User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 2

more talk

Fowler&fowler,I want to talk to you about this in full detail.There is full proof that RA accusses Unre4L of the very thing that the indian editors do. He tell Unre that wikipedia is not a battleground while speaking of retaliation.Such hypocracy! I won't be satisfied until RA is removed from his "administrative" position,which I can hopefully accomplish with all the hardcore evidence. He deliberately ignored the racist comments by his fellow anti-Pakistanis,while falsly accusing Unre of being incivil on panani where so many racist comments can be found on the talkpage!!!

I will talk to you about this later and I think this block is completely unjustified and should be lifted immedietly.All 3 of us.

RA should be blocked for tag-team edit warring with Anapum and Bakaman against Szhaider.

But more talk on that later.user:nadirali

Present

For reverting vandalism on Taxila [1] you get a huge bowl of of Gulab Jamun. Enjoy. :) Rumpelstiltskin223 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Taxila map

Included Caucasus Indicus. Regards. PHG 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blocks

Hello. I was away from wikipedia for a few days. I will have understand the situation before commenting about it. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

let's make it clear

Please do not engage in revert wars or POV-pushing. You may cry foul all you want at this warning, but it is legitimate. The reason why Szhaider was doing wrong on Iqbal, Jinnah and other articles was that he refused to respect Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion - I had started this initiative to prevent the very kind of edit wars that we're having to face now. It was exactly the fear of the kind of edit wars we're having now that prompted me and user:Spasage to undertake this discussion. If he disagreed with that discussion, then it was his obligation to open a new discussion or an RfC. He chose to revert-war and make incivil remarks and attacks.

It is in defense of this consensus, the policies of WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT that I was forced to confront Szhaider and now you. I respectfully ask you to understand this wider issue properly and in the interim, to not engage in revert-wars or make accusations and incivil remarks. Rama's arrow 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I might add for your benefit, that both Iqbal and Jinnah are featured articles - approved by a consensus of editors as the best of articles on Wikipedia - both have appeared on the main page. I was the main author and I took deliberate care to discuss this very nationlity issue during the FAC proceedings. These are not thus, as you've chosen to think, articles held captive by an Indian cabal of editors. Rama's arrow 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In spite of these being featured articles, there is still an invitation to "edit this page". No consensus is final. If you disagree with an edit, explain why your version is better; why Muhammad Iqbal is more Indian than from British India, instead of repeating the consensus argument.El elan 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

(Also posted earlier on Rama's Arrow's talk page)

Dear Rama's Arrow. Thank you for your very kind note. If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify what you are warning me about and ask a few questions:

• I do understand that both Iqbal and Jinnah are featured articles; however, in my opinion, both leads could be improved stylistically. I did the same with the India article (also FA) lead in November (in collaboration with Nichalp, who offered his criticism, every now and then). How do I make similar changes to the Iqbal and Jinnah, if, for example, I happen to think that the leads are poorly written, and in need of stylistic changes? Please advise.
• I happen to intellectually disagree with you on your use of both "Indian" and "India." I am aware that there is a discussion page where these issues are being discussed. I have already posted a note there and will post more. But, my understanding is that no firm conclusion has been reached on that page about usage (by your own admission in an earlier posting on my talk page and by Deeptrivia's reaction.) Am I right in that conclusion?
• You said that I made uncivil remarks. Where did I make uncivil remarks? Please give me some concrete examples. I'd like to know, so that I'm more aware of what constitutes incivility and don't err in the future. Thanks!
• I am assuming you are warning me not to edit-war. Does it mean that if I revert your edits (without violating the 3RR rule and without being uncivil in my edit summaries), you will still punish me by blocking me? Please spell it out clearly for me. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would rather not have too many "gray zones."

Look forward to your replies! Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Also, what is an RfC? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fowler - I'm afraid I'm not impressed with your civility, which seems ensconsed in sarcasm and antagonism. When I say you are incivil, it is because you have taken your "criticism" to down-right attacks upon the integrity of others. For example, after you commented on user:Unre4L's block, I gave you a detailed explanation of my decision, in which I reiterated that I was not being vindictive and was open to criticism and a continuation of the debate. And what was the reply? Accusations of "tag-team" editing and suppressing Pakistani editors. Your comments towards Dmcdevit, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and Bakasuprman were laced with sarcasm and insinuations. Please keep criticism as objective as possible. When I extended Szhaider's block, you accused me of stoking the fires and accelerating the situation. Perhaps Szhaider should not have sought to evade the block - after all, he had a recourse to e-mail even after his abuse of the unblock requests.

