i would appreciate it of you could please answer my query "Punjab Map in Public Domain?" [comment # 36].
IJ. -- 203.101.163.104 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
helpful links for creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, policies.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 22:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tom, good edits on Rail gauge -- however, I noticed you changed 'Northern' and 'Southern' to the uncapitalised forms in the paragraph about post-Civil War gauge rationalisation. North and South were capitalised because when used about the Civil War, they're proper nouns (referring to the Union and Confederacy, respectively) and not just indicators of direction. I'm going to change those back -- unless you don't agree, of course. —Morven 22:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I'm curious how you define the various regions on this page - several are so similar to each other as to be not worth distinguishing separately (e.g. the Alpine and Carpathian forests, which share the same species to a very high degree), yet you also removed the east/west split of the Mediterranean high altitude conifer forests that I'd put in, where there's quite a lot of differences in the species composition between them. - MPF 00:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was using the World Wildlife Fund/National Geographic listing of the 867 ecoregions, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_pa.html
there are articles for each ecoregion, of varying lengths, that explain the criteria for delineating each ecoregion as they have done; the WWF reports are more detailed than the WildWorld articles.
WWF/NG put the conifer forests of the Atlas Mountains in the Mediterranean conifer forests ecoregion, and the montane conferous forests of Italy in the South Appenine mixed montane forests ecoregion. The WWF puts a few Mediterranean-climate conifer forests in the Mediterranean Forests, Woodland, and Shrub biome, including the South Appenine forests. The Pyrenees forests end up as a separate ecoregion in the temperate broadleaf/mixed forest biome. My biodiversity text indicated that the central european and mediterranean high mountain ranges have a lot of endemism, so it may be reasonable to separate the Alps, Pyrenees, Appenines, Atlas, Carpathians, etc.
This is not to say that the WWF ecoregions are definitive, but they are the chosen convention for the wikipedian ecoregion exercise. Where there seems to be some expert disagreement about how to split the ecoregions, we could explain further in the individual articles.
One of the areas of ambiguity is where to put mixed forests ecoregions; the WWF/National geographic convention is to put broadleaf and mixed forests together, with conifer forests separate. There is obviously some discretion involved here (Does gray go with black, or with white? how about light gray and dark gray? how light or dark?), and sometimes the WWF and National Geographic don't agree. One solution would be to list mixed forest ecoregions with significant conifer forests in both biome types, as you have done with the Valdivian temperate rain forests. Tom Radulovich 00:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tom: nice job on the Ken Wilber phases.
goethean
Hi Tom, I've just been through all these to correct the box layout problems - found out that the problem was the inclusion of the line
<table align="center"><tr>
at the start of each subsection and
</table>
at the end of each subsection; once these were removed, the tables work.
In some of the tables, the regions are listed bold, in others, they're not; I don't know if this matters at all, but I've edited so that in each individual table, they're all the same (some had some sections bold, others not) -
MPF 10:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom, thanks for doing something on Themidaceae - which seems to be only the latest in a long series of public works you are doing around plant taxonomy. Can you explain a puzzle about the Asparagales? The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's website has a dendrogram on it that puts Themidaceae miles away from Asparagaceae, but our page says that APG2 (2002) allows them to be included within it. Has there been a further revision, do you know? seglea 05:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure that abugidas evolved from alphabets? I was under the impression that they tended to be derived from abjads. — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There seem to be a quite a bit of differences in the classification of the Oregon coast languages. I've been trying to untangle the nominclature based on a good refernece standard. This University of Oregon site classifies the Penutian as a phylum with the families within in, so I chose to follow that. I see the Penutian both as a superstock as well as a family. There seems to be no generalized consensus among linguists for these particlar languages. You're welcome to reclassify if you think it is right the families as sub-families. I would have if I had found a reference stating it as such, but I haven't. -- Decumanus 23:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom... I've just put up a genus page on Chlorogalum, the Soap Plants. I'd classified them in Liliaceae, following ITIS and the Jepson Manual, but I see you have them listed in Hyacinthaceae. Is that now a done deal? If so I'll change it in Chlorogalum - and if you could give me a reference to the reassignment, I'll add that. Thanks. seglea 18:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tom, good job on list of India-related topics. How do you go about finding the topics ? Jay 23:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's nice that you're helping in the effort to cleanup (e.g. Satara), but can you also remove the listing at the main wikipedia:cleanup page once you've cleaned up and removed the {cleanup} tag? Cheers, Jia ng 09:51, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm really impressed with your list and I was wondering what your source was (I'm a dry forest ecologist).
