User talk:Deeptrivia/Archive16

Good call on the Desi article
Thanks for removing that section. I didn't like it much but when I gave the article a going-over and removed lots of material, I kept some borderline stuff so as to reduce the shock. It's good that someone else, not me, took it out.

Still needs work. All we have is famous writers. I think we should have actors, directors, famous chefs, etc. Just been busy. Zora 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

please stop reverting my edits
Please stop reverting my edits on the indus valley civilization article.I also made a small addition to the "ancient India" link with the ancient Pakistan link so readers are not confused.If there's a mention of only modern day Pakistan while a mention of only "ancient India",the reader will get the impression the entire region was India.The indus is also part of ancient Pakistan.

I simply placed the Pakistan tag because I saw several indian project tags on the talk page.This has justified me to tag this article to the category of Pakistan related topics. Regards Nadirali 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to remove those Indian tags then it's fine with me.I'll do the same with the Pakistani tags.Please the term "ancient India" is very nationalistic.There never was such a country as "India".Just a group of indipendant states.These states were were only united after indipendance from Britain.By removing all refferences to pakistan,it's clear you want to claim the indus for yourself.Please stop this so-called "academic" claim.The term "India" was invented by the greeks evolving from the words "Sindhu" and Indus.The word really meant nothing to the people of SOuth Asia.The Arabs and the other civilizations reffered to Sindh.Please this claim over the Indus is very imperialistic and disrespectful to Pakistani editors. I'm placing the tag in the right place and replacing the reverts you made. Nadirali 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What you propose works fine.Leave it there and we can work together without any furthur unecessary edit warring.Happy new year and Eid mubarak to you too. Nadirali 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What?I thought we agreed to leave it there.If Unre4L is reffering to other Pakistani related items such as Allama Iqbal being pulled into Indian articles,they clearly don't belong there and you know it.I haven't found anything else so far but if I do,we'll talk about it.No I'd rather they be talked about on a neutral page(our talk pages preferable) since we'll have many Indian users favoring keeping theese items for the India project. Thankyou Nadirali 03:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the right page it can be discussed on.It's [here].I'll post there once in a while when I have time,but I want to keep the discussion limited to that page only as I find it the most neutral page for now. Nadirali 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you. can u provide me blue box which has all links as on mrtag. Vishu123 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barn Star
Thanks for the barn star.Dineshkannambadi 03:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagar Empire
Hi. Happy New Year. I have taken care of the basic clean up (though much more is left in the form of flowing prose, excessiv linking etc). Shall I first nominate for Peer review so we can dive in and start working on the article, or do you want us to work on this first, clean it up and then submit for peer review?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Architecture
I made the mistake of creating a new page with the "a" at the end and lost the history of the original article "Vijayanagar Architecture". What do I do now?. Request a deletion of the "Vijayanagara Architecture" article and rename the original article correctly?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "a" sounds fine to me.Dineshkannambadi 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vijayanagar is English, Vijaya"nagara" is local Kannada. So I will move this article to peer review.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fayssal, take a look at Vijayanagar Architecture, and Vijayanagara Architecture. The latter is the spelling we want to keep, but the former has the whole article history. So, basically, we want all that history to go to Vijayanagara Architecture. Could you delete Vijayanagara Architecture, and then rename Vijayanagar Architecture to Vijayanagara Architecture in order to acheive this end? Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done DT. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nominated for Peer review. Now we can have more inputs. From past experience I know there are some glaring issues (too many links), so we can now start on this article.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Abrai Baran
Hi! Do you know what Abrai Baran is? Is this the name of a singer or a song? I am refering to. By the way, here's a funny song for you. Happy New Year! deeptrivia (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thank a lot for that, I really appreciate it! I've never heard of that song before, I'm very sorry. But listening to that song it seems that Abrai Baran is the name of the song. I'm very sure of that. Thanks a lot for that funny song, hehe. Though, I usually listen to Iranian or Afghanistani music, but Tajikistani (Tajiki for short) is exceptionally good. If you are into Tajiki music, here is another Tajiki song that I think you will like: enjoy!. And have a great and happy New Year and I wish you the best for 2007! :-D      Parsiwan 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
I was gratified by your kind message on my talk page. I similarly hope to continue to learn and grow and I hope you also learned something from the discussion. If we can approach the issue with wisdom, compassion and good judgment (and a wealth of good faith) we should do just fine. Thank you for your words and I wish you pleasant dreams! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week
You have been invited to help improve the article Sita Ram Goel in this weeks's Hinduism collaboration. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. See also these related articles. 

