Revision as of 02:19, 30 March 2020 editFowler&fowler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,953 edits →India-related FPs IV: +*← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 30 March 2020 edit undoNedFausa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,988 edits →Notification of discretionary sanctions: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
|File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore Edit1.jpg|] ] | |File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore Edit1.jpg|] ] | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Notification of discretionary sanctions == | |||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' | |||
You have shown interest in ], ], and ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Having searched the applicable and logs, I found no evidence that you were notified within the last twelve months that discretionary sanctions are in force for this area of conflict. Accordingly, please accept this alert for purposes of arbitration enforcement specifically involving ]. | |||
}} ] (]) 20:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
Revision as of 20:20, 30 March 2020
The sayings of Isaac Newton
File:I keep the subject constantly before me.jpgFile:I keep the subject constantly before me 3.jpgFile:I keep the subject constantly before me 2.jpgFile:I keep the subject constantly before me 4.jpgThe sayings of Isaac Newton, from left to right: (a) I keep the subject constantly before me, (b) and wait (c) till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, (d) into a full and clear light
Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Happy Holidays!
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Fylindfotberserk (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for appreciating.
Anyone can use my pictures. For verification you can see coordinates and also refer to the Delhi riot news. You can also do reverse search which is most helpful in verification. Thanks for appreciating my work. Hemant Banswal 08:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs)
Thank you so much for recognizing my work and for awarding me with Barnstar. Banswalhemant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Banswalhemant: You're very welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Wolf
I think all you need to do is state whether the cited are sourced in a consist matter. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @LittleJerry: I'm assuming you mean, "sourced in a consistent manner?" I'm not sure what that means precisely, and Ian Rose hasn't answered. Let me ask some others at FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you spotchecking again? We don't need that anymore and I see no issues with the Etymology section. That was to only section I and William Harris didn't write and I fixed any problems that Axl pointed out before. The reviews have dragged on far too long and I really would like to get this over with. LittleJerry (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Listen. I'm doing you a favor. The etymology section has not been paraphrased correctly. The Latin lupus is a distant connection. Please don't badger me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The source states that the PIE root is "probably" also the source for the Latin lupus and the article states that. There is no problem with paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, please don't badger me. I know about this more than you do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The source states that the PIE root is "probably" also the source for the Latin lupus and the article states that. There is no problem with paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Listen. I'm doing you a favor. The etymology section has not been paraphrased correctly. The Latin lupus is a distant connection. Please don't badger me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you spotchecking again? We don't need that anymore and I see no issues with the Etymology section. That was to only section I and William Harris didn't write and I fixed any problems that Axl pointed out before. The reviews have dragged on far too long and I really would like to get this over with. LittleJerry (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the recent discussion about The Times of India at WP:RSN
Many people, including El C, seem to be fully convinced by your argument. I partially disagree.
While it is true that TOI has been - since time immemorial - a pro-government newspaper, it has recently begun to show independence. Nowadays, I see a lot of op-eds in TOI (and Sunday Times) which bash the Indian government for the CAA-NRC duplet.
Press freedom is directly proportional to the gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita) in democracies. Please wait and watch for a few years; you will see a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media.
And TOI is quite a visible newspaper; any false claims published in it will be instantly rebutted.— Vaibhavafro 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well GDP has some correlation, but it probably has to be hard-earned; look at some of the middle eastern countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar, ... I don't disagree with your other assertions, but the problem for WP is that a large number of people who will be attempting to use a TOI article as a source might not have knowledge of these changing dynamics. The decision about reliability is made with respect to a generic global WP editor. I'm sure TOI will get there again, but right now in my view, it is not there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Who said I was convinced by Fowler&fowler's argument? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely interpreted the arguments and agreements in that discussion. My closing was not a supervote and should not be viewed as such. I did not express my own view, but here it is: your view that in "a few years" there will be "a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media" is nothing but prophecy, which I put very little stock in. El_C 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: I apologise for my mistake. I thought you were convinced by Fowler&fowler’s case because you praised his “substantive argument (and breadth of knowledge in this area)”. If you have time, please checkout this analysis by M. Huitsing published by Media Bias/Fact Check.— Vaibhavafro 04:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Unbecoming conduct
I objected here before about your conduct at 2020 Delhi riots but you did not reply. I'm going to try once again, but next time will take it to WP:ANI. Your sense of privilege is insufferable, as you showed today with your personal attack on a fellow editor. Please rein it in. NedFausa (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa: Please do take me to ANI. But first please read the long post I left on Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Please also don't accuse me of having a sense of social privilege let alone it being insufferable or exhort me to "rein it in," as if this is a longstanding behavioral issue with me. Please be aware of rebound at ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa: Thank you very much, btw, for this post, which is very cogent in argument and very well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Reminder
Hey Fowler&fowler, just reminding you to come back and give me your final comments about the Roar article as you probably forgot to.
