple as that. I have no problem if those information were properly sourced. Non the less I still kept vast materials intact considering the sanctity of the article. And, if you can find good source please go ahead and developed those articles whats stopping you. WP is not a place for junk materials. I myself said it earlier if I find good source I will definitely add. Remember if users those who read WP get wrong information then WP would lose credibility soon; getting wrong information is far worse than little information which is "reliable and authentic". In today's world reliable and credible information is very important. And, if you want an admin to intervene on this issue I'll ping one.--Amrita62 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this particular edit for instance which was in fact sourced albeit in the wrong format and for which you apparently checked thoroughly? Or can you explain how reducing an article size from 37,660 bytes to 9,576 bytes is keeping vast material intact? Or this edit where you removed a person's year and place of birth, for which one of the first sources is this one which can very easily verify it? And can you please explain how are all these "bullshit information" or "junk information"? I don't have the time or energy to follow up on every under-developed article you leave behind in your quest to challenge the most inane bit of material without inline citations (that is in contravention of policy) and I don't want to report you to ANI unless it becomes absolutely necessary but since you don't want to listen to me at all either, then yes go ahead and ping any admin to intervene on this issue. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First for the Zoological Survey of India article I have removed vast material because not a single source has been provided in the main body. Despite that I kept history section knowing that it has only one source. More adequate source required in the history section as for as other section is concern which I removed due to lack of source. Removing unsourced material is not a crime but providing wrong information to the WP user is dangerous thing. Therefor providing good reliable sources is very important. Second for the Bijon Bhattacharya article I restored his place of birth after you provided me with the source; earlier I couldn't able to find it. I re added that information with your source. Third for the National Library of India that's completely wrong way to put a source anybody would get confused; nonetheless I re added that info with slightly rephrased way. Source too has been added.--Amrita62 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Because of the fact ur in a very mirage sense of self imporatance and Romanticism of Monopoly over the intellectual sphere .... ritwik Ghatak wrote short stories everyone of the intellectual spear of Bengal know that it's true I have a book with multiple office short stories more than 10 of his short stories compiled in a book by Rani Rai a professor at various universities of English language I will provide the source material citation and also right beside ritik name also as a short story writer because he has written and I have the book Samx don (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Playwright is the word used by Cambridge and oxford, recently Lincoln centre did use the same word for ritwik
a person who writes plays for the theatre, television or radio..... Dictionary definition Samx don (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We have the right
If we have a source material if we can provide a citation we will edit the pages you cannot edit a page after I provide the citation I have an account and if I have a citation I will edited and if you want to do it without a purpose like changing playwright into play writer which is not the correct way to use linguistics this work talk to us in our schools the one who writes a play should be called a playwright rather than a play writer as playwright is a single word play writer is the word commonly used by commonfolks lincoln centre Cambridge Oxford Harvard everyone uses the what playwright not play writer and also in the list of Hrithik Ghatak relatives nabarun Bhattacharya will come nabarun Bhattacharya was one of the few people close to him he was the son of mahasweta Devi e and the son of bijon Bhattacharya and also for your kind information national film archive of India and the documentary profile of a director by the government has explicitly mentioned ritwik Ghatak's other ventures into various fields of arts at if I find a written source trusted of course I will edit it and you cannot read it if you don't have a point, just to claim your supremacy over Wikipedia edits and increase your count and number of edits that you have done Samx don (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some spelling mistakes are there as it was narrated...it's a technical problem Samx don (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Film style
Many international critics such as derek Malcolm Adrian Martin and also Johanna explicitly mentioned about the film style of Hrithik Kumar Ghatak I think I will create a section of that in his Wikipedia page providing every citation that is needed don't try to hurt or attack the credibility of Hrithik Kumar Ghatak Ashish and moinak two of the spinner scholars of Bengal and also Paul willemen explicitly mentioned Hrithik Kumar Ghatak does not have a cinematic predecessor his work could only be placed alongside manik bandopadhyay and bahadur khan not becide any filmmaker I have the citation and that is what I will give as an edit ritik Kumar Ghatak wrote a book on field theory named rows and rows of fences and also cinema and I about that book Satyajit Ray said this book covers every aspect of filmmaking that is the level of a theorist we are talking aboutI am searching for the citation and I will make him as a field theory as well because he was not just commenting he was expounding theories on his cinematic style which is also taught in jadavpur University and also in ftii and him being a film theorists is also credited by the national film corporation of India and also there in the document ready made by the government Samx don (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Film theorist** Samx don (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't leave misleading edit summaries
In this edit, your edit summary only mentioned about template but in essence, you made several changes to the infobox and lead. This is disruptive, please don't do that again. Also, use talk page to discuss the changes first. -- Zayeem  (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave misleading summary, maybe I didn't mention entire editing done by me. I reverted your edit and mentioned in summary, why?.--Amrita62 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

