User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Kamala Harris and Charles Curtis

I'm not going to revert your edit, since I think describing her as the first Black and the first South Asian vice president explicitly means that she's biracial, and I agree that the fact that she's the second biracial VP after Charles Curtis is far less significant than the "firsts" that she's accomplished. However, I would not describe a former VP, who made history in his own right, as an "insignificant nobody," and the Census does indeed allow for multiple responses in the race category, so that people may self-identify as multiracial. Those data are used in an official capacity. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I'm on vacation and trying very hard to stay away from editing. I apologize if I erred in my edit summary characterization, but the long-standing convention on that page has been one of opening a talk page thread for a proposed edit and then achieving consensus. That is what you should do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to revert, so I didn't see the need to discuss it on the talk page. JTRH (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

26 January

I have added Netaji Jayanti (Parakram Divas) to see also section of Subhas Chandra Bose. Wikifulness (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikifulness: It is already linked in the article by virtue of your own edit. See here. We cannot also have it in by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#NOTSEEALSO Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok... Thanks Wikifulness (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What's this going on?

Before adding references, someone added deletion tag on Jagaran (newspaper). Please review it. Wikifulness (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about the newspaper or its deletion. Why don't you engage the person who added the deletion tag? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature

Hello, I'm sending you this note because you need to update your signature. You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Your signature does not link to your account. This is usually because your account has been renamed.

To fix your signature, you need to find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences and either blank it or change the link to your current account name. More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. mw:New requirements for user signatures/Help#Wrong user links. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. I haven't changed a thing in 14 years! Who renamed it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&fowler. The usual way to end up on this list is that you set a custom signature, rename your account, and then forget to update your signature to the new username. I think you ended up on my list as a false positive. It looks like the script I used dislikes all the signatures with & in them. Sorry for the noise. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Great. Thanks for getting back to me and clarifying promptly! Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

PBS notification

If you wish to trigger a notification for me (as you did on 08-01-2021), please use User:PBS as my old user name redirects to my new user name but does not trigger a notification. -- PBS (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romila Thapar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bhagirathi River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garhwal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Just dropping you a quick message as I saw you mention on the uttarakhand flood article that you had drawn the headwaters of the ganges by hand. I think that's very impressive - and made me realise that you didn't seem to be active on wikiproject maps, nor indeed on wikiproject floods. The seasonal monsoon flooding in china and india (and surrounding regions) could no doubt do with better coverage - and perhaps you might want to weigh in on this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology#Wikipedia's_coverage_of_floods_found_lacking - I did even consider that a map might be the best navigation template but obviously that gets rather intricate - particularly with politically sensitive borders. Anyway I just wanted to say hello really. Hello :) EdwardLane (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. Thanks for your post. That map was made a long time ago when I had more time and better and faster hand-eye-coordination. :( I sometimes wonder how I did it. I will look at the WikiProjects and your link. The problem these days is that I'm often flat out of time. I will look and contribute if I can do so easily. Hello, again. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all cool - I totally understand the lack of time, I hope that you stumble on something interesting and easy (for you) to enhance, and I'll get your talk page off my watchlist now I've seen a reply. :) EdwardLane (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2019 Balakot airstrike outcome

Hey - no issues on your edits to the outcome and the explanation. The addition by the other editor added WAY too many details. This one is complicated, as the outcome is really fuzzy and with two distinct parts including the retaliation by Pakistan. If the outcome was going to get more and more involved (based on the edit), it may make sense to either totally omit the outcome, or entirely link to a section in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I was really tired last night when I made those edits. I meant to apologize for the helter-skelter manner in which I went about making them, but forgot. The problem here is the history of two arch-rivals, India and Pakistan, with 70 years of post-colonial strife, suspicion, and ill-will. The media in each country becomes patriotic during any military engagement, and are not to be believed. So, we've used only third-party sources, i.e. well-regarded print media in liberal democracies that do not officially lean toward either country. (China, for example, supports Pakistan, and Russia India, so media from both would be out.) But the Infobox is the perennial bane of these pages—a kind of premium real estate where (some editors feel) all sorts of POV claims can be snuck in. So, I agree: the edit you reverted did need to go. (Besides, any time a sentence has six sources, it means no single is good enough.) As for your suggestion about keeping the "Result" test pithy and linking it to something in the main body, the problem is that it plays into what the Indians would like (for reasons that you can infer from the current "Result."). The anniversary of the "airstrike" is approaching—is two weeks away. Mischief by drivebys will increase. If a Result appears front and center in the description (e.g. in the Infobox), mischief can be easily caught; when it is snuck away in a later section, it is not. ... Those are my thoughts about this matter. Your edit was great. Apologies again for the scatterbrained manner in which I went about tidying up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Uttarakhand flood

