Kerpal

India maps

Please STOP REVERTING the India states maps. You have reverted to a POV and biased version which do not depict the true boundaries of India. Besides many Union Territories are also absent. Please do not repeat this , else I'll have you blocked. Nichalp 13:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know very well that your maps are POV (see e.g. en:User talk:Gzornenplatz). Moreover, you changed the maps to what you must have known to be a controversial version (since there were revert wars about them before) and deleted all previous revisions stealthily under the guise of moving the images to commons - so that they could not be reverted to the old version again (and I had to look for some backup copy of, and then re-upload, the old images). This is an unacceptable abuse of administrator power for which I could more likely have you de-adminned than you could have me blocked. Aside from the POV, your maps are also ugly colour-wise and bloated in size. I will certainly continue to revert them. Kerpal 18:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User Gzornenplatz is known to be a problematic user and has been blocked for quite a while. He was against having a thick boundary for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. I have made sure that the outline of the state is thinner and have clearly stated which regions are administered by which countries and taken care to colour only the regions of Kashmir which are administered by India. Even the LoC is coloured differently (That's why I put a high resolution image). The map you have re-uploaded is a POV map. And for your information, this map is not the same that I discussed with Gzornenplatz. I have made the map from scratch. I have even put the map up in the Indian review and if you can see my talk page on the English wikipedia, a Chinese wikipedian has reviewed the map for its NPOV status. Its is your personal opinion on the colour, for which reverting isn't necessary. There is an 8mb size limit, there's no word "bloated" in the dictionary of wikipedia. I don't understand why you call it bloated, when it is a high resolution image detailing all the union territories which a low resolution cannot provide. If you look at the policies for deletion, there is no compulsory policy for listing an image in WP:IFD if it is going to be moved to commons. So I don't see how I can be de-adminned. Please do not push POV maps. Make your own, let us discuss if you want, but the current map of yours, made by morwen has limitations, it even excludes a few Indian Union Territories. Please do not revert. Nichalp 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what if he's blocked, he was right about it and you think now that he's blocked you can get away with your POV maps again. The issue of Jammu and Kashmir is that you do not treat the two main parts equally. If you include the Pakistani-administered part in a special colour, you also have to mark the Indian-administered part in a similar way. Your maps now suggest the Indian-administered part is undisputed. Explanation on the image page is not enough, since a typical reader will not go there and see that. And I call it bloated because your maps are 120K where the others are only 20K, and there's no need for your size since they're reduced on the actual articles where they're used anyway. The state maps just need to locate the state, you don't need to see the outlines of the union territories there. Only the maps of the union territories themselves may justify a greater size, and I don't revert your union territory maps anyway since there are no Morwen maps of them. There may be no requirement in general to preserve old versions if you move an image to commons, but that can only apply to uncontroversial images. If it's disputed, and you move it to commons while at the same time changing it to your version, then this is highly inappropriate. Kerpal 19:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information. I've licenced my maps under GFDL which means that anyone is free to use it if certain conditions are fulfilled. I've given them the option of using a high quality image if they are interested. There are many states which need the UTs to be shown like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat etc. 2) You speak more like Gzornenplatz. 3) I'll review the maps in a week's time, but till then please do not revert the maps as morwen's one is a greater POV than what I have uploaded. I'll take care of the changes after I return in a week's time. I disagree with you over the colours. Nichalp 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have coloured the maps of Jammu and Kashmir differently. This takes care of your objection of depicting the dispute. Nichalp 07:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert the map. Doing so will be reverting the map to the POV version. I've also reduced the resolution. If the maps are reverted, I will have to report you. Nichalp 07:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)