Nice starts to some of the genera! (something I've been meaning to do for ages, but never got round to). I'll be expanding them with morphology details etc over the next few days - MPF 15:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I have fairly butchered your edits here in order to make those sections more readable and approachible to the uninitiated. But you should probably have a look to make sure I didn't destroy anything important. But really the article would be much less if you hadn't contributed so much. I think it's shaping up beautifully! Fishal 16:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I;m just curious. Who is the David Wilkinson you include in your edits? He doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and Google returns so many David Wilkinsons that I don't know where to look? His ideas are important enough to the Civilization article that I wish I knew more about him. Fishal 18:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Edits from 209.86.3.34 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 05:40, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
w:fr:Utilisateur:Anthere/NGF grant
Do you have any comment, any suggestion ?
Thank you for your answer Tom. Yes, you are probably correct. I have listed a few foundations to which we could suggest more specific goals, but I will wait a few months before contacting them. Most ask for the non profit status for any grants, and we still do not have it... Meanwhile, I notice en: had a new contributor in soil science, so all is well. We are also making great progress with regards to botanic on fr... Well, mostly in paléarctique ecozone anyway :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing
Hi Tom - may I query "Rhamnus glandulosa (Frangula azorica)" at Buckthorn? - which is the valid species epithet, glandulosa or azorica? As a general rule, plants retain the same species epithet when transferred between genera, except in a few very special circumstances (e.g. that tautonyms are not allowed, which is why Rhamnus frangula doesn't become Frangula frangula but has to be something else, hence Frangula alnus) - Thanks, MPF 09:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom - thanks; you're right, I'm afraid I overlooked that! I'll re-do the maps (have to get the old ones deleted first before I can upload new ones with the same name) - MPF 18:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom - what do you think is the best position for the boundary between the Afrotropical and Indomalayan ecozones? I somewhat arbitarily used the political border between Iran and Pakistan, but I'm not certain if that's right, maybe I should put southern Iran in the Indomalayan? The old map had the Palearctic going right down to the Indian Ocean coast there, which it doesn't. Thanks! - MPF 21:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ( comment) ( talk)[[]] 14:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote a stub on the Keres languages and then discovered that you had included them among the Kiowa-Tanoan languages. We should merge the articles, but where? Maybe we can settle it by dueling sources. I know nothing about the languages, but I'm following Ethnologue and Native American languages in treating Keresan as a separate family. — JerryFriedman 00:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took the liberty to add you out here : Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board Alren 21:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am seeking your support and participation for starting the "Indian Collaboration of the Week". Please enlist your support on the page Wikipedia_talk:Indian_wikipedians'_notice_board if you would like to support. Thanks Arunram 09:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Apropos to your recent Goa edits. Are you certain that the Bijapur kings were Mughals? AFAIK, they were not Mughals, but Hyderabadi. Please could you check up the facts and let me know? Thanks Nichalp 17:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hey dude, how do I get the page info back from Quongdong. You re-directed a full page to a fairly empty one about the same thing. I wrote the Quongdong article searching Google for the info as 'Quongdong' cos that was how I thought it sounded. When I did find some info I thought that was the correct spelling. I ate one on a bushtucker meal and was trying to find out about them. Anyways, since then I've found out that the correct spelling is Quangdong - the talk page of the article. I was going to try to find out how to do re-directs and put the info that was in Quongdong into Quangdong. Hopefully you can help me do that now and the info isn't lost? Cheers. SeanMack 16:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Goa page regarding the accuracy of the history of Goa and, a notice for it to be removed as a Featured Article. Given your interest on the topic, please could you provide some inputs. = Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have been working lately on this article. But it is a shame that this article still lacks a fitting image. I happen to be back from a trip to Turkey, where I've been taking lots of photos. I made a panoramic photo of a natural landscape in Side, just behind the dunes; mostly trees and shrub in sandy soil : Image:Mediterranean landscape.jpg (in the Commons). If you think that this photo fits nicely into the article, you can put it first in a category in the Commons and then in the article. JoJan 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
The History of India is this week's Indian collaboration. Thought you might be interested as you contribute a lot to India's history. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 09:18 (UTC)
You added Sacramento, California to the List of seaports. Is it really a seaport? Or is it a riverport? I saw from the article there is a canal that connects it to San Fransisco Bay. Does that make Sacramento a seaport?