• My warning to you not to edit-war precisely applies to your reversions. I beg your indulgence when I say that your reversions simply take up where Szhaider left off and are not accompanied by any discussion. Dropping a note on the India disambig discussion does not give you carte blanche to revert the consensus on other articles - did you wait for the discussion to develop? No. Were your edit summaries polite? No - if you don't find my rationale "factual" but instead "normative," that's not a reason for reverting w/o discussion a version previously upheld by a consensus. I will be happy to discuss the technical points, but only without the prospect of constant reversions.

• You are welcome to make any changes/improvements to any article - to this effect, please read WP:MOS, WP:WIAFA. However, your disagreement over the use of "India" and "Indian" does not carry weight for 1 basic reason - convention. We at Wikipedia are not out to reinterpret history. That the greater region has historically been known as "India" in cultural, socio-economic and other terms has been well-established - why, after all, is the subcontinent called the "Indian subcontinent." Even if you insist on describing Iqbal as a poet from the "Indian subcontinent," he would still be known as "Indian" because the subcontinent is "Indian." The usage of "British India," "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are also technically incorrect - these terms include and do not include various other nations such as Burma, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives - thus, they are not accurate descriptions of any geo-political entity or nationality. "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are mainly used as technical, not national references. In addition to that, both Jinnah and Iqbal are on record for talking in terms of "Indians," "Indian Muslims" and "India." Jinnah has been quoted as saying: "I am an Indian, first and foremost." When suggesting Pakistan, Iqbal spoke in terms of a state for the Muslims of "northwest India." Additionally, where are references to "British Nigeria," "British Sri Lanka," "British Iraq," "British Palestine," "Mughal Indians," "Iranian Indians," "Gupta Afghans?" Were these not part of the same kind of empires which held domain over India? Shall we modify the biography of Julius Nyerere to state "British Tanzanian?" Absolutely not - Wikipedia must not invent terms or promote different interpretations of history. It must report that which is factual and conventional. Yes, the India before 1947 was not the same as the India of today - to point out this difference without misleading readers, India (disambiguation) was created.

• It may appear that I'm rejecting the Pakistani POV, but I'm in fact rejecting both Indian and Pakistani POVs. WP:NPOV arises from reporting the facts without bias - I shall refute a non-factual claim from Indian editors with equal vigor. If I were a nationalist, I would prolly not have agreed to the India (disambiguation) solution, nor would I have been able to work with the Pakistani and Bangladeshi editors who helped forge such a solution. But I desire to learn history, not change the way it is learnt or taught. The readers are free to form their own conclusions. Deriving from his anti-Hindu rant, I basically suspect that Szhaider felt offended that the founding leaders of Pakistan were being connected with "India." I don't know why he feels they are any the less Pakistani, as they have been credited in the opening lines with having founded that state. However, we are not here to assuage anybody's insecurity or emotions.

• It is insulting to me that you ask me if I intend to block you, when I have never spoken of a block. First of all, blocks are not punitive. It is obvious to me that you think I'm an abuser of admin privileges, so I don't think I can expect anything worthwhile from you. After all, why else would you ignore my reply, which was crafted in the spirit of honest discussion with a clarification of my intentions and go ahead to accuse me of abuse without bothering to reply to me first? And a word of advice - if you consider yourself "relatively new," perhaps it is wise to gather some experience before making accusations against the integrity and work of more experienced editors. The so-called "evidence" you provide at ANI is entirely wrong - I have never, ever tried to "collude" against anybody. Despite being informed by other editors that Szhaider had been warned many times, you continue to believe that I was out to supress him. The reason I did not chose to recuse the block (even though I was thinking of recusing) was because he altogether violated a combination of policies - WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:POINT. I was only involved with him on the Iqbal article, but the 3RR there was not the only reason for the block. At least be respectful and objective in your criticism. Rama's arrow (3:16) 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Also posted on Rama's Arrow's talk page:

Dear Rama's Arrow: I'd like to respond briefly to your last post on my page:

• With regards my uncivil edit summaries, here is my perspective. I edited the lead of the Iqbal page on the 16th. I made a total of 6 or 7 edits and provided edit summaries for each. Please see history of edits. Nowhere did I say anything about assuaging anyones emotions etc. I said the term "British India" was more accurate (not neutral). A day later, you reverted all my edits, with the edit summary, "rvv- "neutral" term is not the goal. A "factual" term is. We do not invent or reinterpret terms to assuage the emotions and POV of Indians or Pakistanis, or anybody else." The comments seemed to impute both reasons and motivations inconsequent to my edit summaries. I therefore wrote in my edit summary: "What you consider factual, I consider normative. Don't see why your version is more factual. Please discuss on the talk page first. rv to f&f version." Why is my edit summary any more uncivil than yours? I had said nothing about Indian or Pakistani POVs or assuaging or appeasing anyone or their feelings anywhere. I hadn't used the word "neutral" either, but rather "accurate." (Please examine the history again.)
• You say I didn't reply to your explanation (posted January 14, 18:01 and 18:09) of your initial block of Szhaider, nadirali and Unrea4L. As a matter of fact I did reply. After reading your explanation, which seemed reasonable, and also seeing the sentence, "I am completely willing to continue this debate to help resolve this issue," I sent you a long reply on January 14, 20:52. However, I didn't get a reply from you (and still haven't). Recall that both my posting were about all three blocks Szhaider, nadirali, and Unre4L, not just the last mentioned, and its title said so. It was only the next day, when I didn't hear anything from you and still later, when I discovered that Szhaider's block had been extended, that I went to ANI. Finally once there, it was only when I saw what appeared to be quickly escalating talk of permanently banning him, that I made my first ANI post, which merely questioned the wisdom of their proposals. All this while, there was no intimation from you either on my talk page or on ANI, which came a number of days later. I think it would be hard to make the case that I didn't try. I am still happy to discuss all three blocks, if for no reason other than my feeling that the blockees haven't clearly understood the reasons.
• As for your feeling about my "sarcasm and antagonism" on ANI, it would only be proper for you to discuss it there. Since my views were expressed in a public forum, they should be discussed in that same forum. You have my permission to post both your "Let's make it clear" posting and the follow-up posting (from my talk page) on ANI.

Finally, for the record, I don't have any personal antagonism towards you. I hadn't heard of you until last weekend and haven't made any character judgments in this brief time—it's not my style. I've interacted with both Indian and Pakistani editors, and don't have any tribal allegiance to either tribe. If my language appears terse from time to time, it is mostly because my life is busy and I can edit only in brief snatches of time. I am happy to work with you on both the Jinnah and Iqbal leads and to carry on the discussion on the disambiguation page.

Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• "British India" is neither accurate nor neutral when you are describing a person's nationality, which is the issue on Jinnah and Iqbal. And for the sake of "accuracy," you placed two different terms - "British India" for Jinnah and "Indian subcontinent" for Iqbal. This is not "accuracy." Pray, what motives does one deduce from this? Did you feel so self-confident of your argument that prior to any proper discussion, you felt compelled to change key details in an article previously upheld as a featured article?

• I'm feeling too angry to comment further as I compound the grave accusations you have made against me with this latest round of accusations of incivility. Obviously some of this anger spilt into my previous comments, which I regret. However, let me simply say this (1) do not insult my intelligence - when I give you an exhaustive response, it is a response. I do not want to see you dismiss it as not a response and then accuse me of incivility. If you don't want to read it, don't waste time. And don't give me a friendly response and then go posting accusations of a serious type against me on ANI. (2) If you are "relatively new," never heard of me before a few days ago, have no "tribal allegiance," then please think twice, even thrice before you levy accusations of a very serious nature against anybody. I've prolly told you and others several times now that I have never, ever even entertained a single thought of behaving in the way you, Szhaider, Nadirali and Unre4L have accused me of behaving - I can summarize your "all" your accusations with a word used by a famous American general - "Nuts." In making such accusations, if you'd prefer to throw your lot in with these gentlemen, who've posted insulting remarks about a nation, a religion and respective individuals and communities belonging to them, that is your lookout. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rama's Arrow: Sorry that you are upset.

