User talk:Deepak~enwiki/archive1

The article does mention that the company is not a recognised one . Gathering facts about the campany is difficult since it never discloses its assests or officialy declare its very existance . Just because the company isn't legalised doesn't mean it doesnt exist . Siting in Bangladesh one cant figure out the events happening in Mumbai . Guptadeepak (talk · contribs) - HAPPY !!

Please provide any of the following: 1. Street Address of the company 2. A list of executives 3. A list of contact numbers, websites and other information. To claim a group to be a company would be totally meaningless without that information. I did find a lot of info about the criminal activities of the person you link to, but claiming that to be a company is clearly speculation. It can be organized crime, but definitely not a company.

Also, in the information age, one doesn't have to be present anywhere to get information on anything. Google has taken over that task for me. Besides, I am not even in Bangladesh, or anywhere near Mumbai, I am on the other side of the globe. Luckily, Google isn't limited to national boundaries. Thanks. --Ragib 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right in saying that it shoudn't be put in the category of corporate company .. Definitely not . But an organisation which carries out such mammoth operations from drugs and arms dealings to hawala affecting so many lives across the globe definitely deserves a mention . If you think that by doing a google search one can gather verifiable information about it ... think again . Even the Indian Authorities dont have basic concrete information about him and his organisation ,let alone its street address . Well , I dont want to spend so much time and brain on this topic . It would be better if D-Company is put in the category of organisations running illegal activities rather than not to mention it at all . Guptadeepak

Deepak, thanks for your reply. Well, I only want to say that at the current state of the article, it simply looks like a satirical attempt, because it claims D-Company to be the world's largest company with 50 billion dollars of business, while saying its whereabouts are unknown. An encyclopedia cannot contain any speculation or unverifiable information. I do not deny the crime-connection, I only want to say that you should rewrite the article and state facts clearly, such as this is an organized crime group etc etc. Even in the US, mob is a problem, but there is no article on Mob-Company in the wikipedia. By calling D-company a company would confuse a neutral reader, and that is NOT the objective of wikipedia. --Ragib 19:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS- please sign your messages with --~~~~, because your signatures are not linking properly and have no timestamp now.

Please edit more and cleanup the article, possibly merging it with Dawood Ibrahim. I have changed my vote in the VFD, since you are starting to edit the article. --Ragib 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Hello Deepak, I came across you on VfD discussions on Dabur, then I found your works on wikipedia. I appreciate your nice works. Please continue to move forward, All the best.--Bhadani 17:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . --IncMan 04:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Chandra Bose

Since you are editing a lot in these days, would you care to join our edits at Subhash Chandra Bose? An European user is claiming Netaji to be a collaborator and pro-nazi anti-indian person. Please also ask others to join the debate,and remove the defamatory POV against Netaji from the article. Thanks. --Ragib 01:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written Facts About Subash Chandra Bose on the talk page . I will gather notable information about Subash and make necessary changes . Thanks --IncMan 13:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Info on image, please

Please go to Image:SeaHarriers.jpg and edit that image description page to give the source (URL, if online; ISBN, if scanned from a book; and if you've taken the image yourself, just say so) and the licensing status (the list of image copyright tags might be useful) of this image. All our images should have this information; images without source or license info will be deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lupo 11:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (And what is "The copyright of the photo is undisputed" supposed to mean?)[reply]

The licensing status along with the image copyright tags will be provided within a day or so . I dont mind ,if the photo is removed for the mean time . I was just trying to help increase the content of the article concerned . If people have objections to it , fine . --IncMan 11:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello Guptadeepak! Good to have you with us!

A little tip about "see:..." articles such as the Jalianwalla Bagh Massacre. It is usually better to make a redirect by writing "#Redirect[[Amritsar Massacre]]" instead of "See [[Amritsar Massacre]]". That way people who search for "Jalianwalla Bagh Massacre" will be brought directly to the correct article.

Thanks for your contributions and happy editing! Sjakkalle 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India -- Economy section

Hi, I've removed the text you added on the economy on the India page as:

Since this is a Featured Article, the information should be in prose, not bulleted.
You haven't cited your sources. The figure should be referenced. See how current material is referenced using the {{ref}} and {{note}} styles. (To enable this you'd have to edit the whole page)
There's no need to mention all India's trading partners. Just the top four will do.

Removed text: *India's main exports items include Agricultural products, textile goods, gems and jewellery, software services and technology, engineering goods, chemicals and leather products while its main import commodities are crude oil, machinery, gems, fertilizer, chemicals .

India's major trading partners are the United States, Japan, China, the United Arab Emirates , Singapore , Hong Kong , Germany , Luxemburg and Belgium^[1].
For the year 2004 , India's total exports stood at US $69.18 billion while the imports were worth at US $89.33 billion .