Woah, no need to be an asshole using the vandalism template on my talk page. Are you serious? Is that what you consider a good debate climate? You should be ashamed of yourself. --Tallungs (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "Woah." It is "Whoa." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Anime and Manga BarnSakura
		For your greatly appreciated improvements to The Heart of Thomas during its peer review. Morgan695 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: You are very welcome and thank you in turn for the barnstar ... though the thanks also go to Hagio and her cohorts, and to the Shinto gods. Btw, if you find Thomas's translation selling anywhere again at a reasonable price—it seems to be out of print—please let me know. (I'm assuming Thorn's translation is that of the text; the illustrations remain Hagio's.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct re: the division of the translation. I actually emailed Fantagraphics about just that, and they indicated that plans to reprint Thomas along with the second volume of Hagio's The Poe Clan were derailed by covid, so hopefully it's something that happens in the near future. I myself don't even own a copy; when I began developing this article back in December I was able to acquire a copy from my local library, so you might have some luck there if you're looking to read it yourself. Morgan695 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear about their reprint plans, even if thwarted temporarily ... Ah yes, the libraries. I should have thought of them. Will search the nearby ones. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! How are you? Ive been extremely infrequent. And yes, I agree to that change in the image caption you made (Muslim-influenced). The previous caption (Muslim style roti) was not technically correct.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dwaipayanc: Great to hear. Thanks for pointing out the error. I miss the good old days! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Are you from India. Satyam Anand 34 (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We are all Africans under the skin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to join a discussion

Greetings

Requesting you to have a look at a discussion Talk:Pakistan/Archive 20#The only country that has been created for Islam??, please do join in to the discussion if the topic interests you.

This discussion invitation is made to you since previous you seem to have contributed to update article Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Did so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Fowler&fowler Many thanks for participating in discussion and your valuable contributions to the article Pakistan.

When some one extends a helping hand on Wikipedia, I do have kind of habit for asking a little more (help):). There are lot many serious aspects of South Asia that needs to be covered and while I do have a long list for them, at this moment while writing to you is some thing bit light-hearted topic i.e. Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai. Many refs like this news make me feel use of "Pawri Ho Rahi Hai" is just not one of the event but most likely to remain around in South Asian use for significant time to come. Requesting your kind help in expanding the same if topic interests you whenever you can. Thanks again and warm regards Bookku (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a feel for this topic. Unlike the history of (formerly) British-ruled South Asia, this is a South-Asian cultural topic, and I'm not very familiar with it. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kurmi

Hi, it is regarding the Kurmi article, which is probably one of the last caste/community articles that still has a section on HH Risley's anthropological classification. Should it no get removed per consensus on British era sources and being racial classifications? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not use 19th-century British ethnology as a source to classify Kurmis, only uses the work of the historical anthropologist Susan Bayly to describe how ethnologists classified them and how their classification affected two late-19th century censuses. The Kurmis thereafter, like some other non-elite castes (Yadavas (the former Ahirs and Gwalas), the Jats, and Kayasthas, whom the British and the Moghuls had admired for their work ethic (see the work of the late Christopher Bayly cited in the article), began a sanskritization movement of caste upliftment and Kshatriya appropriation. They adopted the Ramcharitmas as their book, in the manner of the "Yadavas" adopting the Krishna cult; took names such as Singh, began to wear the sacred thread and to sequester their women (in the manner of Brahmins and Kshatriyas). This had happened earlier with other non-elite castes: the Marathas in the 17th-century (beginning with Shivaji's "coronation") and going back to the Rajputs themselves in the first millennium CE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiris

