User talk:Thoreaulylazy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk Page

All,


Please feel free to leave me any comments you like and I'll try my best to reply in a timely manner. Also, if you wish to read other material I write, you can see my blog.


Cheers,

thoreaulylazy


[edit] Welcome

I like your User ID — it describes me accurately. Welcome. --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

[edit] Need a little help with Indian-American article

Some dude deleted a lot of stuff. --Dangerous-Boy

I can't tell if this guy is vandalizing on the Indian American and Asian American article. I think adding Asian Indian is redundant and drastically changes the tone of the article. It's already mention in the beggining of the article and in classification. --Dangerous-Boy

[edit] Hi,

I agree w/ the comment you left on my page. Glanced at your blog. Something made me think youmight enjoy a book by Julian Jaynes, "The Origin of Consiousness in the Breakdown of he Bicameral Mind" (or something like that). His theories are presented "over the top" and quite exagerated, but otherwise built on a sound basis. They do provide some insight into why people act the way they do. linas 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race classification on Indian American article

You might want to check that section out again. User:Dark Tichondrias was messing with it and adding a tripod site as a reference that doesn't look very reliable. --Dangerous-Boy 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So his is information correct? I remember Indians being classified as caucasian although many in the eastern part of India are of mongoloid origin.--Dangerous-Boy 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In general, I don't like the idea of having a lot of information about what international anthropologists or geneticists say when the article is concerning Indian Americans. It seems like any broadly scientific explanation of race should be on a page about Indians or about Racial Classification of Indians and not about Indian Americans. Given that the article is concerning Indian Americans, I feel only relevant information from U.S. Courts, U.S. Census, and perhaps the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (and maybe U.S. public and private universities) should be included. It makes sense that U.S.-specific categorization of race should be on an Indian American page. The only anthropological or genetic racial classification mentioned in the article should be those points which the U.S. Courts examined and passed judgement on; any other factoids seem extraneous. All this said, I feel that if I remove any of the irrelevant data from the article a revert war would ensue, so I haven't bothered to remove anything. Still, I want to make sure that the table of U.S. court verdicts on race maintains its veracity and my revert earlier to resync the table with the primary source was testament to my vigilance. Thoreaulylazy 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider looking at the racial classification page. After seeing dark tic uploading this pic: Image:Kenneth Omura Sun Bikini 4.JPG and making articles like Asian people, I'm beginning to think he's a vandal. --D-Boy 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your defintion of a vandal is not based on official Wikipedia policy.You had called the change I made to the Indian American article, changing Indian American to Asian-Indian, article vandalism. I know this term disagreed with you, but that does not make it vandalism. You have called the addition of a picture of myself, an Asian example, to the Asian people page vandalism. There were no free-use Asian pictures, so I added a free-use example from the only person with whom I have permission--myself. I consider unjustified accusation that I'm a vandal which is a different accusation than I have vandalized a Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples of personal attacks due to your repetition of accusation which you have not justified. --Dark Tichondrias 04:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I indented your comment, assuming you were replying to D-Boy. In regards to Indian American vs Asian Indian, I think Wikipedia, as an international repository, should use names that are well understood. An Asian Indian article to a Frenchman would not mean an article about those in the USA of Indian descent, especially since the term 'Asian Indian' doesn't even elicit the name of America. In fact, even in the US, the term 'Asian Indian' doesn't always correspond to Indian Americans, as it often is used to reference people from India who still live in India, so as to avoid the confusion with Native Americans in those parts of the US where 'Indian' still means Native American as its first interpretation, which is common in the vernacular of rural USA. Fortunately, for brevity's sake, as India creeps further into mainstream literature and periodicals, the term 'Indian' is increasingly returning to its original meaning of 'from India', and 'Native American' is increasingly the disambiguator, rendering 'Asian Indian' a less and less needed phrase. Thoreaulylazy 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indo military history

I'd love to start it but I don't really know much about indian military history. You might try most the suggestion at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_India and Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics --D-Boy 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Started it up: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force --D-Boy 07:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Pakistan and their pre-islamic heritage

What you said is mostly true, except that there are many, if not most, diasporic Pakistanis who do feel proud of a pre-islamic past. Its more in what they choose to feel proud of. The thing is however that they like to emphasize certain aspects over others. Like, they dont acknowledge Hinduism or Brahamanism or what not. After the Indus civilization, they will much rather look to the Achaemenid imperial era, the Greco-Buddhist era, the Buddhist imperial era, the Parthians, Scythians, Sassanians, Kushans, etc and other distinctly northwest Indian events to emphasize their historical "separateness" from India, when in reality, these separate events are no more separate from the rest of India than an Assam Ahom invasion or the South Indian trading empires are. Out of nationalistic pride, Pakistanis have this obsession to emphasize that they were a Buddhist and Zoroastrian nation historically rather than Hindu when they fail to realize that all of India was Buddhist at the time, and at the time of the Arab invasion, Punjab and Paki-administered Kashmir were all Hindu and NWFP was a Hindu kingdom. All in all, they like to pick out certain parts of their past over others, like Buddhism over Hinduism, to fulfill a nationalist vision of a continuous "Pakistani civilization" as opposed to being part of Indian civilization. Very few Pakistanis, as you said, however, feel any pride in their Vedic past. There are those who do. You just have to find them. All in all though, you are right. Afghan Historian 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone

I noticed you added information to User:Schi/iPhone, so I wanted to make sure you were aware that iPhone is an article (a repacement for the one you edited). Hope that helps! (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Himachal Pradesh tribal women in traditional dress.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Himachal Pradesh tribal women in traditional dress.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Himachal_Pradesh_tribal_women_in_traditional_dress.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Himachal_Pradesh_tribal_women_in_traditional_dress.jpg. I noticed 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 {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helpdesk.

Hi, I transferred your question to the help desk. See the following changes : [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kl4m (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey,

DO u go to UCLA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, went to Stanford. Working now in NYC. Yourself? -- Thoreaulylazy 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable

Are you saying that Henry David Thoreau is lazy???? That's UNACCEPTABLE. I find your user name highly offensive!! Just joking. Actually, on second thought, Thoreau was kind of lazy . . .--Gnfgb2 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Laziness is a virtue! =) If it weren't for all us lazy folk, imagine how unproductive normal folks would look ;-) -- Thoreaulylazy 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell me about it. If I could, I would retire today (and I'm 27!). :)--Gnfgb2 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weigh in?

Since you took part in the recent RfC on Talk:India, it would be great if you could weigh in here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)