As for Iqbal and Jinnah I used "British India" for both. Please see here for Iqbal and here for Jinnah. Maybe someone changed one of them after my final edit.

With regards nationality, I am not using the expression "British India" (or other expressions for that matter) to describe nationality, but exploring other usages that get around the thorny issues of nationality. I know that many South Asianists in American academics, including the author of the Encarta article, are having to deal with these issues.

For example, when one says "X was the greatest chronicler of British India," one could mean "of the British in India." In contrast, "X was the greatest writer of British India," could mean (depending upon X) that he was the greatest writer to have come out of the British empire in India or associated with the British empire in India. Neither expression implies anything about nationality since X could have been a British citizen all along. All I am saying is that, similarly, I am trying to explore descriptions that get around the thorny issue of nationality, but nonetheless are informative and accurate (and aren't neologisms). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test alternative terms, write a book or an article in the journal. Your reasoning remains basically incorrect. Convention will dictate the writing of an encyclopedia. P.S. - it might take me a year or so to prepare a comprehensive list of all the books, research papers and magazines (plus inside quotes) that use the term "Indian" as nationality and "India" as a general reference to the geo-political region. So hang on, Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Blocks

Sorry, I don't think I can follow up on this. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Please read

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion. I have posted my comments there and hope you find them to be of help. Regarding the Doosra article, I have developed a compromise/NPOV version buttressed by sources from BBC which Unre4L has approved . He has requested that you also approve my rewrite before placing it on the article. Your comments at the Doosra talk page would be highly appreciated. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

re-blocked

One of the Pakistani editors you had mentioned earlier of has just been re-blocked.Please look [here].

Sanskrit

While I made quotes from the online sources I tried to curtail and re-word the sentences as much as I could. Perhaps a little bit more work will be better. I'll be working on it for a couple of days more. Chapultepec 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fowler ! I will finish it a couple of days from now I hope...

Regarding History section of India

I have reinserted History section because of following reasons.

• No controversy in current contents.If you feel any objectionable contents are available then please indicate the same.
• No major difference in article size with original version of History section and current version of History section.
• Probably we can seek views of other established editors like Nichalp,Rama'sArrow,Chanakya for deciding how to shorten current text further.--Indianstar 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

to put on your userpage

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your good efforts to protect articles from disruptive POV pushers Nadirali نادرالی

Thankyou for the welcome Fowler,I will keep in mind to avoid conversing with these people for the time being.There are many other non-south asian articles that I am on my way to editing.I will need help from you correcting some SA articles with POV in them,though.I am not too upset,I just feel that we should still keep off POV from articles.Thanks again for your warm welcome.Nadirali نادرالی

Fowler,they have used our blocks to revert Pakistani articles to POV.I don't know what to do.Rumpelsetskin223 is already enganging in revert wars with me.Nadirali نادرالی

article corrections

FOwler thanx alot for your help.I am sorry I haven't been able to control myself,but this time I'll try and stay away from it for a day or so. This Rumelstiskin already went to RA to try and get me re-blocked.

Anyway here are some of the articles:

• gun culture in Pakistan where he tried to link Pakistan to terrorism without any proof.

• anti-Hindu where they accuse Buddhists and Pakistanis of being biggotry towards Hindus.

• Indian nationalism where they claim that SA was all "India" and that many South Asians dream of the so-called "reunification" of "India" which was never there before 15th Augest 1947 as you know.

• Pakistani nationalism where they claim that Pakistanis "believe" the indus to be their history instead of the indus being Pakistani.They also accuse Jinnah of "dividing" "india" when we(me and other Pakistani users) had made corrections about him leading Pak to independance from British rule.There are also some accusations of Islamic fundamentalism in there.They also posted accusations of slaughtering Hindus and Sikhs when I tried to make it neutral by writing there was killings on all sides during independance.

• Christianity in Pakistan where there are several sections full of accusations instead of more productive things such as traditions and culture of Pakistani christians.