Best regards, -NowIsntItTime 21:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, @NowIsntItTime:, I will be getting back very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
British Indian provinces coat of arms
Fowler&fowler, There are other British Indian provinces too where these plaque coat of arms images are already added. I've only added the images to the Orissa Province and United Provinces pages. Why are you removing only these particular images I've added while similar images already exist in other provinces' pages too.
You might have created these pages but that doesn't give you the authorship of these pages. Here on Misplaced Pages everyone is free to edit any article they want to edit and improve. Hemant Dabral 11:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hemant Dabral: I will be taking those out too. I wasn't aware they were there. But I first wanted to check who put them in there. There was an extensive discussion on Talk:British_Raj/Archive_9#Emblem_and_Flag?, presided over by at least one admin RegentsPark. Please also see: Talk:British_Raj#Flag. Note that the British Raj page does not have a flag or emblem for that reason. The reason why I mentioned I created the page, is not to claim authorship, but to state that I have followed the conventions on these pages. It is possible that the flags were allowed, but they are not anymore. Please read the discussions I have mentioned. We are all human. Creating conventions by extensive discussions, even RfCs, then watching them for violations, takes time and effort, and sometimes we forget to enforce the conventions. When you do something en masse, please make a post on WT:INDIA. Please take these flags and emblems out. If you don't, you will simply create more work for everyone in a difficult stressful time during a global pandemic threat. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, you can remove these images. Thanks! Hemant Dabral 12:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
1RR violation at 2020 Delhi riots
Please self-revert while that option is still available to you. Please be cognizant of the restrictions that page is subject to. Thank you in advance for your close attention. Regards, El_C 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: Thanks. Had no idea I had done that, but you are absolutely right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, these things happen. Thanks for self-reverting. Regards, El_C 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 Delhi riots
Thanks for the note, but yes, I do mind, a lot. Not just because of the quotes--I don't understand your argument at all, and they're already "in the record" already. "the lead is being carefully finalized" sounds like there's some committee writing it, some committee that I and others didn't get invited to. Perhaps you can ask the committee why it saw fit to revert my edits to the rather horrible prose; who on earth writes tripe like "Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters" (as if Muslims weren't targeted in reality, just in someone's mind--was this article written by someone who was afraid of saying it like it is?) or "Fifty-three people were killed, most of whom were Muslims who were shot...". Shit, I can't even restore a decent topic sentence ("Muslims, muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters") because of the 1R restriction. No, I mind a lot. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is a toxic topic. It took a long time for it to calm down, and it wouldn't have happened without some general agreement among the editors (e.g. using only third-party international media with correspondents based in Delhi; in other words, not using Indian media, other South Asian media, etc.). In the absence of that, do you know how many newspapers there are available for use and misuse in the echo chamber of the Indian media? Enough that for every claim that Muslims were targeted, there are two that the Pakistanis choreographed the violence to embarrass Modi during Trump's visit. And I'm talking about the well-known newspapers that have the imprimatur of WP's tastemakers. Such is the pressure the Indian government has been bringing to bear on India's press. As for quotes, if you don't add the extended ones, i.e. only the citation, others will add polar opposite claims with the same citation, and then you'll be sidetracked in time-consuming disputes. Besides replacing the sentence, "Muslims were targeted, according to witnesses," (or paraphrase thereof) with "Muslims, Muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters," makes for less than coherent prose, when the very next sentence says, "In some instances, witnesses accused policemen of joining the rioters. In other instances ... Muslims were brutalised." Why? Because the police did not join in property destruction, only in beating up Muslim men. So the first sentence does need to be about Muslims, not property. Your sentence is also redundant when two sentences later we are saying, "The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters." So, again: people write, "Muslims were described (by witnesses) as being targeted ..." because if they don't there will be edit wars (and they've been plenty) disputing the paraphrasing; precise paraphrasing of the source can sometimes be clunky but is a good temporary expedient. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your grammatical and rhetorical analysis, and that POV commentators will disagree with statements of facts doesn't mean we need to avoid stating the facts. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you'll have to tell me why you disagree. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know, Fowler&Fowler--if you produce prose like this, "Muslims have been interpreted as having been marked out as targets for meting out violence" (I don't know how you managed to make it worse, but you did), using two weasel phrases and a passive construction to say "rioters singled out Muslims", I'm not sure there is anything I can explain to you. If "pressure" is making you write like that, maybe you should step away from the article. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- :) @Drmies: The problem is that we don't know that rioters singled out Muslims. Some people, by no means all, have made that interpretation. In some neighborhoods that is more the case than some others. Moreover, we don't know who has made that interpretation (the much-needed subject of active voice is absent in the sources; the source says, "The violence is described ... targeted," or "appears to be targeted." "Target (v)," moreover is chiefly an American English construction, and that a relatively recent one. The article is presumably written in some variant of Commonwealth English) What options do we have? An interpretation was made, by whom we don't know. Moreover, such interpretations are presumably still being made. We have no choice but to use the past perfect. I'm happy to listen to other formulations. Please suggest something else. But you will appreciate that constraints loom large. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know, Fowler&Fowler--if you produce prose like this, "Muslims have been interpreted as having been marked out as targets for meting out violence" (I don't know how you managed to make it worse, but you did), using two weasel phrases and a passive construction to say "rioters singled out Muslims", I'm not sure there is anything I can explain to you. If "pressure" is making you write like that, maybe you should step away from the article. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you'll have to tell me why you disagree. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your grammatical and rhetorical analysis, and that POV commentators will disagree with statements of facts doesn't mean we need to avoid stating the facts. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is a toxic topic. It took a long time for it to calm down, and it wouldn't have happened without some general agreement among the editors (e.g. using only third-party international media with correspondents based in Delhi; in other words, not using Indian media, other South Asian media, etc.). In the absence of that, do you know how many newspapers there are available for use and misuse in the echo chamber of the Indian media? Enough that for every claim that Muslims were targeted, there are two that the Pakistanis choreographed the violence to embarrass Modi during Trump's visit. And I'm talking about the well-known newspapers that have the imprimatur of WP's tastemakers. Such is the pressure the Indian government has been bringing to bear on India's press. As for quotes, if you don't add the extended ones, i.e. only the citation, others will add polar opposite claims with the same citation, and then you'll be sidetracked in time-consuming disputes. Besides replacing the sentence, "Muslims were targeted, according to witnesses," (or paraphrase thereof) with "Muslims, Muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters," makes for less than coherent prose, when the very next sentence says, "In some instances, witnesses accused policemen of joining the rioters. In other instances ... Muslims were brutalised." Why? Because the police did not join in property destruction, only in beating up Muslim men. So the first sentence does need to be about Muslims, not property. Your sentence is also redundant when two sentences later we are saying, "The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters." So, again: people write, "Muslims were described (by witnesses) as being targeted ..." because if they don't there will be edit wars (and they've been plenty) disputing the paraphrasing; precise paraphrasing of the source can sometimes be clunky but is a good temporary expedient. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I've undone my last effort at forbiddingly scrupulous NPOV. Thanks for your post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Civility
Your many contributions are appreciated, but please remember to keep your comments on talk pages civil, even if what you read makes you angry. I don't think it's OK to refer to any Misplaced Pages editor as a "doofus" as you did in this comment, as it contributes to a toxic culture and denigrates a person rather than criticizing content. Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct in your intervention. I should not have cast aspersions on the editor's character or mental faculty. I have corrected and apologized to the editor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Beland: I know this is somewhat off-topic to the current thread, but could you please remind the editor in the thread above to refrain from breaking out into intemperate language. Four letter words are four-letter words, no matter how much an editor considers them to be elliptical or metaphorical speech. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apology greatly appreciated. Regarding the above thread, I'm deferring to User:El C who has already intervened to try to bring civil discussion to Talk:2020 Delhi riots. I'd just urge all the editors participating there to focus on article content and sourcing and not on each other or the talk or article history or personal agendas, and to try to be patient and objective or at least respectful of other perspectives. -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apology greatly appreciated. Regarding the above thread, I'm deferring to User:El C who has already intervened to try to bring civil discussion to Talk:2020 Delhi riots. I'd just urge all the editors participating there to focus on article content and sourcing and not on each other or the talk or article history or personal agendas, and to try to be patient and objective or at least respectful of other perspectives. -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Beland: I know this is somewhat off-topic to the current thread, but could you please remind the editor in the thread above to refrain from breaking out into intemperate language. Four letter words are four-letter words, no matter how much an editor considers them to be elliptical or metaphorical speech. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Indenting
I would like to draw your attention to the WP:INDENT essay which explains why indentation levels should reflect that which is being responded to and should be ordered as such. If you are replying to something I have written after someone else has replied to something else, you should indent and insert your reply in relation to my comment, above the newer comment. Also, smaller issue and perhaps just my opinion, if you post two replies to the same comment, the second should not be indented further so as to appear that you are replying to yourself. Not indenting in the same manner as one would indent computer code (which I do not expect everyone to understand without it being explained) is confusing to the reader, at least to me, I cannot speak for all of Misplaced Pages. This indentation we use, as partly explained at MOS:LISTGAP, is actually significant for people using screen readers. Without having a messaging system implemented, threading the comments ourselves in the same manner as an automatic system would is important.