2 points
Hi. First of all, your behaviour at User talk:Shaheed Hemukalani was completely uncalled for. Please abstain from phony use of warning templates, and maintain civility in conversations. Secondly, in a number of WB election articles that you've edited recently you've entered erroneous voting figures into infoboxes. For example here you added 14,65,220 votes for CPI(M), whilst the correct number per ECI would be 14,652,200, you put 10,51,215 for AITC whilst ECI gives 10,512,153, you put 5,80,539 for INC instead of ECI number 5,805,398. --Soman (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you accuse Shaheed Hemukalani of "extreme vandalism" (!), but in fact you were the one who removed sourced material. --Soman (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for correcting my error on WB elections article, I corrected those "popular vote" data from the ECI website. I admit, it was a gaffe from my side. As for the CPI(M) article since you are not willing to remove those unsourced information I will add CN or fact tag wherever source is missing. WP users would think whatever is written in WP is accurate; but reliable sources are missing from the article. As an editor we do have a responsibility of providing credible information with good quality source. You must not forget in age of fake news / biased information only scholarly source or atleast reliable news outlet source must be mentioned otherwise WP would lose credibility soon. For Communist Party of India article is concern monitor this article thoroughly because  would continue to add bizarre information. My suggestion is we should follow Bharatiya Janata Party and Chinese Communist Party both are Good articles. Take a look at All India Students Federation Shaheed Hemukalani is continuing to add bullshit information others are reverting his edits. If this goes on he'll destroy these article. I'm damn sure he might be a member of the party. He has started massive promotion for the party. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

British India
I've noticed that you've made a number of edits changing India to British India. Those are not really correct. During the Raj, all Indians whether they hailed from princely states or British India (i.e. regions of the British Indian Empire directly administered by the British) had the same passport. Gandhi who hailed from a small princely state in the Kathiawar Agency had the same passport as Jinnah or Bose who were born in British India proper. Their nationality was Indian, and as you will see on the British Raj page, the region itself was called "India" in common parlance. I would urge you to first self-revert en masse, and if you feel strongly about this, please open a discussion thread on the Talk:British Raj page, where several such discussions have taken place before. You might want to rummage the talk archives first. Thanks and best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I checked previous discussions regarding this matter on the Talk:British Raj page, its not clearly mentioned that nationality of those born before 1947 should be Indian or "British India". If you check on the Talk:Jagadish Chandra Bose page a similar discussion took place where even admins are stating "nationality" should be British India linking British Raj. Also please check Muhammad Ali Jinnah or Srinivasa Ramanujan here infobox states British India instead of Pakistani or Indian. And what about Ram Mohan Roy who were born before British Raj; should I state British India which actually redirects to Presidencies and provinces of British India or simply state Indian. I have no problem in reverting my edits, but some clarification needed so that all Indian bio articles especially historical persons nationality is clearly stated. Also check A. K. Fazlul Huq, Ziaur Rahman or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy here nationality is given first British India, then Pakistani then Bangladeshi instead directly stating Bangladeshi. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are conflating "India" during British rule and the Republic of India. Admins don't have any status here. I am the primary author of the articles British Raj, Company rule in India and Presidencies and provinces of British India.  I am on vacation, but if you insist on your POV, then please start a discussion thread at Talk:British Raj.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you're the primary author of these articles then there is not point further discussing on this issue. I reverted all my previous edits and made "Indian" in the nationality parameter.--Amrita62 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not mean Indian, but rather Indian in the British Raj ; otherwise, Bhagat Singh would be being described as a citizen of India which on Wikipedia is the same as Republic of India I am on vacation and strapped for time, but very sorry for the confusion.  If you have the time, please correct these pages.  For people of the subcontinent who died before 1947, their nationality would be Indian in the British Raj  For those who were born in the Raj, but died after 1947, it would be: Indian in the British Raj before August 15, 1947; in the Dominion of India between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950; and in the Republic of India thereafter. If they were born in the Raj, but died in Pakistan, it would be: Indian in the British Raj before 14 August 1947, Pakistani in the Dominion of Pakistan until 23 March 1956; in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan thereafter.  It would be similar for Bangladeshi nationals but with the additional change in 1971.  Finally, if they died before 28 June 1858, then you should write: Indian in Company rule in India.  Thanks again,   You could initially try this out for a dozen names, and then wait for any responses before proceeding further.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The way you've written is very confusing; you should mention in a bullet points; anyway I corrected Bhagat Singh, Ram Mohan Roy and Bidhan Chandra Roy. Tell me if its ok or not then only I will proceed further. Extra hard work.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did mean bullets as in Albert Einstein, or at least semi-colons, as in Akshay Kumar. But "Indian" which is piped to British Raj with no explicit mention of the Raj will both draw understandable flack from Pakistani or Bangladeshi editors on pages such as Jinnah, Iqbal or Suhrawardy and run counter to WP:EASTEREGG.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thus, for someone were born in the Raj, but died in Pakistan, it could be:
 * Indian in the British Indian Empire before 14 August 1947;
 * Pakistani in the Dominion of Pakistan until 23 March 1956;
 * Pakistani in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan thereafter.