You can also vote for next's week collaboration at the project page: Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week. Unfortunately, the Collaboration site is little known, that's why the reminder. --Bondego 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Falak music
Hi Deeptrivia. I'm really sorry I don't know anything about Falak music so I can't really help you with that. But I can help in another way. I know another user who is extremely knowledgeable on almost everything and probably knows something about Falak music. His user name is User:Tajik. He is also from Afghanistan and is probably the most knowledgeable person on Wikipedia when it comes to anything Persian and Iranology. Try contacting him, I think he might be able to help you out. Good luck! Behnam 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PLease don't blank valid content
Deleting this text so quickly in the midst of a related debate creates the (hopefully false) impression that you're hiding evidence that could support an argument against which you are debating. Please don't delete it again. . Have a great day! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agenda
I'm not sure what precedent you think there is for your 'agenda' table, but it only includes your points. Please delete it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - but please don't leave the discussion unless you actually want to. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Om shape and four states
The article is referenced and I am aware of the theory/correlations from other sources. Who Nitin works for has nothing to do with it. Please desist. A Ramachandran 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Deeptrivia. The sound is more important than the curves. But I would request you not to make curves a big issue (small issue, OK). I am with you if the vibration part needs more emphasis. OEM, of course, can be and is written in all languages, including English, in different ways, all are auspicious. Regards. Aupmanyav 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, Nitin's profession is irrelevant, ask other editors for sources. If none is available, then it should be removed. Aupmanyav 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask Nitin for source, or perhaps Mr. A. Ramachandran can provide it. Otherwise remove. Aupmanyav 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aup, have you seen the article that the citation in question points to? It includes numerous references. Do you have a reason to believe those sources, references or assertions are incorrect? Do you have any contradictory sources to examine? Rather than blanking them, I've actually offered to validate the assertions there by examining the references. Seems more informative and encyclopedic to me than erasing sections of text without making any effort to validate them.  -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The religionfacts.com article is "By Nitin Kumar of Exotic India. Reprinted by permission." It would have been great if the article had inline references. It just has some references at the end. No one knows what they correspond to. In any case, some references are from books written by non-notable authors published by non-notable publishers. In case it is taken from another non-notable reference by the author of the present article, its reliablity does not improve. Given the low regard written symbols have in Indian culture (ref: mantra), given the fact that the Devanagari Aum symbol is very recent compared to the history of the syllable Aum, given that the symbol comes clearly from the Devanagari A, U and M, given that there are different symbols from Aum in different languages, the semicircle theory is an extraordinary claim, which, according to wikipedia policies, require extraordinary evidence. deeptrivia (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Just some references', like 7 books. Don't worry. If the claims in the article aren't true, an examination of the sources will reveal it, and if you're uncomfortable with Mr. Kumar as a source, we can cite the references directly. In the meantime, try to avoid blanking it out again (especially while a debate rages). Tell me, which specific books do you claim have 'no notability', and on what basis? I'll also do my best to determine whether they are, or whether you're merely grasping at (invisible) straws. - User:RyanFreisling @ 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In case I can expect you assume some good faith, we can continue to discuss this. These two are definitely unreliable to begin with:
 * Sacred Hindu Symbols by Gautam Chatterjee, Sandeep Prakashan -
 * Pandit, Bansi. The Hindu Mind. New Delhi, 2001. deeptrivia (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'definitely'? for what reason? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See google scholar results on them. I will appreciate it if you resume this discussion only after you have verified the sources. Also, you will need extraordinary evidence from many sources to prove this extraordinary claim. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was you who had said he was leaving the discussion. I'll discuss what I like where I like - and as far as 'extraordinary' goes, you'll have to do better than trying to find google references on an author who wrote a book 50 years ago to establish his claims as 'extraordinary'. Keep bending over backwards, you'll touch your heels eventually. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These books are all written after 1996, each one of them. The online database of our university library is huge, because we can access books from pretty much all university libraries on the East Coast of the US. These books are not on the database. Check if you could even find them in your library. deeptrivia (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did, and found the very first book you tried to dismiss in my stacks - and indeed, that's my error, the author was born in 1958 (not published, which was '96).
 * Author:	 Chatterjee, Gautam, 1958-
 * Title:	 Sacred Hindu symbols / text, Gautam Chatterjee ; photographs, Sanjoy Chatterjee.
 * Physical Description:	 118 p., [40] p. of plates : col. ill. ; 22 cm.
 * Publisher/ Date:	 New Delhi : Abhinav Publications, 1996.
 * LC Subjects:	 Hindu symbolism.
 * Material Type:	 Book
 * Status:	 Not checked out
 * Ya'll take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay you are right. A notable book on such an important topic written 50 years ago would have been cited at least a few dozen times in the course of 5 decades. How many times is this book cited in academic writing? deeptrivia (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh* How many times should it have been (again, published in 96)? And please try not to change your comments after people have responded.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delhi FAC
Hi! Thanks for the suggestion. Please make a better district map. We need participation from all India project members in this FAC. the article was on a sort of standstill. I thought FAC would be the best thing to move people! Please help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By tomorrow, I'll make red links blue. (if online info available, that is!) I am bit concerned about "Culture". It may need summarizing. Hope Nichalp comes soon!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the following links for adding some titbits on Old Delhi?, . Some user from Delhi may throw some more light. Personally I do not have any idea :( Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One more on Old Delhi.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is some links which can be used to add something on the Old Delhi culture. But the job is tough. Have also communicated Nichalp. We can try to prepare a draft, and then decide whether to incorporate it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Hinduism
I've just noticed that you removed yourself from Project Hinduism. I have totally forgotten about the portal! GizzaChat  &#169; 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE Dania
Hey Faisal, do you know the Dania who is the singer of this song? There seems to be nothing about her on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard about her before. She is a lebanese i believe. I could only find this link for now. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delhi FAC comments
Could you please see Blacksun's comments in the FAC? I guess we need some die hard Delhiite to take care of the culture section. Please help. I am also requesting some others. You can communicate with your known people as well. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan
Turns out he's a Hindkowan rather than a Pashtun actually. See the discussion page on Pashtuns which explains the articles that discuss his mother tongue which is not Pashto. Thus we can't include him in the article. He can be included in the Hindkowans article though. Cheers. Tombseye 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