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I've withdrawn the above notice. I didn't know the whole story about the mass deletion of material on the article. I'm truly sorry.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Molandfreak: Thanks very much. I just saw this post. No need to apologize. You were doing your duty as you saw fit. I will soon make a post on Talk:Kashmiris. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• A partly relevant fork has appeared at Kingdom of Kashmir. Not sure how it is different from Karkota Empire. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam: This editor user:पाटलिपुत्र has been spamming both text and images on WP, much copied from journal articles that allow this sort of copying. He brings them into one WP article by cutting out pieces here and there from images, and finding some obscure source that indirectly supports a point (in one case in which I brought the topic to WT:INDIA he was using a source authored by an architect and self-published), thereafter sometimes bides his time, and quickly creates bogus histories, which in the manner in which he operates can approximate several in a day. This editor has caused untold harm to WP, especially in articles related to the histories of the central-lower-Gangetic plain. Some of his edits seem to share outlook and philosophy with current-day Hindu-majoritarian conceptions of ancient India. I have redirected that page to Kashmir#History. Apparently, he does not seem to understand that people on WP have been thinking about Indian history for a very long time; we wouldn't need an editor to create a page on a fairly broad topic in IH in 2021; we would have done it much earlier if it had NPOV and reliably sourced content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

PS The sad thing about WP is that its India-related pages are so affected by OR, Synthesis, and POV-promotion that on many days, I spend more time reverting edits than making any productive contributions myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes

I'm a bit confused by this edit; it's an applicable navbox, I'm sure you'll agree? So what else is at issue? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone will slap on the navbox, "Violence against Hindus in India", as a third of the dead were Hindus. Before we know it, the lead will be cluttered, and the article top-heavy with navboxes. Besides, the 2020 Delhi riots (whose lead I chiefly wrote (with input from Ned Fausa, Serchevalerie and Slatersteven) despite much opposition from many) don't fit into conventional templated notions of violence in India. It is a new kind of violence, more audacious, shameless, presumptuous, fed by Hindu revivalism and majoritarianism perpetrated by crowds that have as yet belonged only to aspiring fringes of upper-caste and upper-class Hinduism. Many leaders are no Swami Vivekananda, Madan Mohan Malviya, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, or Atal Bihari Vajpayee either in background or education. For them, these names, or for that matter the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, even Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas, are merely forms of empty narcissism. Although I have not reviewed the rest of the article with care, I do know that pretty much every new addition has been debated and consented to on the talk page first. This was just an off-handed addition. The least that editor should do (if you will per WP:BRD) to take it to the talk page. I apologize, I should have explained all this in my revert. Thanks for bringing this up. I will make a post on the talk page later. But now I have to wheel the trash barrels to the curbside. It is Monday morning.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone added the other template it would be a problem, I agree. I do think the one you removed is needed, though. The Violence against Hindus template may be added as a reaction, but I don't think there will ever be consensus to keep it there; that's an argument that has been dealt with at other pages related to religious violence. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've re-added it, but much later in the article where a reader has gained enough knowledge about the 2020 Delhi riots to benefit from the template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remember

Softly softly catchee monkee. You need to tone down your comments. Please. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina.
Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo. I'll take a look. But I'm flat out of time.  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

Can you please provide the link for the consensus you are talking about here[1]. LearnIndology (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ask others, whatever is that link, which I have not clicked on. You are walking on thin ice in Wikipedia. I suggest that you not waste my time, or others, editing POV-ridden pages. Ask the admins: Bishonen, El_C, Johnuniq, Vanamonde93, or RegentsPark; or ask knowledgeable NPOV editors, such as Kautilya3, for example. You are inching ever closer toward being topic-banned from India-related pages. Best regards and please don't bother to reply, nor take this as a license to engage in POV promotion. I'm not pinging anyone yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I will mention Kautilya3: Hi Kautilya3: I am impossibly busy. Could you please reply to this editor in broad terms, i.e. without going into the weeds that s/he likely would like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, why don't you just provide the requested information, rather than again and again threaten and bully? I don't know User:LearnIndology, but he is not a vandal it seems. Your incivility is sickening. Pinging @Doug Weller: पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