You may include the text once citing some credible references. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 14:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have mentioned the references for the data provided by me on the India page . --IncMan 16:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Copying from other sources

Please do not copy text or pictures from other sources as you did in Kanishka Tragedy. Such contributions have to be reverted or deleted as copyright violations. Rl 10:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for Kanishka Tragedy. But to remove the entire content of Terrorism in Kashmir was not a justified act. Background section was the only part of the article that was copy and pasted from the site. I will edit that section so that there is no copyright violation. Regards --IncMan 15:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry I had do undo work done by you and by others. I'd rather write articles than track down copyvios. Unfortunately, copyvios are a huge but underestimated problem on WP, and a key problem is that some editors are too lenient – sometimes problems are noticed way too late. — I still believe that my revert in Terrorism in Kashmir was justified. I don't have the time right now to check what you are doing to the articles I reverted, but I have to warn you that I will do so later, so please do not invest more time and effort in articles that contain substantial amounts of material from other sources. Rl 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please stop uploading files if you do not know the copyright status of the images. I've checked your upload log and you have not tagged any of your images. A citation of the source URL is not enough. Without any explicit information on the image copyright status, no image may be allowed to be uploaded to wikipedia. Many of your images are listed as copy-violations and will be deleted. If you have permission from the website, please add it to the page, headers included, if it is an email. For more information on tagging, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Regards, =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Indian government sites may not be in Public domain and subject to copyrights. =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. --IncMan 15:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Good Work

I came across you in the peer review section for Terrorism in Kashmir. You have worked very hard gathering information on the topic. Some people might get a bit rude here, so please don't get discouraged from contributing. Thanks --Marqus 07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shalimar Gardens

I fixed the Kashmir link to and page for Shalimar Gardens. Now if someone would just write the article for the Shalimar Gardens (Kashmir). BTW, do you know if it is spelled Shalimar or Shalimir?--AI 10:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is spelled as 'Shalimar' which also happens to be a Urdu word. i'm not sure about its meaning though. I'll write an article on Shalimar Gardens (Kashmir) once I get time. Regards --IncMan 12:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

Please don't upload photos that are copyrighted. Please read Wikipedia:Fair use to understand which pictures can be uploaded under fair use provisions --nixie 06:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geography of India

Hi, please review Geography of India, it will be put up for featured status soon. =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You can vote for it now. =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Deepak Thanks for voting for the History of India page. It certainly needs heel wat werk!! There are no pictures for all these topics:

3 Indus Valley Civilisation 4 Vedic Civilization 5 Early kingdoms and republics 6 The rise of Magadha

6.1 Rise of Jainism and Buddhism 7 Mauryan period 8 Southern Indian kingdoms 9 Northern Indian kingdoms

10 The Classical Age 11 Middle kingdoms

11.1 Harsha 11.2 Rajputs 11.3 Pallavas 11.4 Chalukya Empire 11.5 Chola Empire

12 The Vijayanagar Empire 13 Islamic rule

Do you have any suggestions? Let's work to make it better!! deeptrivia 01:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I think all your suggestions make a lot of sense. You still have your 10th grade textbooks!! deeptrivia 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Sure, Deepak deeptrivia 28 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)

My Edits

Thanks for your message. Okay I have explained my edits to the article below. Here are the statements from the article that you left off:

The Status quo - Currently a boundary - the Line of Control (LOC)- divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalise this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. Factors Opposing - Both Pakistan and Kashmiri militants reject the plan as they aim to get greater control over the region. - So, you are saying that only Pakistan and Kashmiri militants oppose the line? What about all the other Kashmiri Muslims in both territories "Jammu" and "Azad Kashmir" ? We can't have a definite statement like this, who knows how many people that are non-Pakistani and not militant are against it. Secondly, it is not only because Pakistan wants greater control over the line, it is because India unfairly gets the larger 55% of Kashmir, where as Pakistan gets way less. Pakistan had initially been against Kashmiri occupation in the first place, but ofcourse some attitudes have changed over the years.

Kashmir becomes a part of India - Though New Delhi would have no objections to such a plan, the muslims in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have never shown any desire to join India. - So what about the other Muslims in non-Pakistan-administered kashmir? What about the Muslims in Indian-administered, they have never clearly shown that they want to join India; infact they probably oppose it. What about other minority religions?

Entire Kashmir under Pakistani control - Giving Pakistan full control over Jammu and Kashmir. Factors Opposing - Though the Muslims in Kashmir might agree to such a proposal, the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh would object the outcome. - I agree with this statement. But notice through how it clearly says the "Muslims of Kashmir", which once again shows that clearly that there are Muslims on both sides of the LoC which don't want to join India.

So hopefully I have clarified what I mean. Also I agree that this article does not belong in the Terrorism in Kashmir article but in the Kashmir one. We will have to see to that when that article is unlocked. Once again thanks for your message and I am kind of glad to finally find an Indian who is actually discussing this with me rather than childishly calling me "Islamist" or "Mr. Pakistan" (even though I am American). I am just trying to make the article more neutral in good faith as ages of pro-India editors have inserted their anti-Pakistan POV.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:05 (UTC)

If you combine Pak- and China- administered Kashmir, its more than 52%- can tell you from a book on Kashmir by J.R. Rai. Then how can you say that India gets 55% of Kashmir? - Nonetheless if 52% is Pak and China combined, then obviously India would have 48% which is larger than both Pak and China. China is said to have atleast 6%.Thus, India's share is still larger than Pakistan's...correct?