Or, an even better, and less problematic is:
 * British Raj before 14 August 1947;
 * Dominion of Pakistan until 23 March 1956;
 * Islamic Republic of Pakistan thereafter.

This is similar in spirit to your original version, but we cannot use "British India," which has a specialized meaning. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Came to this discussion after discovering few recent edits of Amrita62 on my watchlist. With due respect, I would disagree with your suggestion of using India as the nationality, even by piping British Raj, especially for people who died before 1947 like Rabindranath Tagore or Muhammad Iqbal. This is also against MOS:EGG as a reader in 2020 would expect to be redirected to the Republic of India article while clicking on a link to India, not the British Raj. I think Amrita62 was right in their edits in changing India to British India and I would request them to reinstate that version of those articles. If there is a problem with the term "British India" than simply keeping British Raj would work fine. Otherwise, just eliminating the "Nationality" indicator in the infobox would also work, as seen at Franz Joseph I of Austria. Technically, the concept of nationalism didn't emerge in South Asia till the later half of 19th century at least and there were no nation-state in this region before the emergence of India and Pakistan in 1947. So calling people belonging to the earlier period as Indian nationals is quite misleading. -- Zayeem  (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Same, I've reverted Amrita62's edits on Nehru and Vajpayee's pages (which were on my watchlist), I really don't see the point including nationality in the infoboxes—which are by their nature supposed to be concise—when they can be inferred from the 'birthplace' parameter pretty much. –17:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained above that I did not say what is being attributed to me. Many of those people were called Indians, and the Raj was called India (e.g. at the Olympics or at the League of Nations or the UN provisional meetings).  British India, however, is incorrect, and as I explained above.  British Raj is fine, also I have suggested in some reverts I made that "Nationality" is famously imprecise; much better it is to change it to citizenship for dates after 1876, i.e. after Victoria was crowned Empress of India.  Although Dalhousie and demarcated sovereignty for the subcontinent in the 1850s, I am not sure if there was any notion of citizenship before 1876.  This is essentially what you are saying.  So, summing up for dates after 1876 use citizenship and my last bulleted version above; for dates before 1876 do not use either nationality or citizenship.  The reader can read what they need to in the lead paragraph.   That there was no nation-state in this region before 1947, however,  is not quite correct.  There was an empire. It saw slow legislative reform, which while not reaching that of the settler Dominions such as Canada or Australia, was slowly approaching theirs; it issues passports; it was represented at the Olympics as "India," not as "British India" or the "British Raj"; it was invited to the League of Nations after WWI as "India;" it was invited as a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 as "India" not as British India.  It's more complicated than you think.  As I've already explained, I'm on vacation, and I'm not in the mood to explain for the hundredth time things I have been explaining at Talk:British Raj for 13 years.  I'm deferring to  for this.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging RP separately as I had already signed the post before the ping.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See the original 51 UN Founding Member States (India 26 June 1945; Deposition of Ratification 30 October 1945
 * See India as a Founding Member_states_of_the_League_of_Nations
 * See India as a participating nation in the 1924 Olympics]; at that time Burma was as part of India.  Jinnah and Iqbal considered themselves to be citizens of India.  That a large part of India before 1947 came to be called "India" after 1947 is the chief cause of the confusion.  But we can't change that.  [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler| Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this is confusing. Pre-1947, everyone in what is now Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were identified as "Indian" but, obviously, that's not the case post-1947 (or 1971) and that results in the mess we find ourselves in. Using "Indian" for the nationality of people who lived and died prior to 1947 is confusing because, as Zayeem points out, the reader will think the India of today which is incorrect because those individuals never got to make the choice. I'd go with British Raj because it includes the areas under direct and indirect control of Britain and I'd also support not saying "Indian" for anyone who died before 1947, whether or not they lived their entire lives in the area that is now India. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds great.