Manchester has the Manchester Ship Canal and Houston has the Houstan Ship Channel. But they are not on the list of seaports. Personally, I think the list of seaports should only include real seaports. If a big ship canal makes an inland city a seaport, then it should make all cities with big ship canals seaports. What is the maximum size vessel? How much tonnage ships through the port, anyhow? -- ~~
Do you have a reference that the river is called so ? I am from the state of Kerala and would be most surprised if it is true. When we locals talk about Ponnani, it is about the place Tintin 02:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. From a google, it does like look there is some who call it that. I leave it as it is. Tintin 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You had a question as to why the Sikhs would also be willing to accept Hindus as Rajputs only.
I will probably do a horrible job of this but here we go.
The reference to that comes from the point that although many common Sikhs in today's world consider themselves seperate from Hindus, the Royal families of the Phulkian States and Maharaja Ranjit Singh himself do not consider themselves seperate. To make things simple, Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala was my mother's cousin, Maharaja Devinder Singh of Nabha was married to my maternal grandfather's paternal aunt (now that was confusing, sorry). Maharaja Ranjit Singh was married to the two daughters of Maharaja Sansar Chand of Kangra who was the older brother of my great great grandfather Wazeer Ishwari S. Katoch. Maharani Jind Kaur escaped to Nepal since the Nepalese royal family is related through marriage to the Kangra Royal Family, and thus to the Sikh Royal Families. My cousins happen to be the Royal family of Nepal. As you can begin to see it is not so cut and dry. To further this, lets take a book written called "The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, this book alone destroys a lot of the Sikh seperatist attitudes of 1921.
As well, there are many things in the family that historians have no clue about, for example, why the Phulkian States joined the British in the 2nd Anglo-Sikh war.
Sikhs were considered a part of the Hindus, thus if a Rajput called himself a Sikh, he was still a Hindu, even if he was a Sikh. Sikh practices begin to change in 1921 and after. The extreme changes happen in the early 1980s and after. Now the Sikhs in the west are completely different form the Sikhs in India, its almost as if they are two different faith groups.
I know you will find a lot of flaws in my horrible attempt to reason this, since I have left out a great many details. Its easier to discuss this over a coffee or when I used to give lectures on this at the university wher I was also able to present the evidence against the whole Akhalistan movement and its ideology. The bottom line is that Sikhs still follow the caste system and are still part of the Jati system. Many still marry with Hindus, and thus a lot of people do not see a difference except perhaps an external one, and that is not always the case either.
Muslims are completely foreign, and thus are not accepted, and there are historical reasons for that as well. In the end, a Rajput can be a Hindu or a Sikh or a Vaishnava, Shakta, Shaivite, Tantric etc etc etc but not a Muslim.
I hope I cleared up something for you.
Take care. gurkhaboy Gorkhali 13:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I noticed you moved the African Great Lakes article. Is Great Lakes going to be moved to American Great Lakes or North American Great Lakes? It seems to me to be a clear case of geographic bias. TreveX talk 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It's considered good Wikiquette to explain why you revert someone else. Nichalp moved the article from "Punjab (India)" to "Punjab, India". I noticed this a few days after the fact and discussed with him why, better possibilities, etc. After that, I moved it to "Punjab (Indian state)". You moved it back to "Punjab, India" without a single word said on the subject. Why did you do it? -- Golbez 21:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
i would appreciate it of you could please answer my query "Punjab Map in Public Domain?" [comment # 36].