There are some other ones later on I can provide you with,but right now Im trying to write up a few articles about an actor and a 1962 fantasy movie.

Again thanx alot for your help.

Btw I have some proof about Rumpels activities on wikipedia,which his edting pattern makes me suspicious of his activity.Nadirali نادرالی

India extensions

Those were there merely to introduce the arrival of the Aryan people in South Asia (in this case India). Every basic introduction of Indian history talks about the Aryan migration,except for the wikipedia page. And this is due to POV on the part of certain Indians who feel that the event never happened when linguistics, archaeology, and even genetics prove it as fact. Even the Pakistan page talks about the arrival of the Aryans. The Iran page talks about the arrival of the Aryans. There is no reason why the India page shouldnt. Despite what a fringe view might uphold. Afghan Historian 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:India

If you are facing a content dispute you are increasingly unable to resolve, I suggest you file an request for comment, as was done for Talk:History of India, etc. This may help in resolving any disputes you may be facing. As for Sarvagnya, I've given him a warning about incivility.

In regards to our previous clash, I would like to apologize for making rude comments to you - I can't warn Sarvagnya with any credibility if I don't. I'm obviously not apologizing or defending the blocks I've issued - I stand by those decisions, 101% - nor can I appreciate your views on the matter, but I do regret being rude to you. Rama's arrow 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fowler, I've expressed my comments in the RFC section in Talk:India. Sorry for any belated response ... I was busy with the Bengali Wikipedia today. --Ragib 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

request for comment

Commented!AJ-India 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfC

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion Fowler&fowler. I have provided my comments at the India talk page. Thanks again for thinking of me. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment in a little bit. I will note that conservative and liberal are better banners than right-wing/left-wing.Bakaman 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hindi

I am actually using Mozilla and I have no problem with devanagari at all. Probably you should ensure under Tools->Options->Content->Advanced that under "Devanagari" system, Mangal or some other proper font has been selected. probably you could even check out this link: Wiki:Indic text. Your Roman rendering of the words was also wrong: it should be jeevancharit instead of jeevancharati.Cygnus_hansa 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus

In your editing, you inadvertently allowed for the deletion of a huge paragraph of text (NobleEage's edit) dealing with Human Rights Watch's review of the Devdasi practice in India. Please edit it to include that content again, as I can't without violating 3RR. Thanks. MinaretDk 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's undue weight and everyone knows it. The concept is presented by one source and refuted by tens of others but is presented like a real problem which some people are trying to refute allegations of. The wording needs significant changing if it were to ever be included. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, sources? Look up Devadasi on UN.org, the UN describes the dalit girls as VICTIMS, and the practice as a form of prostitution. If HRW and the UN are anti-Hindu, who's reliable? MinaretDk 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reservation

The entire concept of reservation is that Dalits don't need high marks to get into jobs that upper caste people will need high marks for. See the 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests. So I can't see what you are talking about. I'll change the wording so it doesn't say "work harder", which is a POV term. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the image. :) I went to Dalit and couldn't find an image that shows persecution of Dalits, so I found one that demonstrates niceties to Dalits. :) — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus

Hi - as you seem to be involved in the present dispute, I'd suggest that you spearhead an RfC or some organised effort. I've asked Nobleeagle to do the same. I've protected the article in the interim, Rama's arrow 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mendelsohn is on p40-41.Bakaman 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

India edits

There seems to be a long discussion on the topic, a bit too much to chew. I have protected the page for now, I suggest we keep the page locked for a long period.. 1 week or more so that things cool down. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Good work on kurta. Nice to have pictures. It's much appreciated. Zora 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear F&F, I took you at your word and copyedited the kurta article. No major changes, but lots of minor ones. What I brought to it was the perspective of someone who actually sews kameez/kurtas. If I misunderstood you at any point and introduced any inaccuracies, please fix them.

