User talk:Kumaonkings

Mahendra Chand
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Mahendra Chand, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Chand Kings of Kumaon. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

possible i must have erred and might be erring a few more times before things getting streamlined

Kumaon - Kumaun - Chand kings - pithoragarh - uttarakhand do have the same history hence possibly i might have cut pasted (kumaonkings)

Would like to know that if (Kumaon - Kumaun - Chand kings - pithoragarh - uttarakhand have the same history) ythan can they have the same data on the present royal family?

All the abovementioned sites have the same story to tell and have to talk on the same history / have the same history. (Kumaonkings)

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Chand Kings, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. utcursch | talk 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please don't copy-paste the same unreferenced content into other articles such as Uttarakhand or newly-created articles. utcursch | talk 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Royalty in india is abolished and all the royal titles have been withdrawn, however at the people level it is still followed, accepted and practiced in day to day life.

There are many royal families in India today and they are addressed to as King / Raja even today but the titles are not recognized by the Indian government.

If we assess the titles of the present kings that it is not recognized hence it cannot be verifiable but when we assess if it is practized than we can find that yes every where. (kumaon kings)


 * Adding the information about the former royal families is OK, but please a reliable source. utcursch | talk 07:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppose I am from the royal family of Kumaon(As you must be aware that there are many such families in India but the titles are not recognized by the govt as the govt itself stopped the privy purses of the royal families after promising them the same, after their states were allowed to be brought under the Indian govt administration) but it is still practised (Gujarat, Jodhpur, Maharashtra, Hyderabad Nizam,Jaipur, Patiala, Bangalore, Gwalior, Meghalaya, Garhwal, Kumaon, Nepal, Himachal to name a few states)

All the members from the abovementioned royal families of these states are still addressed to as Kings, respected and adored in the abovementiones states but, the titles are now not recognized by the govt.

If we ask the govt if there are any kings in any part of India than the answer will be NO. If we practically see if the points are right but, cannot be veriafiable but accepted and followed, than the answer is YES.

If we say that there are presently no royalty in India than, possibly we are not telling the truth.

How do we go about on this?

(Kumaonkings)


 * If you don't have any source for that, you can't add it to Wikipedia. See Verifiability. If we don't abide by the principle of reliable sources and verifiability, anyone can claim "I am a descendant of Ashoka the Great or Alexander the Great", and insist that this should be added to Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 14:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets take the discussion forward,

Firstly I object to your sarcastic words " I am a descendant" and so on. Instead you could have written that "I am related to so and so". It would have been more acceptable. Possibly this is the way we Indians are used to writing and than claim to know a lot. Possibly we write it this way and know a lot. Possibly we do not like discussion. possibly we think that we could not be wrong.

History is often brought out in front of laymen by the winner and almost all the times it is distorted (facts never come out).

1.Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged by the Britishers. This is taught in the Indian books and every one knows about this subject. It is nowhere mentioned (Wikipedia or the Indian books) that their bodies were cut in to pieces and thrown in Sutlej and their families collected the pieces from the river. Do you not think that it is hiding the truth by Wikipedia?

2.B R Ambedkar was a great man, we accept it and it is being advertised. No where it is mentioned that he was the only Indian to oppose Indian Independence and was being paid by the Britishers for the same.

3.Portugese rule in Goa - Indians fought to reclaim Goa from the Portugese, we all know this part of the history. No where it is being mentioned that the Portugese forcibly converted Hindus in Goa to cristianity. One person from the crowd was brought out, his eyes gouged out and due to this fear the others were forced to convert to cristianity. From a Hindu majority state it became a Hindu minoroty state in no time.

4. Mahatma Gandhi is not the father of the Indian nation but every where it is mentioned that he is the father of the Indian nation and we do not have proof as to how is he the father of the nation. Which resolution in India was passed to name Mahatma Gandhi as the father of the Indian nation.

5.Jinnah was a liberal but he has been painted as the person who created Pakistan and a real villian (hope you were aware that he used to eat pork, which muslims are forbidden) He was sidelined in the Indian politics because some other persons wanted to lead India and due to it, he leaned towards muslim league (Before this, he never talked about creating Pakistan)

6. The biggest portrayed leaders in Indian history are the one which are associated with Congress as the Congress ruled for maximum of the years (I would like to make it clear that I am not against any political party as I keep away from it)

I can write more points after points for which you possibly will be surprised or may be not if you have only one way of thinking and not open to other views.

You cannot find the above facts in wikipedia. The Indian government will never come out with a white paper on some of these subjects mentioned (because in politics we need to keep one or the other section of the population in good humor to get votes) We will continue to know the falsehood of the winners.

(kumaonkings)

I do not feel that it is worth discussing on any of the subject with you.

You seem to be impatient, intemperate, hyper and I, Me, Myself kind of a person.

I thing I made a mistake by writing my views to a person who has been appointed by wikipedia for filteration job with a straight view (As during horse races, the eyes of the horses are covered so that they look straight during the race)

You need to have a broader vision but, now it seems too late.

You will not find any more replies from me.

(kumaonkings)