For example:
My comment.
- Your reply to my comment.
- My reply to your reply posted subsequently to below other user's reply to my comment.
- Your reply to my reply posted after below other users's reply.
- Your second reply to me posted after below.
- My reply to your reply posted subsequently to below other user's reply to my comment.
- Other user's reply to my comment posted prior to your reply to my reply but subsequent to your reply to my initial comment.
Not:
My comment.
- Other user's reply to my comment.
- Your reply to my comment.
- Your second reply to my comment.
- Your reply to my comment.
Because it looks as if you are replying to the other user instead of me and then replying to yourself (which is less of an issue but still potentially confusing).
Hope this is helpful, and if I a mistaken as to any customs here I welcome any talk page stalkers to point this out. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Your ownership of 2020 Delhi riots
@Fowler&fowler: Yesterday you removed 2020 Delhi riots from your list of self-appointed Current responsibilities, which I thought might signal you were done editing that page. Today, however, you returned. I therefore ask you to read my recent contribution to Talk:2020 Delhi riots that administrator El C removed after just two minutes, meaning you may not have had a chance to see it. I sought to comply with Misplaced Pages's Ownership of Content by posting it, as the policy directs, on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation.
El C, though, disapproved, asserting in his edit summary, "this is not the place to make such a report!" For that reason, I am engaging you here on this matter, just to be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with you. NedFausa (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
El_C, RegentsPark I understand that it is not the job of admins to intervene in content disputes, but at the same time, there is a limit to which people can nip at the heels of reasonably well-written edits, relentlessly. Please examine this history of death by a thousand cuts:
- In other instances, Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (some version of my original edit; I didn't have the m-dashes
- Some Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (edit by NedFausa, which introduces the ambiguity that only some Muslim males are circumcised.
- Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were sometimes forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (Corrected by Kautilya3 diff)
- For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to show their genitals before being brutalised. (I changed it to this version, as it came after, "Victims of the violence were targeted for being Muslim." "Muslim" was appearing back to back. (diff)
- For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised. (I changed it because a new sentence, "Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals." had been added, and now "genitals" was being repeated in two consecutive sentences. (diff)
- Earlier today, NedFauser changed the sentence to "Muslim males, who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments so that Hindus could ascertain their religion before brutalising them." with edit summary, "reword to clarify that Muslim males were not ascertaining their own religion. Please note: this is not a substantial change to the lead's status quo"
- Dear El_C and RegentsPark, Each time these editors edit, they introduce errors which have to be set right, even when they claim in long edit summaries that they are not changing the status quo. Please examine my last three edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
India-related FPs I
- Indian vultures, (Gyps indicus), in a nest on the tower of the Chaturbhuj Temple, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh. The vulture became nearly extinct in India in the 1990s from having ingested the carrion of diclofenac-laced cattle.
- The bank myna is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.
- The vulnerable Malabar frog is endemic to the Western Ghats.
- The endangered Nilgiri tahr is endemic to the Western Ghats. Shown here is a female in a national park in Kerala.
India-related FPs II
- The brahminy kite (Haliastur indus) hunts for fish and other prey near the coasts and around inland wetlands.
- The lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) is the Indian national flower. Hindus and Buddhists regard it as a sacred symbol of enlightenment.
- The Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) is the Indian national bird. It roosts in moist and dry-deciduous forests, cultivated areas, and village precincts.
- The Pahalgam valley in Jammu and Kashmir is covered with a temperate coniferous forest.
India-related FPs III
- A Toda tribal hut exemplifies Indian vernacular architecture.