IJ. -- 203.101.163.104 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
helpful links for creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, policies.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 22:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tom, good edits on Rail gauge -- however, I noticed you changed 'Northern' and 'Southern' to the uncapitalised forms in the paragraph about post-Civil War gauge rationalisation. North and South were capitalised because when used about the Civil War, they're proper nouns (referring to the Union and Confederacy, respectively) and not just indicators of direction. I'm going to change those back -- unless you don't agree, of course. —Morven 22:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I'm curious how you define the various regions on this page - several are so similar to each other as to be not worth distinguishing separately (e.g. the Alpine and Carpathian forests, which share the same species to a very high degree), yet you also removed the east/west split of the Mediterranean high altitude conifer forests that I'd put in, where there's quite a lot of differences in the species composition between them. - MPF 00:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was using the World Wildlife Fund/National Geographic listing of the 867 ecoregions, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_pa.html
there are articles for each ecoregion, of varying lengths, that explain the criteria for delineating each ecoregion as they have done; the WWF reports are more detailed than the WildWorld articles.
WWF/NG put the conifer forests of the Atlas Mountains in the Mediterranean conifer forests ecoregion, and the montane conferous forests of Italy in the South Appenine mixed montane forests ecoregion. The WWF puts a few Mediterranean-climate conifer forests in the Mediterranean Forests, Woodland, and Shrub biome, including the South Appenine forests. The Pyrenees forests end up as a separate ecoregion in the temperate broadleaf/mixed forest biome. My biodiversity text indicated that the central european and mediterranean high mountain ranges have a lot of endemism, so it may be reasonable to separate the Alps, Pyrenees, Appenines, Atlas, Carpathians, etc.
This is not to say that the WWF ecoregions are definitive, but they are the chosen convention for the wikipedian ecoregion exercise. Where there seems to be some expert disagreement about how to split the ecoregions, we could explain further in the individual articles.
One of the areas of ambiguity is where to put mixed forests ecoregions; the WWF/National geographic convention is to put broadleaf and mixed forests together, with conifer forests separate. There is obviously some discretion involved here (Does gray go with black, or with white? how about light gray and dark gray? how light or dark?), and sometimes the WWF and National Geographic don't agree. One solution would be to list mixed forest ecoregions with significant conifer forests in both biome types, as you have done with the Valdivian temperate rain forests. Tom Radulovich 00:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tom: nice job on the Ken Wilber phases.
goethean
Hi Tom, I've just been through all these to correct the box layout problems - found out that the problem was the inclusion of the line
<table align="center"><tr>
at the start of each subsection and
</table>
at the end of each subsection; once these were removed, the tables work.
In some of the tables, the regions are listed bold, in others, they're not; I don't know if this matters at all, but I've edited so that in each individual table, they're all the same (some had some sections bold, others not) -
MPF 10:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom, thanks for doing something on Themidaceae - which seems to be only the latest in a long series of public works you are doing around plant taxonomy. Can you explain a puzzle about the Asparagales? The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's website has a dendrogram on it that puts Themidaceae miles away from Asparagaceae, but our page says that APG2 (2002) allows them to be included within it. Has there been a further revision, do you know? seglea 05:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure that abugidas evolved from alphabets? I was under the impression that they tended to be derived from abjads. — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There seem to be a quite a bit of differences in the classification of the Oregon coast languages. I've been trying to untangle the nominclature based on a good refernece standard. This University of Oregon site classifies the Penutian as a phylum with the families within in, so I chose to follow that. I see the Penutian both as a superstock as well as a family. There seems to be no generalized consensus among linguists for these particlar languages. You're welcome to reclassify if you think it is right the families as sub-families. I would have if I had found a reference stating it as such, but I haven't. -- Decumanus 23:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom... I've just put up a genus page on Chlorogalum, the Soap Plants. I'd classified them in Liliaceae, following ITIS and the Jepson Manual, but I see you have them listed in Hyacinthaceae. Is that now a done deal? If so I'll change it in Chlorogalum - and if you could give me a reference to the reassignment, I'll add that. Thanks. seglea 18:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tom, good job on list of India-related topics. How do you go about finding the topics ? Jay 23:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's nice that you're helping in the effort to cleanup (e.g. Satara), but can you also remove the listing at the main wikipedia:cleanup page once you've cleaned up and removed the {cleanup} tag? Cheers, Jia ng 09:51, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm really impressed with your list and I was wondering what your source was (I'm a dry forest ecologist).