India disambig discussion
Hi - please see my comments on the discussion page. Unfortunately, the "British India," etc. proposals are not valid because they reinterpret history. Rama's arrow 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Rupee
Is there any Indian Rupee

of the denomination of  Rupees Two and Annas Eight

Rupees 2.8 Annas.

Thank God I got it on RBI site

what is the value of this old currency. Can anybody help. p 2/8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.81.99 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

INCOTW
You voted for Sculpture in India, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
thank you indeed -- what have I done to deserve this just now? regards, dab (𒁳) 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding History of India Namechange
Hey bro

I thought we were getting somewhere with the discussion. But I just wanted to know, do you wish to build further on the argument and getting this solved once and for all? I really need to know this.

Here is my suggestion to clear this once for all. You just need to be willing to discuss this further with me. Unlike Bakaman who puts the argument back to square one, with 2 words.

I read the article you provided me, and I must say it doesnt apply to this case. If you can justify calling the Indian subcontinent, India, with the same argument I can justify calling Europe, Roman Empire.

Referring to the Indian subcontinent by a known term which is way more widely used is not only logical but more correct than India. But you just have to be willing to discuss this.

I had a feeling we were about to get it solved but then you seemed to have changed your mind completely. Let me know on my Talk page what you want, and we might be able to reach a fair conclusion.

Please note I am not POV pushing. Simply wanting to correct the article in a neutral way. I havent proposed outrageous suggestions which would omit India out of the text altogether, unlike the current situation

Just take a look at the History of India article and you will see what I mean. Even though IVC is in Pakistan, the article doesnt mention this, but the one settlement located in India, and we have this printed all over the page along with maps showing this location. I dont want any bias. But thats not important right now.

Looking forward to hear your reply.