He is very likely a sockpuppet of Highpeaks35. You have a history of sock puppeteering as well. I can add chapter and verse. So please don't tempt me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And please don't cry wolf to the admins at every whim of yours. They do not serve gray-zone editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your bullying and threats are counter-productive Fowler&fowler. Have a nice day. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fowler, the consensus that was reached at WT:INDIA was to mentioned the "disputed territory" phrasing for the first level administrative units, i.e., the two territories in India, two in Pakistan and one in China. And, we haven't yet implemented it for the unit in China. (I am glad to admit to Chinese appeasement myself.) I did propose that districts and district capitals should also be marked as being in a "disputed territory" but that didn't go into the consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The devolution to districts and district capitals in is implicit here It was watched by admin Abecedare and had inputs from Wikiproject Pakistan as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how this can be a justification to suppress the history of Srinagar? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking back at the discussion myself. You did propose wording for all four levels, and the wording was agreed. But the RfC itself didn't happen. However, you said you wanted to implement it for the top-level units to start with, and we were happy to go along. If you want to implement it for the other three levels, we need to have the RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow Fowler&fowler all these accusations just for asking you to link to a consensus? I feel bad that you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, but really, you need to read WP:CIVIL. Your conduct is unacceptable and it's a good thing that an admin was pinged to see that. You already have a recent warning on your talk page regarding this. If you appeal to a consensus to blank most of an article, you need to be prepared to defend that. LearnIndology (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to take me to ANI and be prepared for the boomerang. I've had it with your shenanigans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not my interpretation. There were a number of supports (from Gotitbro, Deluxevegan, Ms Sarah Welch, Lingzhi, and admin Abecedare (off the top of my head) and no disagreements; other admins who had supported the previous versions, simply did not feel to register their support again and again. For anything new, such as the maps here, they quickly registered their support, which was long after the devolution to districts and district capitals. I don't think any admin thinks another RFC at this time is advisable. WP:INDICSCRIPTS is based on a similar RfC. Ideally, yes, a new Wikiprojects India, Pakistan, China, RfC would be good at a future point of time. But until it happens (and I don't see who but me would pull it off (as I'm the only one with enough goodwill in Wikiproject Pakistan for them to participate in any critical mass; I don't mean to sound arrogant, but facts are facts)), this will serve as the consensus to revert obvious POV-forks, such as in Srinagar, where the unreliable Hindu history of "ancient" Kashmir is being repeated out of sight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, for districts and district capitals, we would not need the big maps, but the admins were aware that an earlier RfC had taken place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion we had was a prelude to an RfC but not the RfC itself. The RfC process is defined at WP:RfC. Only those proposals that go through such an RfC are enforceable. Others with local consensus depend on editor goodwill. WP:INDICSCRIPTS was indeed decided through a proper RfC.

But, RfC or not, I don't see how the "local consensus" we had says anything about the Hindu history of places. If a place has a Hindu history it will be written. It makes no difference which country it is in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I forgot that I had requested El_C to have that RfC! So, Thanks Kautilya3. I made an error in what I said above and was sloppy besides. So apologies. There are two different issues in Srinagar. The "RfC" is only about mentioning disputed regions etc in the lead. The history bit is a POV-fork. See the edit summaries of my reduction. That is not to say that SN does not have a history, but that what was there was mostly either highly unreliable or the more general history of Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR rule and gesture of good will

Fowler&fowler, as a gesture of good will, I am refraining from filing against you an Administrative claim for edit warring and violation of the 3RR rule on the India page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:17, 6 April 2021 [2] "Your edits are mostly redundant, too many al at once, and some constitute overlinking"
2. 14:34, 6 April 2021 [3] "Rv redundant edits by johnbod; take to the talk page if you must; much later is nonsense"
3. 14:46, 6 April 2021 [4] "Reverted edits by Johnbod (talk) to last version by Fowler&fowler"
4. 16:30, 6 April 2021 [5] "No one has responsed to your Roots of Hinduism section; I was merely parodying it. A dispute can't be about one person's dissatisfaction"