Nice starts to some of the genera! (something I've been meaning to do for ages, but never got round to). I'll be expanding them with morphology details etc over the next few days - MPF 15:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I have fairly butchered your edits here in order to make those sections more readable and approachible to the uninitiated. But you should probably have a look to make sure I didn't destroy anything important. But really the article would be much less if you hadn't contributed so much. I think it's shaping up beautifully! Fishal 16:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I;m just curious. Who is the David Wilkinson you include in your edits? He doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and Google returns so many David Wilkinsons that I don't know where to look? His ideas are important enough to the Civilization article that I wish I knew more about him. Fishal 18:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Edits from 209.86.3.34 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 05:40, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
w:fr:Utilisateur:Anthere/NGF grant
Do you have any comment, any suggestion ?
Thank you for your answer Tom. Yes, you are probably correct. I have listed a few foundations to which we could suggest more specific goals, but I will wait a few months before contacting them. Most ask for the non profit status for any grants, and we still do not have it... Meanwhile, I notice en: had a new contributor in soil science, so all is well. We are also making great progress with regards to botanic on fr... Well, mostly in paléarctique ecozone anyway :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing
Hi Tom - may I query "Rhamnus glandulosa (Frangula azorica)" at Buckthorn? - which is the valid species epithet, glandulosa or azorica? As a general rule, plants retain the same species epithet when transferred between genera, except in a few very special circumstances (e.g. that tautonyms are not allowed, which is why Rhamnus frangula doesn't become Frangula frangula but has to be something else, hence Frangula alnus) - Thanks, MPF 09:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom - thanks; you're right, I'm afraid I overlooked that! I'll re-do the maps (have to get the old ones deleted first before I can upload new ones with the same name) - MPF 18:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tom - what do you think is the best position for the boundary between the Afrotropical and Indomalayan ecozones? I somewhat arbitarily used the political border between Iran and Pakistan, but I'm not certain if that's right, maybe I should put southern Iran in the Indomalayan? The old map had the Palearctic going right down to the Indian Ocean coast there, which it doesn't. Thanks! - MPF 21:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ( comment) ( talk)[[]] 14:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote a stub on the Keres languages and then discovered that you had included them among the Kiowa-Tanoan languages. We should merge the articles, but where? Maybe we can settle it by dueling sources. I know nothing about the languages, but I'm following Ethnologue and Native American languages in treating Keresan as a separate family. — JerryFriedman 00:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took the liberty to add you out here : Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board Alren 21:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am seeking your support and participation for starting the "Indian Collaboration of the Week". Please enlist your support on the page Wikipedia_talk:Indian_wikipedians'_notice_board if you would like to support. Thanks Arunram 09:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Apropos to your recent Goa edits. Are you certain that the Bijapur kings were Mughals? AFAIK, they were not Mughals, but Hyderabadi. Please could you check up the facts and let me know? Thanks Nichalp 17:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hey dude, how do I get the page info back from Quongdong. You re-directed a full page to a fairly empty one about the same thing. I wrote the Quongdong article searching Google for the info as 'Quongdong' cos that was how I thought it sounded. When I did find some info I thought that was the correct spelling. I ate one on a bushtucker meal and was trying to find out about them. Anyways, since then I've found out that the correct spelling is Quangdong - the talk page of the article. I was going to try to find out how to do re-directs and put the info that was in Quongdong into Quangdong. Hopefully you can help me do that now and the info isn't lost? Cheers. SeanMack 16:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Goa page regarding the accuracy of the history of Goa and, a notice for it to be removed as a Featured Article. Given your interest on the topic, please could you provide some inputs. = Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have been working lately on this article. But it is a shame that this article still lacks a fitting image. I happen to be back from a trip to Turkey, where I've been taking lots of photos. I made a panoramic photo of a natural landscape in Side, just behind the dunes; mostly trees and shrub in sandy soil : Image:Mediterranean landscape.jpg (in the Commons). If you think that this photo fits nicely into the article, you can put it first in a category in the Commons and then in the article. JoJan 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
The History of India is this week's Indian collaboration. Thought you might be interested as you contribute a lot to India's history. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 09:18 (UTC)
You added Sacramento, California to the List of seaports. Is it really a seaport? Or is it a riverport? I saw from the article there is a canal that connects it to San Fransisco Bay. Does that make Sacramento a seaport?
