User talk:Ovsek

hello my name is Amanbir Singh, Good Morning. Check this out, it'll clear you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Army#Change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.238.200.58 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ovsek! Thank you for your contributions. I am Narnat and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! This was done by narnat! (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make changes without discussion and consensus

Tou recently moved the page Indian Army during World War II but this was not done with the consensus of other editors and it will be moved back. You should discuss your reasons on the Talk page first. Please be aware that the official name was Indian Army before 1947. British Indian Army was invented by Wikipedia to differentiate between the pre-independence army and the army of the new country. There are no contemporary sources which use the term British Indian Army. Dabbler (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your posting and copied from my Talk Page

The Indian Army during the period of British rule was only ever known as the Indian Army, it was never known by any of the other names that you suggest. I guarantee that you will not find a single reliable source stating that it was called that at the time. As Wikipedia only deals with reliable sources, we cannot use thos other names. During the same period, the British legal term for India was either India as in the India Office in London or the Government of India (in first Calcutta and then New Delhi) or sometimes the Indian Empire or occasionally, and unofficially, British India. Secondly, the Indian Army and the Indian National Army are two completely different entities with different organizations, aims and each has their own Wikipedia article. The information is already there in the article on the INA. Dabbler (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Hello, I'm Hmains. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Muhammad bin Qasim because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Hmains (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well,all i just said that is,he had no concept of Pakistan.Pakistan was created in 1947 and Muhammad is from early medieval time,he had no concept of Pakistan still he is considered as first Pakistani,in wiki as encyclopidia it should be added.Because it is also a fact.Ovsek (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that there were no references provided to support the statement. Hmains (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indian Army. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hmains (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at India in World War II. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 05:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Indian Army during World War II‎, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Dabbler (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Next time do not remove the whole parameter, just remove the data like "strength = NNN", remove just "NNN", not the "Strength" parameter. If left blank, it'll not be displayed! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Military history of Pakistan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what I removed??Dominion of India was the legal successor of British India,Pakistan was created in 1947,was it vandalism,because truth hurts.Ovsek (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you removed? How about half an article, please be more careful. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it vandalism?I added Partition of India?Following this Pakistan was created. Was it vandalism?I dont do vandalism.I add only information.Ovsek (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was when I saw how much content had been removed, but no it was not vandalism, just a mistake on your part I assume. It does not matter when Pakistan was created, the entire history of the region is covered in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are not you adding space after punctuations? You are being told for sixth or seventh times now. --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Military history of Pakistan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what does constructive mean?Ovsek (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Casualties

The figure of 37,000 Indian war dead in WW2 was a preliminary number from 1945 and is not correct. The current 2011-2012 Commonwealth War Graves Commission figure is 87,000. Since 1945 the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has been able to clarify the fate of those men who were missing in 1945, died as POW or died of wounds. The more recent figure of 87,000 is correct since it is based on 60 years of research. The self published web pages you listed pick up the older incorrect 1945 figure. You can check the CWGC figure on page 43 of their report [1] Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the bharat-rakshak.com web page you cited states More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, --Woogie10w (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Inquisition

Regarding your explanation for this edit, you are right in saying that Goa was part of the Maurya Empire in the 3rd century BC, but please note that Maurya does not mean the country known as India. I could argue that after the Mauryans, Goa was ruled by the Shatavahanas, Bhojas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Kadambas, Yadavas, the Vijayanagar Empire, the Bahmani Sultanate and the Bijapur Sultanate; but that is irrelevant.

During the period of the inquisition (1560–1812), Goa was in Portuguese India (note that the name simply implies that it is in the region known as India). The country India was established in 1947 and invaded Goa in 1961. Goa was subsequently annexed by India in 1962.

Having said this, however, I do not intend to undo your edit on the basis that you meant the Indian subcontinent not the country India. Thank you, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 07:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.Ovsek (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per your explanation for this edit, you seem to have ignored all I have said on this matter. "Goa was part of India dont debate on this obvious fact." Firstly, how can you come to this conclusion when 'India' as an entity did not exist back then? Secondly, debating is how we reach consensus here on Wikipedia, so you saying "dont debate on this obvious fact" just goes to show your narrow-mindedness on this subject. Regards, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 02:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither narrow minded, please do more research, Wikipedia is seriously systematically vandalized in favour of West. Do more research do you want to say India was created by British?? Still imperialist minded? I go to discussion board I can only tell you there are various articles regarding India about Medieval and Ancient India, then why do you oppose only this case? And Republic of India was created in 1947, not India.Ovsek (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point here. Why are you bringing up the British and the West when this has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Like I said before, Goa was and still is in the region known as India (Indian subcontinent). Even in ancient and medieval India there was no one entity; there were many different kingdoms and empires in the region throughout its history – a region can not be created by politics. During the Goan Inquisition (1560–1812), there was British India, Portuguese India, French India and also other kingdoms and empires; these were all separate entities.

British India was divided to create Pakistan, India and East Pakistan; even in 1947 when the Indian Union was established, it did not cover the area that the Republic of India does today. As to why I am so interested in this matter, it's because I am Goan and I want there to be an objective and unbiased analysis of its history. Regards, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 07:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was British India, before British come it was Mughal India, Sultani India and now republic of India. You are Goan not Indian??Ovsek (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if there were no other entities. Just look at the history of the Indian subcontinent and you will find that was not the case. What about the Maratha Empire or the Durrani Empire, Hyderabad, Bengal, Mysore, French India? It is not as straightforward as you seem to think it is. What about Portuguese India which was a separate entity and never a part of British India? Goa wasn't even a part of the Republic of India until its invasion in 1961. Regards, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 07:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do teach me Indian history?! After fall of Mughal empire(from death of Aurongzeb) they began to lose control, and then multiple independent states arose, beside this yet Portuguese India existed before even Mughals consolidate their power. After death of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq South india became completely free from Delhi( it was done by Sadah Amilrs, who created Bahmani kingdom) after it's fell it was divided between many kingdoms(5 all Muslims) during this time India's main power Lodi's strength was limited in North India only, Muslims kingdoms could not resist Portugal, this way Portuguese India was born and British India was born more few centuries later. What is here to argue with me?Ovsek (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? You have completely missed the point of this discussion. Clearly, you have either not read or not understood most of what I have said. You seem to be agreeing with me that there were many entities in India and that Portuguese India was a separate entity to British India (which succeeded as Dominion of India). I see no point in continuing this discussion if you choose to ignore what I have to say. Regards, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 10:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ever??Ovsek (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British India

Hello,

Your point that India was not independent during World War I is well taken. I left the link from the List of World War I flying aces from India directly to the article on British India for that reason. However, when you propose changing the list's name to include the phrase "British India", you are opening a whole can of worms. Whether you realize it or not, in effect you are proposing that other similar lists also be renamed to reflect "British Canada", "British Australia", et cetera, as they were also colonies at the time.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/India in World War I concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/India in World War I, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can any one write that article? There is a page on India in WW2, so I thought wiki should have similar on WW1. Please write that article then submit it.:)Ovsek (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]