- Bangles on display in Bangalore India
- A Sadhu and a picture of Siva in Kayasth Tola, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh in Northern India
- The pushkarani, or tank, located on the eastern side of Krishna temple in Hampi, Karnataka, the seat of the Vijayanagara Empire
India-related FPs IV
- Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim
- A Jain woman washes the feet of Bahubali Gomateswara at Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. The Bahubali idol is 58 feet (18 m) high and is carved out of a single rock on top of a hill.
- A Chola bronze depicting Nataraja, who is seen as a cosmic "Lord of the Dance" and representative of Shiva
- A sixteenth century rendering of a scene from the Ramayana, an ancient Sanskrit epic.
India-related FPs V
- Paintings at the Ajanta Caves in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, 6th century
- The Agasthiyamalai range, constituting the southern end of the Western Ghats, as seen from the rainshadow region of the southwest monsoon in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.
- A beach off the Arabian Sea in Puvar, Kerala. The Arabian Sea is the northwestern region of the Indian Ocean, bounded by the Arabian and Indian peninsulas.
- Flowing through its rocky terrain near Hampi is the Tungabhadra river, the major right bank tributary of the Krishna river, a peninsular river, which empties into the Bay of Bengal. The coracles, made of wicker, are traditionally covered with hide, their circular shape preventing them from overturning in rivers with rocky outcrops.
India-related FPs VI
- The recycling industry in India, a Varanasi paper bag seller
- An example of the Chinese fishing nets of Cochin. Fisheries in India is a major industry in its coastal states, employing over 14 million people. The annual catch doubled between 1990 and 2010.
- A tea garden in Sikkim. India, the world's second largest-producer of tea, is a nation of one billion tea drinkers, who consume 70% of India's tea output.
- A daily wage worker in a salt field. The average minimum wage of daily labourers is around Rs.100 per day
India-related FPs VII
- A bharatnatyam concert in 2014
- A Bondo woman walks to a weekly market in Chhattisgarh.
- A woman in Bundi, Rajasthan
- An ascetic in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
India-related FPs VIII
- The tomb of Itmad Ud Daulah, Agra,
- A Hindu bride
- The interior of San Thome Basilica, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Christianity is believed to have been introduced to India by the late 2nd century by Syriac-speaking Christians.
- A Sikh pilgrim at the Harmandir Sahib, or Golden Temple, in Amritsar, Punjab
India-related Classic Pictures-I
- A farmer in Rajasthan milks his cow. Milk is India's largest crop by economic value. Worldwide, as of 2011, India had the largest herds of buffalo and cattle, and was the largest producer of milk.
- Indian agriculture dates from the period 7,000–6,000 BCE, employs two thirds of the national workforce, and is second in farm output worldwide. Above, a farmer works an ox-drawn plow in Kadmati, West Bengal.
- Schoolchildren in Chambal, Madhya Pradesh eating a mid-day meal. The Mid-Day Meal Scheme attempts to lower rates of childhood malnutrition in India.
- Cricket is the most popular game among India's masses. Shown here is an instance of street cricket.
India-related FPs IX
- Asfi Masjid at the Bara Imambara complex, Lukcnow, India
- Chhota Imambara, Lucknow, India
- Taj Mahal mosque, Agra, India
- Bangalore panorama
India-related FPs X
- Red Weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina in Bangalore, India
- Female Telamonia dimidiata in the Lalbagh Botanical gardens, Bangalore, India
- Mysore Palace in the morning
- Indian Olympic athlete, Irfan Kolothum Thodi
India-related FPs XI
- Grammodes geometrica, Bangalore, India
- Mumtaz Ahmed Khan founder of Al-Ameen Educational Society
- Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bangalore, India
- Kumar Anish, Indian yoga specialist
India-related FPs XII
- Taj Mahal at the golden hour
- Bara Imambara, Lucknow, India
- Salman Khurshid, Indian politician belonging to the Indian National Congress
- Indian palm squirrel, Bangalore, India
India-related FPs XIII
India-related FPs IV
- Chandiroor Divakaran
- Karnataka High Court, Bangalore
- Dharmaraya Swamy Temple a Hindu temple in Bangalore
- Bangalore Town Hall
Notification of discretionary sanctions
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Having searched the applicable user talk history and system logs, I found no evidence that you were notified within the last twelve months that discretionary sanctions are in force for this area of conflict. Accordingly, please accept this alert for purposes of arbitration enforcement specifically involving 2020 Delhi riots.