-- Unre4L  ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ  UT 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gandhian economics
I've created this article after some research and nominated it at T:DYK. Please have a look in case there are any errors. Rama's arrow (3:16) 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Add the article J. C. Kumarappa to that. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption
Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help. Frank van Mierlo 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Conundrum
Hi there,

I am almost at the end of my tether with bickering on the Talk:India page. A number of editors, some well-intentioned (like user:Indianstar and user:AJ-India) and others of uncertain intentions (like user:Sarvagnya) would like to add (or, have already added and which I then reverted) various portions of text to many sections of the India page, an FA. These proposed edits, all initially made by user:Indianstar are not minor (i.e. they are of the size of a small paragraph), and they have not been discussed before. I have tried to start discussion going on the Talk:India page, for example: see Example1, or Example2 (the title of this section has been changed retroactively by user:Sarvagnya from "History section" to "Fowler's High-handed Reverts"). The problem as I see it is that the edits are either controversial, or cover old ground, or too listy. I get the feeling that these editors are not really interested in discussing the issues because they keep accusing me of "making a mountain out of molehill" or semantic obfuscation. Their view is that their edits are common-sense and 1 or 2 KB or text is no problem, and that no time should be wasted on discussion, especially elaborate discussion like mine. Here is an example of some responses: Example3 and Example4. In the background, user:Sarvagnya seems to be egging on the other editors to go ahead and add the reverted material again before the discussion is complete. I am trying to hold on until Nichalp returns from his vacation on February 4, but in light of user:Sarvagnya's unmitigated hostility, I am concerned. She/He has used uncivil language consistently. Here are some examples of language directed at me:
 * 1) "Will someone do me a favour by drilling it into his skull ..."
 * 2) "hiding behind an admin to justify juvenile editing practices ..."
 * 3) "Just improve it. Dammit."

In spite of my civil reminder to desist (see here), she/he has continued with his uncivil language and earlier today she/he changed the title of the discussion section retroactively from "History Section" to "Fowler's High-handed Reverts". (The discussion section incidentally had been started by me.) I am trying to keep my cool, but it is frustrating to hear such language consistently, when most of me, judging from the level sophistication of her/his writing, is itching to say something. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Another mischevous act of misrepresentation of my stand by Fowler. Anyway first things first. Talking of decorum or the lack of it on my part that Fowler seems to be harping on, may I remind him that he has called me a vandal for no reason other than his own ignorance of the rules.

His condescending edit summaries, couple of which I have pointed out on the India talk page, smack of unbridled contempt for the efforts of other editors; not to mention his ignorance of several WP policies.

And indulging in revert after revert after revert without any explanation whatsoever is like dealing a slap on the other editors face with scant respect for his/her efforts. Forget simple reverts, for someone who acts so very 'holier-than-thou', did he even bother to let people know before he rolled the page back two months?!

Its one thing to play to a gallery of admins and another to not lose sight of objectivity. He royally betrays his misplaced priorities at every step. He seems not to or not willing to understand that issues like style, formatting, grammar, article size etc., are NOT excuses to blank content or roll pages back two months!!

For example, there was this content about G4 and India's bid for a permanent seat that Indianstar had added. A bid for the permanent seat is an extremely significant and notable fact about India as is its space programme and its nuclear programme. So says commonsense. But not Fowler. He simply goes ahead and blanks it out offering no explanation other than another of his ill informed edit summaries(rv content that was added without discussion!!).

And when other editors decide that they will brook no more nonsense and demand an explanation of him, he comes back and sheepishly says that Indianstar's version was too wordy and that he'd have no objection if the same was mentioned more concisely as they've done on Japan!! So in effect, he has blanked out(vandalised??) content which even he agrees with, simply because the fact wasnt worded well??! What does he think he's doing! Has he even heard of cpedit?

And it is not like I am taking exception to his reverts because I have some sinister agenda. I've observed his editing behaviour since the last two months. And I see a disturbing and disruptive pattern and that is precisely why I've said what I've said. Its not like I am against every revert he does. Some, like the one he did today(the Afghan historian one) are certainly justified. But such ones are very few and far between considering that he has dozens of reverts to his name (counting just just this one article) in the short time that he's been on WP.

Sample the facts that he's blanked out:


 * India's bid for a permanent seat
 * India's nuclear capability
 * India's successful space programme. and many many many more.