 * PS While I have these things in my head: See also the Britannica page of Iqbal: "Muhammad Iqbal, in full Sir Muhammad Iqbal, also spelled Muhammad Ikbal, (born November 9, 1877, Sialkot, Punjab, India [now in Pakistan]—died April 21, 1938, Lahore, Punjab), poet and philosopher known for his influential efforts to direct his fellow Muslims in British-administered India toward the establishment of a separate Muslim state, an aspiration that was eventually realized in the country of Pakistan. He was knighted in 1922." British administered India is of course British India, but we want a more transparent rephrasing of British Raj.  One such, following Britannica, could be: Nationality/Citizenship: British-controlled India  As it is being preceded by "British-controlled," it is no longer an instance of WP:EASTEREGG.  The term "British controlled" would include both "British administered" provinces and presidencies and the indirectly-ruled princely states, i.e. = Raj.  But this is for another time.  For now, I think British Raj is fine.  Thanks, RP, Zayee, and Amrita62.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, those who died pre-1947 it would be "British Raj"; fine. But what about those who were born before 1947 but died after 1947 like Mahatma Gandhi or Nehru or C. V. Raman. I would suggest under citizenship parameter mention "British Raj" (Start Date - End Date) then India (Start date -End date), better to avoid nationality. 2nd point for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, A. K. Fazlul Huq, Ziaur Rahman or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. I would prefer to change their infobox parameter from nationality to citizenship.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That might be too much. I suggest that for pre-1947 deaths we say "British Raj", for deaths after 1947 in India or Pakistan we say "Indian" or "Pakistani", for 1947-1971 deaths in present day Bangladesh, we say "East Pakistani", and post 1971 we say "Bangladeshi". Ideally, of course, we just don't use the nationality parameter and stick to citizenship at death but, if we do, then we should try not to overload it. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 's suggestion should work perfectly and be implemented. Fowler&Fowler's opinions are also noted. Thanks. -- Zayeem  (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Awaiting Fowler&Fowler's response. I'll wait another two days then I'll go ahead with RegentsPark's policy.--Amrita62 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You've added another wrinkle with your labeling pre-1857 people as being citizens of Company Raj. I'm lost on what to say here. We can't say India, we can't say British Raj, but Company Raj seems less than correct since that wasn't a nation. Any suggestions? Should we just say "Bengal presidency", "Madras presidency"? This is getting confusing. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the presidencies did issue coins until the early 1830s(?) in the name of the Mughal Emperor. Then William IV began to issue rupee, half-rupee, half-anna, and other coints, in the name of EIC and Victoria followed in 1840.  (See: User:Fowler%26fowler) So, I imagine there was at least some kind of passport or travel document when South Asians traveled abroad, and we know they did.  But to know whether the passport was issued by the Office of the Presidency of Fort William (Calcutta) i.e. Bengal Pres, the seat of the Governor-General in Council, or the subsidiary presidencies (Bombay, Madras) would be hard.  I don't have hard evidence, but based on coinage, you could say as RP does, "Bengal Presidency," "Madras Presidency," or "Bombay Presidency," (based on the individual's birth location) until 1835, and Company rule in India for the period 1835 to 1858.  It this is too complicated or deemed unreliable, I would defer to RegentsParks recommendations.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know RegentsPark "Company Raj" is not correct way to define citizenship since it was not a nation. I think we can say "British-administered" or "British-controlled" or "British India" or "British-subject" or "British dominion" piping to Company rule in India. As far as "Bengal Presidency," "Madras Presidency," or "Bombay Presidency," are concern I'm sure how far that is correct or appropriate under citizenship parameter.--Amrita62 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop with your mass changes to nationality on every single article you see now. If problems were raised about your particular edits on particular pages then sort them out on those talk pages or appropriate noticeboard than introducing problems on other pages. Mass changes require broad consensus which you don't have. Wareon (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed thoroughly please read carefully above mentioned information; already consensus has been reached. I'm reverting your edits.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your talk page cannot be used for establishing consensus for your mass problematic edits. Wareon (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait till you revert my edits an admin has already been involved in this matter and under his guidance I'm changing nationality status. Kindly intervene.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No body told you to make mass changes nor you have any required consensus for it. You need to take responsibility of your own edits than push baggage onto others. Wareon (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of mass reverting what problem you should have tell on the talk page an admin is involved moreover an experience editor such as is involved. If you have any problem we will address it. Don't you have patience.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is just no justification why one needs to tolerate the errors you are bringing pending discussion on your talk page. Follow WP:BRD. Wareon (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry brother chill we will address your concern. Shortly admin and other shall intervene. So relax. Just calm down instead your mass revert. If have any issue we will discuss here or any other place. Wait brother instead doing mass rv of my edits.--Amrita62 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use British Indian Empire, but not British Raj, which just means British Rule in Urdu. British Raj is no nationality. Zakaria1978 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Wareon (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wareon (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Waiting for the SPI results, probably to be reblocked indefinitely--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jagadish Yadav alias Akhilesh ji Think tank of CPI maoist
please write about Jagadish master alias Akhilesh ji politburo member of CPI maoist Ranjanbose159753 (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)