User talk:Himhifi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Fatehpursikri.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fatehpursikri.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Goldentemple.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Goldentemple.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Skyline-NewDelhi.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Skyline-NewDelhi.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pakistan
Please refrain from making disruptive edits to articles, especially as you have done to Pakistan. If you wish to add this information then you must follow the conventions used on Wikipedia. First and foremost you should NEVER directly copy the text verbatim - i.e. don't just make a text dump in the lead section. I know full well that that is what is written at each of the websites you quoted, but on Wikipedia it is necessary to write it in as neutral a tone as possible. I suggest also that you fully read this page which explains how to cite your sources properly. It's not just a case of adding the link at the text, it needs a proper citation in the references section. As for your sources, I would think carefully about the verifiability and reliability of those websites. The CIA Factbook, Transparency International and the newspapers are reliable but the Punjabilok article is more of a personal opinion by someone who doesn't give their name, work address or position and that isn't exactly a neutral source - plus it was written in 2002, whereas something from 2006 or 2007 would be more appropriate. Considering we are now a few weeks from 2008, the same can be said about the Nation article - it would be better to quote from Transparency International's latest information. Overall, your text needs refining, citing AND needs to be added at an appropriate location within the article. For example you could add it in the Government section or even perhaps in a daughter article. I hope this helps - Green Giant 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misrepresentation of facts - The article on North India is Heavily biased and contain South Indian Point Of View
In the first case the article on North India was written by Some misguided South Indians in their quest to vilify the North India which represents the majority population in the country and also reperesentative of mainstream culture. The article on South India was written to glorify it in comparison to North and rest of India. On the other hand the article on North was written as a disparaging and negative misrepresentation of the facts like a) North Indian population was derived from invading rulers from Iran and Turkey b) North India has no dance form c) It represents the Cow belt d) North India represent rural India with no development and economy f) It shares its musical and cultural heritage with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. The article's history and talk page are the evidence of what I am writing here kindly have a look before giving any warning etc.
South Indians only represent 20% of the population and their culture is followed mainly in four dravidian states of Tamil Nadu, Karanataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. The gross misrepresentation of facts is only possible because they represent large number of editors on wikipedia who are able to misrepresents the facts and demonstrate their point of view due to numerical strength!!
Kindly ensure a neutral point of view is maintained on the both the article on North and South India, Instead of misrepresenting the facts in order to depict South India as a progressive, cultured and industrialised part of India Vs depiction of rest of India as underdeveloped, illiterate and uncultured Vs South India.
a) The richest states with highest per capita GDP are Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat & Maharashtra and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi, None of the four Dravidian states is among the top Five in the country.
b) Even High Income states are more industralised, developed and have higher literacy rates than South India.
c) South India is not homogeneous and is devided on the basis of four dravadian languages namely Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. They have their own regional differences and disputes.
d) The situation in South India is not very different from rest of India in terms of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, politics, corruption, riots, Naxal violence, law and order problem, infrastructure, health and education etc. If you comapre South with the worst performing states than it may look better, but the problem remain unresolved. Why not compare South india with some developed country in Asia like Singapore which has per capita income of US$ 26,481 Vs South India of only US$ 625.00. This means the per capita income in Singapore is 43 times higher than South India. This clearly indicates that South india is not very different from rest of India and has to go long way before it can boast of having a distinction of developed nation status like Singapore or Japan.--Himhifi 08:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Source: [1][2][3]
[edit] The basic Idea behind Grouping States in North Part Of India is Flawed.
The article was written with the malicious intention of maligning, disparaging and vilification of people from North Part of India. North India doesn't exist as a single unified entity as South India which is unified by Dravidian languages, South Indian identity and unique culture. As a matter of fact everyone in North Indian states will tell you where they are from instead of calling themselves as North Indian etc. Infact the depiction of people from North India as North Indians is itself flawed and unnecessary. If you ask people from Delhi, Punjab or Gujrat they will tell you they are either Delhite, Punjabi or Gujarati etc they will never tell you that they are North Indians as great variation exist between the culture of these states to group them together forget about grouping people from Bengal (North East) and Gujarat (North West) as North Indians.
Even though there is a great variation in culture of say Punjabi and Bihari people they are still called North Indians and grouped together in this article. Therefore it’s difficult to group all the states in the North Part of India on the basis of culture, linguistics, economics and demographic trends. There is a great variation in all these aspects throughout the length and breath of the country and it’s not required.
Political parties in the South have used the regional card to seek votes from people who have anti-Hindi or anti-North Indian sentiments. In contrast North Indian states don’t have any major movement or aversion towards South Indian states etc. No wonder article is full of discrepencies and requires an immidiate attention as it is edited by people who have limited knowledge or skills for editing etc. At best the article should be rewritten with a neutral point of view, discovering common ground without any bias or anti-pathy toward country men from other states in India. --Himhifi 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Himhifi please use for tildes (~~~~) as the Sine bot suggests so that there is a link back to your talk page and the date stamp is correct. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also please read: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". Comments to the Talk:British Raj like this one (which I moved to the archive and did not copy back as it was clearly in breach of the Talk page guidelines) and now this one breach this guideline. Please keep you comments to specific issues about the content of the article.
- For example, from you last posting it may be that you are objecting to the sentence in the article section Post-war developments: Transfer of Power "With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence."
- You will find that with less a less confrontational approach you are able to influence the content of the article far more effectively. Rather than you last posting a more constructive approach would be:
- I disagree with the sentence "With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence." because this source (ABC123) says that the British foisted the partition and the timing of the partition on the Indians. Is there a source to back up the assertion the sentence makes?
- People will then be able to explain their support for the sentence and some sort of compromise that supports both POVs can be achieved (something dictated by WP:NPOV). Hope this helps --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: You are Welcome to edit article on North India!
Thanks for the invitation :-) I will probably jump in at some point, but probably won't be able to do so anytime soon. From what I can see all the regional India articles North India, North-East India, except maybe South India need some work, so may be a good idea to add them to India noticeboard collaboration dashboard or something like that. Desione (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