Explanations offered : NONE. None until fellow editors took him to task. Sarvagnya 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Hi, I've started a RfC Talk:India. Any comments and feedback will be welcome! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re
Speaking of History of Bangladesh, I think sections 3-7 can be summarized into two sections: ancient history and middle-age-to-pre1947, with individual articles handling those sections. Note that, in some cases, the History of Bengal article does not cover local history specific to East Bengal. Also, some of the history is tied to that of Assam and Arakan, which were not part of Bengal until recent times. So, there must be a way to address these issues.

I suggest we go slow on this, and have the discussion at the thread you started. Thanks. --Ragib 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns map
Hey dude. I had a request. Can you make a map for the Pashtuns with the regular borders? The article is close to being FA again and this would be the final touch. I'd appreciate it. Ciao. Tombseye 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great job with the map. I owe you one so if you need a favor let me know. Thanks again. Tombseye 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello deep, your edits are being discussed here. Do care to leave a comment? Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan studies
I saw the article.It seems okay for now.Just don't add any hateful sites on the external links section like you did on Bakaman's talkpage.As long as the article stays free of Indian POV or bias,I have no problem with it.--Nadirali نادرالی

Indian Mathematics
Hi, Thanks for your citations, but the point of having Freedom skies citations out there (for the duration of the RfC) is for the commenting editors to be able to gauge the strength of the citations (or the lack thereof). That's why even though I had access to Ganguli's Isis citation etc., I refrained from adding them. I would request you for now to revert to the previous version, even though your version is better from my point of view. Thanks! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see your last edit. I guess I made a redundant edit!  Thanks.  Your comments at the RfC would be great too.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Deep, you do have a point. Most readers will not be aware of the RfC etc.  Please go ahead and revert to your previous version and include your references again.  I won't do it myself, because I am afraid it may look like I'm violating 3RR (even though I am not).  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, again, our message keep getting crossed! Yes, there are enough diffs that give an idea of what each persons citations looked like.  I have certainly included my history pages and Freesom skies to give the reader a good idea.  So, please go ahead, and please also comment on the talk page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi, I have carfted a version for Indian mathematics. The version can be accessed here.

Kindly compare the version with the present Indian mathematics article, the version which to which I edited earlier and the version prior to my involvement:-

I have:-


 * Removed every single peice of quotation. The quotations ranged from glowing praises by Lapalce and Einstein to critisisms by Professor Dani. The material may belong under "Indian mathematics" on Wikiquote but it clearly will not find it's place in Encyclopedia Britannica.


 * Provided citations for extraordinary cases. I will in time provide citations for the whole of the article.


 * Removed the very odd "Charges of Eurocentrism", which is based on personal opinions and in it's best form may find place in a newspaper or a magazing article but certainly does not belong in this logbook of knowledge.

It would be helpful if you voiced your opinion on which version to keep. Please forgive the minor mistakes, if any, in grammer and puncuation. Since some editors have been aggressive and meanacing, I have had the uncharecteristic inclination to work on Wikipedia through my exams and I will make a check for these mistakes. Regards, Freedom skies 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yoga
Hello, i'm coming from wikifrance, where I try to contribute to the article yoga. Your image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pashupati.gif, will nicely illustred the passage on Mohenjo Daro in our article, but the question is : copyright and format GIF (jpeg is prefered). Can you explain how it can be possible to use it ? Thank you and so sorry for approximative english. Bye.

Merci. Amicalement. Joseph.R


 * Tank you for for your so fast answer. I try to run your suggestion as :

, but this doesn't match on wiki france, the image does not appear. Amicalement. Joseph.R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.7.69.82 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi
Hi! How are you? What are you doing these days?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:
oops, my bad. Case of the two "Deep"s :) --Ragib 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Happy Holi !!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OR tagging...
Over at Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, you tagged the article as an but forgot to specify (on Talk) why/which parts of the article fall into that category. In your edit comment you simply state "unencyclopedic OR is what this article mostly is", which really doesn't help very much towards identifying what needs correction.