Now, you don't have to say thank you, which I know you won't, but please assume good faith and be more open towards the contributions of others. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia in a collaborative manner, and your compulsive reverts are not helpful. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to take me to ANI. You are not here to build a better encyclopedia. I am the one who is relentlessly pressured by POV promoters on this page. How many edits have you made? In the tens. How many have I made? In the thousands. I'm the one that has a million views tag for the Featured Article India on my user page. I'm the one who singlehandedly worked on the last FAR. You on the other hand are a well-known sock puppeteer. I don't need your charity. If the people at ANI think I am worthy of a block or ban, I'll be happy to receive it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: for your information... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• India is the oldest country Featured article on Wikipedia, to celebrate its 17th year this September. It has been through review processes:
• The last Featured article review was in 2011, and nominated by me.
• The lead and two sections were reviewed again over a period of a month in August 2019, with dozens of editors and at least half a dozen admins watching and contributing; and then copyedited by the coordinator of the WP:League of Copy-editors, user: Two-fingered-typist in September 2019 before the article made its second Today's Featured Article appearance on Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary on 2 October 2019. T
• The Featured article criteria clearly say: stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;
• The page WP:OWN#Featured_articles clearly states:

  While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

  On this page editors spend weeks, even months, discussing and debating small changes. How did you see fit to slap on a "disputed tag" and when I removed it per WP policy proceed to edit war with me? I was not edit warring with you, only following WP rules. Featured article cannot be cavalierly slapped with disputed tags. That devalues the status of the bronze star as an imprimatur of WP standards. If an admin chooses to block or ban me, I will proudly accept that in the service of saving WP from disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not the sockpuppeteer of:

  • User:Tillya Tepe gold
  • User:Priyadasi
  • User:Beads and reels, all banned a full year after your appearance on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, this is antediluvian stuff, a youth mistake. I have served my time, I have made amends, and started afresh for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Do I keep rehashing all your previous offenses? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र, there's been edit-warring on that article, but no one's violated 3RR. I suggest you withdraw. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Hi, thank you for your message. I am absolutely willing to writhdraw if there is no offense, but can you tell me in what sense there is no violation of the 3RR rule? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: User:Fowler&fowler has now been warned at ANI for edit-warring [6], so I guess the filing was indeed legitimate. Fowler&fowler: I have nothing against you, and I actually admire many of your contributions, but please respect the contributions of good-intentioned and well-established contributors such as User:Johnbod, User:Joshua Jonathan or myself, refrain from your reverting frenzy, and drop the incivility. It is not difficult to edit collaboratively on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Pat, my bad. I assumed you were about the edit where Fnf added a bunch of new sources without removing the dispute tag. The first revert of an uninvolved editor in an unrelated matter, I hadn't thought much of at all, so that's what I missed. I see you've started the RFC. Hopefully, that will bring clarity to the content matter. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir Premier League

If you look at these pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Premier_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Premier_League_(Pakistan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Premier_League_(India)

May be they should also say Indian Administered Kashmir and Pakistan Administered Kashmir But https://kpl20.com/ has teams from the UK too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zj8w9P2K2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mITgwzGT1bw as there are 1.1 million British Kashmiris and they are also involved in this as are the Kashmiris in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. This is the main Kashmiri League now Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

One sided narrative at Bengali Kayasthas and Kulin Kayastha

Hey Fowler, we have not came across against each other earlier. But, I have observed you many a times. You along with Sitush were some of the good editors, who maintained neutrality at caste articles. Could you please see these pages, as the absence of you people has made it like Hindi Wikipedia, where everyone is forcing one sided narrative to show their castes in good light. The Shudra narrative is consistently deleted by serving only those text which talk of high origin. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

India

Hi F&f. You can't quit the page. While the rest of us can fight occasional fires or throw together a bit here and there, only you can put the pieces together cogently. Sorry, but like Atlas, you've got to hold it up! --RegentsPark (comment) 23:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been helpful ... I have been extremely busy IRL, but hope that things will settle down in a couple of weeks. :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you pinging me, but this just isn't an article in my usual field. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On Pakistan being northwest to India