Manchester has the Manchester Ship Canal and Houston has the Houstan Ship Channel. But they are not on the list of seaports. Personally, I think the list of seaports should only include real seaports. If a big ship canal makes an inland city a seaport, then it should make all cities with big ship canals seaports. What is the maximum size vessel? How much tonnage ships through the port, anyhow? -- ~~
Do you have a reference that the river is called so ? I am from the state of Kerala and would be most surprised if it is true. When we locals talk about Ponnani, it is about the place Tintin 02:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. From a google, it does like look there is some who call it that. I leave it as it is. Tintin 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You had a question as to why the Sikhs would also be willing to accept Hindus as Rajputs only.
I will probably do a horrible job of this but here we go.
The reference to that comes from the point that although many common Sikhs in today's world consider themselves seperate from Hindus, the Royal families of the Phulkian States and Maharaja Ranjit Singh himself do not consider themselves seperate. To make things simple, Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala was my mother's cousin, Maharaja Devinder Singh of Nabha was married to my maternal grandfather's paternal aunt (now that was confusing, sorry). Maharaja Ranjit Singh was married to the two daughters of Maharaja Sansar Chand of Kangra who was the older brother of my great great grandfather Wazeer Ishwari S. Katoch. Maharani Jind Kaur escaped to Nepal since the Nepalese royal family is related through marriage to the Kangra Royal Family, and thus to the Sikh Royal Families. My cousins happen to be the Royal family of Nepal. As you can begin to see it is not so cut and dry. To further this, lets take a book written called "The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, this book alone destroys a lot of the Sikh seperatist attitudes of 1921.
As well, there are many things in the family that historians have no clue about, for example, why the Phulkian States joined the British in the 2nd Anglo-Sikh war.
Sikhs were considered a part of the Hindus, thus if a Rajput called himself a Sikh, he was still a Hindu, even if he was a Sikh. Sikh practices begin to change in 1921 and after. The extreme changes happen in the early 1980s and after. Now the Sikhs in the west are completely different form the Sikhs in India, its almost as if they are two different faith groups.
I know you will find a lot of flaws in my horrible attempt to reason this, since I have left out a great many details. Its easier to discuss this over a coffee or when I used to give lectures on this at the university wher I was also able to present the evidence against the whole Akhalistan movement and its ideology. The bottom line is that Sikhs still follow the caste system and are still part of the Jati system. Many still marry with Hindus, and thus a lot of people do not see a difference except perhaps an external one, and that is not always the case either.
Muslims are completely foreign, and thus are not accepted, and there are historical reasons for that as well. In the end, a Rajput can be a Hindu or a Sikh or a Vaishnava, Shakta, Shaivite, Tantric etc etc etc but not a Muslim.
I hope I cleared up something for you.
Take care. gurkhaboy Gorkhali 13:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I noticed you moved the African Great Lakes article. Is Great Lakes going to be moved to American Great Lakes or North American Great Lakes? It seems to me to be a clear case of geographic bias. TreveX talk 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It's considered good Wikiquette to explain why you revert someone else. Nichalp moved the article from "Punjab (India)" to "Punjab, India". I noticed this a few days after the fact and discussed with him why, better possibilities, etc. After that, I moved it to "Punjab (Indian state)". You moved it back to "Punjab, India" without a single word said on the subject. Why did you do it? -- Golbez 21:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)