Alternatively, if the article is as incorrigibly bad as you suggest it is, nominate (with reasons of course) the article for deletion. -- Fullstop 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. I'll soon comment about it on the talk page. In the mean while, if you think it is not appropriate to have the tag on, feel free to remove it. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, you must have good reasons for the OR tag. :) I really don't know much about Hinduism to be able to comment on the validity of the Hinduism bits (which are all from Maleabroad's original text). If its as bad as his Zoroastrianism stuff was (I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case), well, then no talk is necessary - just nuke whats wrong. -- Fullstop 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ps: you can reply right here. No need to split conversations. :)

History of Pakistan
Hi, I noticed your disclaimer at the beginning of the article. I think it is redundant, because the first sentence of the article is a disclaimer in the first place. I have now linked the names of the three nations (whose histories overlap with Pakistan)&mdash;Afghanistan, India and Iran&mdash;to their histories. So, any reader can directly link to those histories should they so want. Let me know what you think. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Deeptrivia, I agree that book is not the best reference. I am happy to replace it with another.  For your other point, it is true that Britannica takes the tack of referring the reader to the History of India; however, Encarta, on the other hand, does have a History of Pakistan, which is more or less along the lines of the Wikipedia article (although less detailed).  It begins: The area of present-day Pakistan has a long history of human settlement as the cradle of the Indus Valley civilization, the earliest-known civilization in South Asia. This Bronze Age culture flourished in the area of the Indus River Valley from about 2500 to 1700 bc. The Indus River is considered the lifeblood of Pakistan, and the ancient culture that arose there serves as an icon of Pakistan’s territorial identity. Important archaeological sites in Pakistan include Mohenjo-Daro (Sindhi for “Mound of the Dead”), in Sind Province, and Harappā, near the Ravi River (a tributary of the Indus) in Punjab Province.

Pakistan’s cultural identity is traced to the centuries of Muslim rule in the region. In AD 711 Mohammad bin Qasim, an Arab general and nephew of Hajjaj, ruler of Iraq and Persia, conquered Sind and incorporated it into the Umayyad Caliphate. Thereafter Muslims continued to rule areas of present-day Pakistan for almost 1,000 years. For the first 300 years the region of Sind was the only part of the Indian subcontinent that was under Muslim rule.... My own sense, gauging the various changes taking place in many South Asia departments, whose faculty often write the Britannica/Encarta articles, is that many of these terms and histories are in a state of transition and the version in an encyclopaedia depends on who has written it. For example, the Britannica article on "Indian Mathematics," is now called "South Asian Mathematics" (and, since you were interested in WP Indian Math article, I should add that the Britannica article, written by Kim Plofker, is 13 pages long, and is the best written of the encyclopaedia articles on Indian math); however, for some other term Britannica will use "Indian ..." More later. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Encarta article is written by Saeed Shafqat, a Professor at Columbia University. Similarly, the World Book Encyclopedia article on Pakistan, written by Ayesha Jalal, begins with, Early civilizations. Pakistan has a long and complex history, dating back at least 8,000 years to the Mehrgarh civilization in present-day Baluchistan. Later, around 2500 B.C., one of the world's first great civilizations developed in the Indus Valley in what are now Pakistan and northwestern India. Ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro (also spelled Moenjodaro), the two major cities of the civilization, lie in present-day Pakistan. The ruins show that both cities were large and well-planned. By about 1700 B.C., the Indus Valley civilization had gradually declined.