I mentioned plastic buttons because, even though I don't buy cheap ready made kurtas, I'm sure that there are people out there making them with the cheapest possible buttons, which would be plastic. Zora 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

one more

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		On behalf of Unre4L,Szhaider and I for defending us when we were falsely accussed,for trying to lift our spirits when we were unjustly blocked,and for your freindly advice.Nadirali نادرالی

Request for Comment

Please comment at Talk:Doosra#Removing_Hindi in light of reasons that I have provided. Please note that, when previous RFC was conducted on the said page, I was blocked from any contributions, although, I wanted to have my say. Right now almost all users are blocked from whom I could expect any support. I believe, solid facts and ground realities should be put above any consensus; after all Wikipedia is not a legislative assembly. Thanks! Szhaider 12:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

your deletions of references

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please don't delete references in wikipedia articles like you did [2] in the Indus Valley Civilization article. You are hurting thereby the integrity of the article. Thanks. --RF 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fowler don't let these POV pushers scare you.You're doing a great job.Just keep it up!--Nadirali نادرالی

Your edit at Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar‎

indian born is fine, but the link has to be to india (disambiguation) not ROI; the pain fact is that he was born in British India not ROI; has nothing to do with Tamil

What do you mean by pain fact? It is fact after all!--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel offended :(--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I felt offended because you were using weasel words and it was directed to me... kind of putting me into the same category of pov pushers (including certain someone who is very happy with you :) )--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Btw, I am trying hard to not be civil these days.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi F&F,

British India is not a standard usage anywhere. Even at Wikipedia we refer to British India as India (with a disamb link), if you really take exceptions to this then go ahead, post abt this at Village Pump. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is a WP policy. WP doesnt have a policy on such minor issues. What i meant is that it "India" rather than "British India" is a standard usage even when referring to pre-1947 India. As for meatpupptery what do i make out of this [3]? Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As for AMartya Sen book read WP:UNDUE. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I'm a Sindhi. The article is about Sindhi literature not literature from Sindh. Theres a whale of a difference between them. Look as i see, nobody had problems with Chandrashekar article, Sindhi literature (India tag was put there by a Pakistani Sindhi) before Nadirali came along. Now that hes blocked i've seen you edit same set of articles. Project tags are not meant to signify national onwership something i've trying Unre4L and Nadirali to understand. Sorry if i sounded rude (we're iced up here in Souhtern England). Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

your comments

hi Fowler,I'd like your comments regarding this and [4].Check the part where I mention RA. Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی

need you as a witness

Can you act as a witness to this case with any evidence and statements of your own?Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی

Thanks alot for your reply.I have requested to the Arbcom that they allow some neutral users to act as witnesses to my statements,which I will base on evidence.About my signature,I don't allow the time to show as it comes between my signiture in english and urdu,causing confusion.--Nadirali نادرالی

Okay thanks alot for being so considerate and adding the time stamp.You were right about this being RA's response to that.The same idea was in mine and Unre4L's head.COuld prove useful later on.Thanks again.Regards.Nadirali نادرالی

check this out

I think anyone is allowed to give their opinion in an arbcom , check this case out [5]as it would give you an idea and as a lot of the users in this case were involved there also. Rama's Arrow has been a very balanced admin ( in my opinion at least) and your case against just him would be weak. Take a leaf out of what dbachman is talking about and look to increase the number of users who push a POV contrary to yours. Haphar 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no attempt to foist my opinion on you, nor to get you to change your opinion. I have marked a related dispute as a link as it would help with the current dispute. The case does not push any POV, but gives a very good insight into some of the forces you are tackling. It does not validate your opponents, It does not offer "enightenment", nor does it give "opinion". It offers some facts and gives you some ammunition. You can certainly choose to keep your own council, however then wikipedia is the wrong place to be.Haphar 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate Haphars advice,his opinion that RA is balanced is wrong and we both know it.Each accusation I make to Arbcom will have evidence behind it.Frankly I see no other way of pointing out their violations if not with evidence.Best regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Not an issue F&F, appreciate your clarifying Haphar 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your (Atulsnischal) article Wildlife of India

Dear Atulnischal, I'm not sure what grand plan you have in mind, but copying the section on Flora and Fauna from the India page and pasting it to create a new article and then referencing it on the India page itself requires some explanation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) User talk:Saravask

"Wildlife of India" deserves an article in its own right, "Wildlife of India" is a popular term that people look for and search for on the internet, school kids, nature lovers and people who want to go on nature and eco-tourism trips etc. General people and younger generation looking for Info on Indian wildlife do not look for scientific and little known and boring words like Fauna or Flora or terminology like Protected areas of India etc. All this can be brought together under "Wildlife of India" article by a popular and commonly used and searched name. As per the content of this article: everybody is free to edit and add info on it.