Hi there, you seem to have reverted my edit pertaining to the location of Pakistan as being northwest of India. Although I understand as to why you'd think to use merely west, academics clearly consider its location as being northwest of India. The obvious reason is because most of the country is peninsular. The lede itself uses southwest when talking about relation to the Arabian sea. It's also mentioned as northwest by the commenwealth: https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/pakistan/history Thank you for your time. Foxhound03 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the article's talk page. That particular phrasing has been in the article for upward of ten years. It was the result of a wide-ranging and hard-won consensus achieved during the previous WP:FAR. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, Gerda, for the thought! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for intervene

Please review Pakistan article, a user "Banksboomer" changing Population figures, Removing area size And doing copy paste edits from Hinduism in Pakistan & Human rights in Pakistan but these articles are already mentioned in top of the sections but they are not stopping copy paste edits. Ytpks896 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sad news

A number of people are working up Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary to mark the loss of SlimVirgin; as I know ye got on, it would be great if you kept an eye, and ideally spruce up the wording. Given that she was such a succinct and exact writer herself, it is only fitting that her tribute is written just so. Tony1 is already working through...would be great if you also combed through. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Deeply saddened to hear. She was a gem. I have taken a quick look at the obit. It is very well written but a tad impersonal. I wonder if we can say that she had studied philosophy, both in college (with a minor in history) and for four years in graduate school in moral philosophy at Cambridge? She had also worked in journalism. I know this from an email, but I'm uncertain about WP rules about sharing email content on such occasions. Doubtless, others know more about her. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ceoil:. I took another look at the obituary. I think it is superbly written and there is nothing I can add or subtract. (I realize too that WP obits should be about work done in WP, not in RL.) Congrats to you on making it happen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"superbly written" - that's because Tony1 had a pass after the first post here, and you know how good he is. Bits more will prob be added over the next 4-5 days before publication mid month. Which is why skilled eyes are needed so that it doesn't become frozen after dodgy but well meaning additions. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for sharing the Past. Manoj hello2 (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much; much appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

your diff

If you are going to bold them, you need to do the redirects. In fact "Seal 420", mentioned lower down, is the other name most used in the literature. That should be there too. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Priest-King (sculpture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute escalating

Hi! As you are aware, we're having a content dispute at Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878#Added image. I'm concerned that our relatively civil content dispute is escalating into a personal dispute. It's interesting - I think it gets to the heart of one of Larry Sanger's original criticisms of Wikipedia, which is that this site has no respect for expertise. I think he's mostly right, though I view it as a feature and not a bug. In any case, you may well be a subject matter expert, and I am not, but in the end we are two editors with equal standing. Regardless, I am going to step away from the dispute for 48 hours to let myself cool off, and then re-engage. Maybe by that point someone else will have weighed in. I hope we can resolve this dispute amicably and with good grace in a couple of days. See you then. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. You have not given any reason based in content, only in WP rights. You have not explained why a sixth famine picture is suddenly needed in an article that for ten years has had five. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to myself

Children awaiting a meal at school. The writing in white chalk on the blackboard behind hails India's great Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar.

Reminder to add this image to the India#Education section, once the discussion about the images in the Cuisine section begun by user:HaryanaMali has run its course. Image was proposed by Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

If you don't dial down the constant implications that no other editors know anything about India (and are unable to find reliable sources to aid them in editing), I will start an ANI thread about your behavior. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Knowledge on Wikipedia is the one WPians demonstrate through their edits. I'm not privy to what India-related synapses exist in their brains. I can't be sure, but it is a good guess that none of the editors appearing in the latest feeding frenzy on Talk:India have ever made an India-related edit. If they have, they are perfunctory. To say this is not to cast aspersions, only to state that a scholarly effort takes more than just Can Do belief in the philosophy of Any One Can Edit. Jimmy Wales himself said it in his infamous NY Times interview, The Encyclopedist's Lair. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Greetings,

For your information, a RfC discussion has been initiated in relation to discussion topic you were recently involved in.