 * Similarly, the Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition, 2001-2005) has a History of Pakistan which begins with: The northwest of the Indian subcontinent, which now constitutes Pakistan, lies athwart the historic invasion routes through the Khyber, Gumal, and Bolan passes from central Asia to the heartland of India, and for thousands of years invaders and adventurers swept down upon the settlements there. The Indus valley civilization, which flourished until c.1500 B.C., was one of the region’s earliest civilizations. The Aryans, who surpassed the Indus, were followed by the Persians of the Achaemenid empire, who by c.500 B.C. reached the Indus River. Alexander the Great, conqueror of the Persian empire, invaded the Punjab in 326 B.C.
 * These articles are written by people in mainstream scholarship. I'm not on any side in this dispute, but I think the History of Pakistan as well as the Histories of Bangladesh, Nepal, etc., for better or worse, are here to stay.  It doesn't matter that Pakistan or Bangladesh were not even a gleam in anyone's eyes before the 20th century, but the histories of the regions now occupied by these countries can still be written, and will necessarily be different&mdash;not by POV, but by their focus&mdash;from a larger history of (historical) India or South Asia.  That has already begun to happen with new sub-topics like Mehrgarh, which were excavated in the 1970s and 80s, long after the partition, and whose current archaeological expertise is either in Pakistan or in France, but not in India.  The emerging historiography is already focusing (and will likely focus even more) on links to other contemporaneous Neolithic cultures in Iran and Central Asia rather than later cultures in current-day India.  However, your general point about keeping POV (of Pakistan studies or any other studies) out as much as possible is well taken.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Shafqat is a full professor at Columbia, but may have an adjunct appointment at Islamabad (where he use to be chair). I know about Jalal's tenure story, but, regardless, she is a first-rate historian.  Her book, The Sole Spokesman is superbly written (whether you agree with her conclusions or not).  She is also the author of Modern South Asia with Sugata Bose.  By "dispute" I simply meant the various points of view being advocated on the talk page (which I only cursorily read), consisting of one side insisting that a History of Pakistan didn't make sense and the other insisting that not only does the History of Pakistan exist, but the History of India should have any references to events outside the border of present-day India. I think the History of Pakistan (whether is makes sense or not) can be written by focusing on all the histories that intersect in the history of the region that is now Pakistan.  That means that sometimes it will be a part of the History of Punjab.  Other times, that history may be part of a history of Iran or Aghanistan.  But I don't see a problem with writing such a history.  Mehrgarh was likely a part of the History of Neolithic Iran in its early phase, but it became a part of the History of the Indus Civilization (as a precursor) in its later phase.  The problem arises when someone tries to impute some kind of historical or cultural imperative to the region that is now Pakistan and looks for seeds of Pakistan in events of long ago.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would simply have a History of South Asia (and include Sri Lanka in it) and then have all the other histories localized in space and time, i.e.: History of the Archemenid Empire, History of the Delhi Sultanate. Chicago, the premier department in South Asian studies in the US, has been offering History of South Asian Civilizations for more than 25 years.  See here.  However, the various Indian nationalists on Wikipedia won't be happy with History of India being replaced with History of South Asia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Jalal article! Look forward to reading it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. And I agree with you that in any such cobbled-together history of Pakistan one will have to be wary of creating false historical connections between two regions just because they happen to fall in present-day Pakistan. Good point. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zu Chongzhi
Zhu Chongzhi on this figure should be Zu Chongzhi, can you fix that? Thanks. -- Boggie 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP Tibet!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

re Pashtuns
Hey thanks! Tombseye 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion Animation
Hi there Deeptrivia, I was wondering how I could go about citing the sources you mention in this edit; It seems to be a Wikipedian-created animation, probably patched together from a variety of sources. Could you point me to the correct policy/guideline page that could help me with this, or at least tell me what kind of source I need to cite? I think it adds greatly to the article, and want to get it put back in via legit methods. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rdance.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rdance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tavern1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tavern1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Higherself.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Higherself.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Andijan poll
Hi, I would like your opinion on this. Regards, KazakhPol 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Ananthabhadram/archive1
Submitted Ananthabhadram for a peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sitar
Have a look on Sitar article. I made some changes. there seems to be a strong Pakistan and Afghanstan POv. I have sugested to talk about Setar in a separate article. Thanks. ~rAGU

"Diophantus got the first knowledge of algebra from India"
Hello Deeptrivia. On December 16, 2006 you added to the article Diophantus the statement "Diophantus got the first knowledge of algebra from India" and gave three references for that statement, two of which were
 * 1) "Florian Cajori, A History of Elementary Mathematics, 1898"
 * 2) "Saradakanta Ganguli, Notes on Indian Mathematics. A Criticism of George Rusby Kaye's Interpretation, Isis, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Feb., 1929), pp. 132-145"

The third reference that you gave actually went against your statement; it said that the origin of his algebra is unknown. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone could know that Diophantus got his first algebraic knowledge from India considering how very little is known about his life, how he would most likely have had more contact with Mesopotamians than with Indians (if there was even any contact at all), and how not a single modern history of mathematics book that I have ever read has even hinted at that possibility. If you could be so kind as to give me a direct quotation, from one of the two books that you referenced, that explicitly says that Diophantus got the first knowledge of algebra from India then that would be highly appreciated. Thank you. selfworm _ _ ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is in FAC
The FAC of Lage Raho... has started. Please drop by if you are interested. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)