This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article where an editor can express his own opinions. - Therefore I suggest that making incorrect claims that only "the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh would object the outcome" as that is not supported by a survey. Also other anti-Pakistan propaganda found on the article should be trashed.

I agree that Kashmir should be independant for the sake of all those dying in the battles. It is sad to see such a beautiful place being destroyed by tanks and gunfire. Anyways, I think we should work on making the article more neutral, but we need a Pakistani person too inorder to get it balanced. I am just a mediator here. Also please do not add the pieces you did into the article last time (before I reverted it) because that is highly point of view and if this article is going to be cleaned up and made neutral, those things don't have any place in it. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:47 (UTC)

If you combine Pak- and China- administered Kashmir, its more than 52%- can tell you from a book on Kashmir by J.R. Rai. Then how can you say that India gets 55% of Kashmir? - Nonetheless if 52% is Pak and China combined, then obviously India would have 48% which is larger than both Pak and China. China is said to have atleast 6%.Thus, India's share is still larger than Pakistan's...correct?

This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article where an editor can express his own opinions. - Therefore I suggest that making incorrect claims that only "the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh would object the outcome" as that is not supported by a survey. Also other anti-Pakistan propaganda found on the article should be trashed.

I agree that Kashmir should be independant for the sake of all those dying in the battles. It is sad to see such a beautiful place being destroyed by tanks and gunfire. Anyways, I think we should work on making the article more neutral, but we need a Pakistani person too inorder to get it balanced. I am just a mediator here. Also please do not add the pieces you did into the article last time (before I reverted it) because that is highly point of view and if this article is going to be cleaned up and made neutral, those things don't have any place in it. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Ok, I made those sections more neutral, but if you need a Pakistani editor, make sure he is a well known Pakistani editor and not simply a sockpuppet of an Indian editor. Sorry to say this but there are many sockpuppets out there. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:07 (UTC)

Excellent. I will see if I can get more Pakistani editors to the articles too. IFaqeer is a good choice, I think. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Yes, but I think if there are so many Indian editors on the article equally many Pakistani editors are needed. But yes I understand that the situation between both sides can get a little "messy" like you said. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:43 (UTC)

iFaqeer's comments

cross-posting at talk:Anon Editor talk:Nichalp and talk:IncMan

I really, really like what you folks have done at Terrorism in Kashmir and what you want to do. Here, quickly, are my comments on the article:

The article--especially the intro--seems to conflate "militancy" with "terrorism". Even to say that "all militancy in Kashmir is of a terroristic nature" is a valid point of view--one I disagree with, but still a valid one for a person to hold. But that's not what the article says; it just uses the two words almost as synonyms. It starts out doing what I am saying, in Background and the Flashpoint section. Then gets mixed up. In fact, looking more closely, the headings and the actual text seem to be disjointed in this regard. The text is better off, IMHO.
I have only been able to skim the article, but it seems like it really is a better-than-average description of the militancy in Kashmir. Why not call it that? I am not saying there is no terrorism in Kashmir, but let's point out what, in the whole mix, is terroristic in nature.
Kudos for a very objective description of the historical background.
From what I read, the article actually DOESN'T say much about the specific influence of the Pakistani Government--particularly under Gen. Ziaul Haq--in shaping the nature of the militancy and making it more overtly Fundamentalist in nature.
How can an article whose neutrality and accuracy is disputed become a featured article? That's actually a serious question. Can it?

More later; please feel free to drop me a line (User page or e-mail) to let me know what's going on. I am not following specific pages too well nowadays.

And thanks and kudos again for so consciously and aggressively working to get a complete, balanced picture together.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) June 30, 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Please don't use sockpuppets

I have found out that you were trying to make a rebuttal towards bulldozer, but then used Grubb (aka you) to make the edit. I would like you to please consider stopping this nationalist violence on that article and refrain from using sockpuppets. Aside from that I hope to continue a productive dialogue with you and hope that you will retract the comment from the discussion as it is already on Bulldozer's talk page. On that article it serves no purpose but will cause more controversy. Thanks, Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, I will trust you on this, but I am hoping that he will retract his comment as bulldozer probably already got the idea and that will just cause more controversy. I hope you are both productive editors. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:42 (UTC)

History of India

The History of India is this week's INCOTW. Thank you for voting and showing your commitment to make this the latest India FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 09:11 (UTC)

History of India

I wan't to distribute the History of Indian amongst us editors. Could you write about a certain section of India's history? I thought maybe you could write something on India's independence movement 1857-1947. Is this OK with you? Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= July 7, 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Hey Deepak! Are you still among your history books?? Can you write something about the cultural history of India deeptrivia July 9, 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Actually it is a brilliant idea to have a separate article on Cultural History of India. I also think that since the article History of India uses the word History in a generalized sense, it should also have some elements (short summary, a few sentences side by side with each section) of cultural and economic (etc) history, and not just political history. Maybe we can highlight the cultural aspects of each era in one or two sentences in their respective sections. We can mention architecture in the Mughal Era, mathematics in the Middle Kingdoms, etc. deeptrivia 19:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)