Thanks, sincerely

Atulsnischal 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[6] made on February 14 2007 to Indian mathematics

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. Aksi_great (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you started a discussion on the talk page, but you continued to revert [7], [8], [9], [10] and broke 3RR in the process. Please take care not to keep on reverting while attempting to discuss things. As it is your first violation, I have blocked you only for 12 hours. Hope to never see you violate 3RR again. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Aksi great, I guess I goofed. It won't happen again. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you promise to keep away from making any reverts for 24 hours, then I will consider unblocking you. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I promise to not only make no reverts for the next 24 hours, but also to start a RfC on the Indian Mathematics page to sort this issue out properly. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the autoblock as well. But you should know better. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aksi! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And thanks, Nearly Headless Nick! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancient lands of Pakistan?

Fowler&fowler,
How did my change add "double redundancy" to the History of Pakistan article? "Ancient lands of Pakistan" makes it sound like Pakistan has been extant since several centuries BC. Why is it so redundant (or "doubly redundant", as you put it) to say "ancient lands of what is now modern-day Pakistan"? If you have a look at History of Iraq or History of Iran, there's a clear mention of "modern nations" or "the land area now known as modern Iraq".

Max ^{- You were saying?} 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The phrase "ancient lands of Pakistan" is not equivalent to "ancient lands of modern-day Pakistan". Why not explicitly mention what you want the reader to implicitly assume (that Pakistan is a modern-day state)? It's always good to be clear.

Okay, apparently "ancient lands of what is now modern-day Pakistan" is too verbose. Fine. Let's split it. Would either "ancient lands of what is now the nation of Pakistan" or "ancient lands of the modern-day nation of Pakistan" make it more palatable?

Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fowler. Max ^{- You were saying?} 11:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

alleged personal attack

Fowler RA alleged that I attacked you.I didn't.I think I was confused because another user attacked me and your name was near his. It was entirely confusion.Sorry about that,man.--Nadirali نادرالی

Hi

See here. The misrepresentations are gone and two statements which actually seem to deal with the critique stay. I am not interested in indiscriminate revert wars with you. Like I said before, I demonstrably find both your reasoning and your purpose for editing the "Indian mathematics" article contrary to WP policies. I have removed the misrepresentations and the OR conclusions. I will let the assesment section stay since you seem protective of it. Both of us have other things to do on WP it would be best if revert wars are not initiated. _{Freedom skies| talk}  12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Sock

I need your help, this user Freedom skies is accusing me of being your sock. Apparently he must have a grudge against you, and is trying to use it to ban both of us. IP198 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

---

is trying to use it to ban both of us

Complete discussion. I am not trying to use it to "ban both of us" but I would enforce WP Policies strictly in the capacity of a vigilant editor. If the sockpuppetery stops then I have no intentions of pursuing or discussing this any further. If I feel a case is needed due to persistent abuse of WP policies then It'll have to be it. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Where did user:Freedom skies say?

look at his contributions. It says undid edits by fowlers sock, on the kashmir conflict, which i happened to edit. also on hindokwans he says rv fowlers sock, another article which i happened to edit. Thanks for replying, i appreciate it. IP198 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[11] [12] Here are the links, once again thanks for your help. IP198 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

workshop

Can you please look at the Workshop of the arbitration case.You are free to endorse or oppose proposals under the 'others' section so that you are not confused with parties involved.Thanks!--Nadirali نادرالی

That's fine.Sorry i didn't mean to push you.:-).Yeah tommorrow is fine.I better go to bed as well.It's quite late.--Nadirali نادرالی

Fowler there is no point in going on.Their massive numbers have now shifted from the articles to Arbcom to pitch in support for RA. What's more is that a Jewish editor who I had a simple disagreement with over a category now wants revenge for my disagreement and is now pitching in support for the Indians.Very sad.After how hard my parents worked to provide shelter for Iranian Jews,I (not to mention Unre4L and Szhaider) now have had to suffer for a small disagreement.

