User talk:Bharatveer

Welcome!

Hello, Bharatveer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just curious, why did you remove the info about sanskritization from the Kerala article? --Khoikhoi 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeatedly removing the sanskritisation sentence from the Kerala article without any explanation? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it was irrelevant . That word,I felt was mainly intended add extra "political" connotations where none existed.

Thanks for your reply Bharatveer. Would you be able to say this on Talk:Kerala? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Please use edit summaries while editting so that other editors will know what changes were made. Why have you removed of arundhati roy info from the Kerala article? --Raghu 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what has ms.roy got to do with malayalam literature? The fact that the setting of the novel was in kerala does not qualify itself to be placed in the Malayalam literature section.BharatVeer

Ok I have inserted another sentence to have the continuity of Malayalam literature and reworded arundhati roy sentence to make it clear that she writes in english. Hope that is enough. Btw you can sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.--Raghu 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the request that you use edit summaries when you edit. It really helps other users keep track of changes to articles on their watchlists. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to do that every time Bharatveer 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't doing this on talk pages, which is why I posted the comment. Also, it isn't common practice to divide comments with horizontal rules; you simply indent your response another level below the one above it.

So, this is how another comment would appear,

And this is now the next would go.

Please know that I'm simply trying to help you out here; I hope I don't come off as "do this! do that!" It takes a little while to get used to the Wikipedia culture and practices! — BrianSmithson 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok .Thanks for your helpful suggestions Bharatveer 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident of Kochi

In response to your message on Talk:Kochi, India
Residents of Kochi are reffered to as Kochiites (two i's). It occurs frequently in the new indian express, and I believe the word is their creation too. link -- User:Deepujoseph/sig

replied to your msg in Talk: Kochi Bharatveer 17:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thought I should take the discourse out of Talk:K. R. Narayanan to our personal talk pages. Now,I inserted the comment as a response to your specific point made on 03:33, 1 May 2006 [1],that

The article is almost all sourced from leftist view point. So questioning the veracity doesnt make any sense.

I had signed my comment,with the corresponding date and time, and proper indentation, which makes it perfectly distinguishable from the next comment you had made (which is also signed properly). I think its okay with wiki talk guidelines. If it is not so, please enlighten me. And, you seemed to be particular that there is something wrong with the article, with statements like "The HIndu" newspaper in the matters concerning "hindus" cannot be concerned as a reliable source".So as someone who has spent considerable time with this article, I thought I should know whats wrong with the article so that we can correct them.Thanks--Sahodaran 11:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think, reading the whole article one gets the feeling that Shri.Narayanan was some sort of a heavy weight politician ,which he was not . In kerala politics , Mr.Narayanan was not much valued as a politician .The article does not highlight these aspects.Bharatveer 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahodaran, "I thought I should know whats wrong with the article so that we can correct them" I thought you were ONE person there. If not Pls enlighten me on that. ThanksBharatveer 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool down. I'm sorry. No offence meant. Not my intention to be uncivil or spark off edit war. -Pournami 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Yes, I changed the edit on Oman. Just Grammar mistake. But There is no mistake for articles. The world ;but changed into , but. I just changed this. Daniel5127, 03:22, 4 May 2006(UTC)

Review request

Hi! I've put the Kochi article up for a peer review. Could you please see the article and post your comments here?
Thanks!-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardin Maravan pada

Hi, i could see the information about the maravan pada is no more there. Could you explain please? Thanks

Regarding maravan Pada.

Please gimme more references about Maravan Pada, if you have. jeyarajan_r@hotmail.com

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you, Bharatveer!
Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/!? 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

Just a Friendly reminder

I have notice that you have violated wikpedia policy of having more than three reverts within 24 hours while editing Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Please be careful. Please do not mind my friendly reminder. It is just for your knowledge. Thank you. --- Faisal 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone is doing some thing right he is still not allow to violate 3RR. We could still be polite and friends with each other. Even though I am against your thoughts regarding Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh article. --- Faisal 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just protected it also, since the blanking seems to involve a Help:Edit conflict (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not). This is what happened at Kerala several months back (someone blanked some text w/out explanation, but admins took it as a content disput and protected it). But thanks for seeking outside help to cool things down. Saravask 18:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone's RfA thanks

Dear Bharatveer — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Ton e 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi

Hi! Probably this is the first time we are interacting. I will give a reply in Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics, but later. Basically, we cannot deny the fact that there was no geo-political entity called India before British Raj. I am not sure about the british rule period. of course there is India after 1947. And you know, I have seen many debates on this topic. Once there was an effort to change many "India"s to "South Asia" - ridiculous. However, there are these notions prevailing. We should defend that. Because "Ancient India", "Middle age India" are known terms and nobody can change that at their whims. However, at the same time, we have to accept that their view (that there was no India historically) cannot be refuted either.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those points. Those will come handy later on for defending further similar debates.

Well, the historical boundary of India is difficilt to establish. several dynasties ruled in Northern and Southern India, each having own boundary. Of course there was some entity called "India" in the past (your points, like European adventures to find out India etc). But what was that entity exactly? Was it like present India, or was it like the usual British India (including present day Pakistan and Bangladesh), or did it include Burma and parts of Afghanistan as well? These are the points people comes up with, usually. In fact, AFAIK, during British rule also, they used to refer in documents as "India" and not "British India" (which is a term probably popularised later). "Bharat" was geopolitically undefined. This is the basic point debaters of the other side sticks to. And I myself have not found out emphatic points to refute that view. Of course I shall be happy to find out some. And thanks to more participation from Indians in Wikipedia, this brigade of points are building up (like your points).

You can see some points in this link to see the debate I referred to regarding South Asia and India. However, that particular link is regarding many poits other than this debate. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pederastic couples

Hi, could you back up this edit, please: "removed nehru's pic- Wolpert is not a reliable author w.r to India" Thanks, Haiduc 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but by itself that is not an indictment of Wolpert and may well be an indictment of the others - after all a great deal of prudery surrounds this topic, and many historians avoid it. What we need is a reference for actively disqualifying Wolpert, and this particular claim specifically. Haiduc 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I hope you will grant me this much, that the least you can do is to provide sources and references for your contentions. You cannot expect me to just take your word for it, everybody is opinionated in their own way. In the mean time I will try to track down Woplert's sources. Haiduc 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the rules to play god and stand in judgement of the scholars. If there is dispute it has to be noted. We are not the final arbiters here, we are the scribes. Haiduc 12:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are dancing around the main point here. Others agree with Wolpert, not least of which Oxford Press which published his works, not blindly we have to assume. Thus you cannot delete the material, all you can do is mention that the material is contested by many, and provide references. I am sure you do not need me to lecture you on this topic. It is also significant that a number of primary sources remain under tight control. That too needs to be mentioned. Then readers can make up their own minds, not we for them, that's what I mean by playing god. Haiduc 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some references: [2],

and [3] I could have kept on looking and finding, Wolpert is no flake, unlike some of his detractors. Haiduc 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Bharatveer. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Indian Culture

Well, this article has got a complex history. I created it first as a daughter article of South India, whose "Culture" section was getting bigger otherwise. So I summarised the "Culture" section of the article South India and shifted the original content to create a new article South Indian Culture. Now, a few days afrer I created that article, other editor(s) insisted that there should not be a seperate article on South Indian Culture, rather it should be a redirect to South India. However, I pointed out that South India should not only contain cultural info, it should also contain geography, history etc.

Later on, after some discussion, it was decided that two articles were to remain seperately. You can have a look at those discussions in the Archive1 of talk page of South India. Now, of course, South Indian culture is a part of Indian culture. But I guess the cultural difference between South and North (or, for that matter, North-East, West, East) Indian cultures differs significantly in certain respects, for example, cuisine, attire, style of sculptures etc, and of course, language. And each region deserves a seperate article. This will portray the incredible diversity we have in India, and also help to easily write and intra-wikilink the mother article Indian culture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more clarfication, you can write at talk page of Robin klein. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, your reference to that word remindes me of something. Initially, the article South India was full of that word, and also of the importance of "navel". These may be important (I am not a pundit in culture of South Indian states), but the over-use was irritating.

Of course there are/ought to be seperate article on Culture of Kerala, Culture of Andhra Pradesh, Culture of West Bengal etc. However, since South India is a more or less geographically defined region with a distinct cultural heritage (though with incredible diversity within itself!), IMO, no pont why there should not be a South Indian Culture as well. Do you think I had a devious plan of divisive mentality while creating the article? ;) Please, no. My primary intention was to summarise the "Culture" section of South India. Later, the article went on to become quite good. This was done when South India was a Indian Collaboration of the Week, in early April this year. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISRO

The article on ISRO had to be reverted to get back the previous full version. (somehow, ot got truncated during edition by another user). In the process, some of your edits had to be reverted, too. It could not be avaoided. Please do not mind. And please re-do the edits you did on that article once again. I am really sorry for the inconvenience. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment u made at User:Dwaipayanc 's talk page that "even the small paragraph that Bharatveer had written basically repeated what had already been said in the 1960s section" .