Siddiqui has given up and I think he did the right thing. Nadirali نادرالی

Fowler I got your message.I figured you're right.But don't be surprised if we get banned.Not because it would be justified,but because the Indians have too many voters,not to mention they are in administrive postions and now they've teamed up with Jewish editors who've developed an enimanity for me just because I disagreed on a category.Let's see what can be done.But even if I get banned,I'll never forget the good freind you have been and for all your kindness and support.--Nadirali نادرالی

This is too much.I am accussed of calling Chabuk "anti-Pakistani".I never said that.And why is my awarding Fowler,Szhaider or Unre4L barnstars being posted here? Why is this falsified "evidence" being allowed here in the first place? And also these Jewish editors have agreed to punish me for disagreeing over a small category because I felt it's going against WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.Now they are here joining forces with these users.I never had any conflict with them.Just a disagreement and now they want me to suffer for it."The enamy of my enamy is my freind".I am nobody's enamy.These people have been behaving with agresion towards me.--Nadirali نادرالی

Surprise!

I =Nichalp «Talk»=, award Fowler this barnstar for upholding wikipedia's core goals and values. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this. Well done.

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Hey Fowler&fowler, I have been seeing a lot of your work, and I am impressed with the way you always support your edits with hard facts. And even with set backs, you never give up. Truly inspired Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 02:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I've been under some pressure as my math exam is just two days away. Have you seen the RfC yet? I intended to remove every bit of opinions and provide citations for the rest. Let this article be for "Indian mathematics" alone, without "Praises of IM intro" and "Critisisms of IM", which frankly do not deserve an encyclopedic entry. The opinions I removed included glowing favourism as well. If you feel that all opinions need to go then you can revert to my version. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could do me the courtesy of a speedy reply then I should be able to get down to finding the citations. You'll understand that time is of immense value to me right now. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The speedy reply is apprecited. The article in it's current form is full of statements of either praise or supposed critisism. Are you sure you want to keep them? Why not let this be about "Indian mathematics" and not about the opinion of various people regarding IM? _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian mathematics

I'll be blunt: I've verified some of Freedom skies' edits before or rather, failed to verify them because, not only did he cite unreliable sources, but even those unreliable sources didn't support what he said!
So, to be honest, I do mind the revert, but I will defer to you, seeing as you are the opposing party.
CiteCop 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fowler, I know the problem. I've myself been reverting many of his edits on other articles ([13], [14] , etc). I would not have accepted a statement such as "Diophantus got his algebra from India (ref: X)", but when the statement is "According to X, Diophantus got his knowledge from India (ref: X)", and X is notable, that's the best citation we can get. I have now removed the other two citations, which were not primary sources. Well, I think that at all times, the quality of the article should be maintained at the best level possible at that time, regardless of what's going on between the editors. Most visitors on wikipedia are just readers afterall, unaware of the discussions that go on behind the curtains. I know poor quality references creep into this kind of articles very fast, and we should surely try to weed them out, replacing them with better citations and removing unverified content. Why not just do it at once, if this could be easily done? deeptrivia (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't notice that the RfC was entirely about quality of references. Still, why not use diffs or scrap pages (oops, I forgot what you call those pages that you create on a userpage with a /) instead of the main article itself to compare different versions? That's just my opinion. deeptrivia (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fowler, feel free to make any changes to the article. I will have to go through the entire discussion before I comment (I wasn't even aware of the RfC before I added those references, otherwise I surely wouldn't have made these edits). Right now, I am struggling with some deadlines, and cannot read the whole discussion as carefully as I generally do before commenting. But once I'm done with my work, I would surely go through it, and see if I can contribute towards solving it. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I appreciate the proposal and your comments. Given the time frame I am tied up till at least tommorow, when I will craft my complete reply. My reply is going to be favourable to the proposal since incessant confrontation only leads to delayed discussions, in my experience. The discussions do take place in any event, delayed or otherwise. I agree that "India invented this first" needs to be replaced with just the inventions and the time period. _{Freedom skies| talk}  01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)