Will you be kind enough to point out what i had "basically repeated" in that "small" paragraph.Bharatveer 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you understand, most of what I said was directed at Ejvyas's edits. Heres what I said, the second sentence before the - mark refers to how Ejvyas deleted more than half of the article, and was unneccecary too, the sentence afterwards was just an off hand comment, not intended to offend. Im not a perfect person, and so didnt think at the time that a random comment on the article was out of place in a message, because I was rather perplexed by what had happened to the article - as seen by my question of whether it was vandalism or inexperience at work.

"Thanks man :-) There was some missing from the history section too, but I restored it - I dont know whether it was a n00b at work, or whether it was vandalism, lol - even the small paragraph that Bharatveer had written basically repeated what had already been said in the 1960s section..."

What I was reffering to in the second half of the sentence, (and I agree I didnt need to mention it in the message really, sorry about that), was that your paragraph, while well intentioned, didnt really add anything to the history - the previous history section might not be that great itself, but in wikipedia we are meant to write in a dispassionate way, and encyclopedic way, etc. Thus material about 'awakening to the space age' was sufficiently made clear by the way Vikram Sarabhai was discussed as founding father, etc. TERLS had already been mentioned, along with its date of establishment, and a lot of the 'birth of a space power' type stuff was a departure from the encyclopedic style. Sorry for any confusion I caused - the ambiguous message has been removed so that it wont cause further harm. You may not agree with the edit perhaps, but unfortunatly thats what wikipedia is all about, so called 'cut throat' editing - things that I have written before have been similarily edited - if my comment had been part of the 'edit decription', it would not have been out of place - sorry again for any confusion. Vastu 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addendum, here is the history section:

In the early 1960's, India was slowly awakening to the Space age. Although rest of the developed world was preparing to reach for the Moon, India was making her humble beginning.A small rocket that took off from Thumba on the outskirts of Thiruvananthapuram, announcing the birth of the modern space age in India. That was when the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) formally came into existence. Over the years, TERLS have given birth to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) and to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO).

And the prior history section:

Dr. Vikram Sarabhai was the founding father of the Indian space program, and is considered a scientific visionary as well as a national hero. After the dawn of the space age, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957, he recognised the potential that satellites provided at a very early stage. India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who saw scientific development as an essential part of India's future, placed space reseach under the juristiction of the Department of Atomic Energy in 1961. The DAE director Homi Bhabha, who was father of India's atomic programme, then established the Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR) with Sarabhai as director in 1962.

Unlike every other major space programme with the exception of Japan, India's capabilities were not born out of an existing military ballistic missile programme, but instead out of the practical goal of eventually having satellite launch capabilities. From its establishment in 1962, the Indian space programme began establishing itself with the launch of sounding rockets, which was complimented by the position of India near the equator. These were launched from the newly-established Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS), built amongst the jungles of Kerala. Initially, American sounding rockets like the Nike-Apache, and French sounding rockets like the Centaure, were fired and used for studying the upper atmospheric electrojet, which until then had only been studied from ship-born sounding rocket launches in the Pacific Ocean. These were soon followed by British and Russian rockets. However, since from day one, the space programme had grand ambitions of developing indigenous technology, India soon began developing its own sounding rockets, using solid propellants - these were called the Rohini family of sounding rockets.

Recognising the need for indigenous technology, and the possibility of future instability in the supply of parts and technology, the Indian space programme endeavoured to indigenise every material supply route, mechanism and technology. As the Indian Rohini programme continued to launch sounding rockets of greater size and complexity, the space programme was expanded and eventually given its own government department, separate from the Department of Atomic Energy. In 1969 the Indian Space Reasearch Organisation (ISRO) was founded from the INCOSPAR programme under the DAE, continued under the Space Commission and finally the Department of Space, created in June of 1972.

I dont mind any of my edits being re edited .I never wrote that sentence "...about coming of age", i merely added one or two words like "developed" to make it more meaningful. Anyway thanks for ur explanation. regardsBharatveer 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry again, it may have been added by another editor - things were rather confusing - its hard to see from the history page how far back an edit goes sometimes. Regards, Vastu 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]