Request for Comment has been started @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian NAtional Congress

Hi. The article has been quick-failed nominated for GA. I have been given certain suggestions and working on it. I have kept all refs in my sandbox. What consensus do you want me to have. Do you want me to put each and every detail to article's talk page?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. Your edits are OK. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unicorns

What, you don't believe it? Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the unsubstantiated speculation in Unicorn. The IVC was not antiquity, which is a vague phase of recorded history, as its script is as yet undeciphered; some people such as Michael Witzel do not think that the symbols on the Indus seals constitute a script. The unicorn is etymologically Anglo-Norman dating to the 16th century, and ultimately Latin, i.e. broadly Indo-European. The IVC was a pre-IE civilization. The OED defines a unicorn to be,

"The mythological animal, and related uses 1 a. A fabulous and legendary animal usually regarded as having the body of a horse with a single horn projecting from its forehead (cf. sense 3 note); the monoceros of the ancients. The unicorn has at various times been identified or confused with the rhinoceros, with various species of antelope, or with other animals having a horn (or horns) or horn-like projection from the head. According to Pliny ( Nat. Hist. viii. xxi. §31) it had a body resembling that of a horse, the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, and the tail of a lion, with one black horn projecting ‘two cubits’ from the middle of the forehead. The horn of this animal was reputed to possess medicinal or magical properties, esp. as an antidote to or preventive of poison: see unicorn's horn n."

We are talking about a mythological animal, which was a part of Indo-European mythology or a mythologized-natural history of the Indo-European tradition. The domesticated horse, the defining animal of Indo-European expansion did not exist in South Asia at the time of IVC, i.e. during the Bronze age. The Indus seals may well have depicted the Greater one-horned rhinoceros, or a variety of antelope in profile, especially the Blackbuck of South Asia with its spiraling horns, even wild cattle in profile, but it had nothing to do with the mythology which primarily defines the term unicorn. The narwhal, another mammal with spiraling horns did not exist in South Asia. Ctesias, of first Greek mention ca 400 BCE, was talking about the Indian rhino, most likely. In other words, the fronting of IVC in the article on Unicorn is nothing but the nationalistic or cultural oneupmanship that is the bane of many WP articles and detracts from its value as an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Phooeey! The idea or possibility that the IVC "unicorn" (as archaeologists still call it) was the origin of later images and myth is a perfectly respectable one, mentioned by some very reputable figures. None of your usual irrelevant smokescreeen above has a bearing on this, nor really does the question of what the IVC seal-carvers thought they were representing. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It was? You mean IVC had been excavated before 1922, a couple of millennia before to be sure by the emigrating Indo-Aryans? Or had the MittaniMitanni stumbled upon Melluha Meluhha seals in Babylon and gave a few to the Greeks? Please don't be silly Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As usual, you are the silly one. The written unicorn myth goes back well into antiquity, is located in India, and seals have been found in various places outside India (mostly Mesopotamia). I'd drop the OR, and leave matters to the professionals. PS - You are wrong if you think unicorns appear in "Celtic mythology"'; afaik that is an entirely unicorn-free zone, though they may appear in Gothic tales given a Celtic flavour, as with the Matter of Britain. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say, "Celtic?" As for writing. What do you consider to be the first writing in India? Was a mention of the unicorn there even in the orally transmitted tradition later transcribed in the Brahmi-derived scripts? If so, I'd like to see a mention in the Rigveda, or other vedic literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

In this edit summary, about an hour ago! That there was no continuing tradition in India (if that is the case) is not the point. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So I did. I may have been attempting to avoid repeating IE, or finding a substitute for Western IE. But maybe I was thinking about the various references to the unicorn in Boston area history, the State House, etc where it prominently appears. Hold on. Let me look for some sources. 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

PS It is believed the unicorn was a Christian adaptation of the Celtic White Stag (Penguin) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

PPS Carw uncorn, The unicorn in Peredur, Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium Vol. 36 (2016) is another. I don't want to go off track. The Celtic bit is not my main argument; that IVC is pre-IE and pre-horse is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Peredur son of Efrawg is exactly an Arthurian "Gothic tale given a Celtic flavour", adapted from the French, evenis it happens to be in Middle Welsh. It's not "Celtic mythology". Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if it is viewed as incorrect by scholars, the topic needs to be addressed in the unicorn article and mentioned in the Indus Valley Civilization article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD please take it to the talk page and tell me how you will be presenting the scholarly consensus. Thus far all I have seen is simple sentences, without nuance, usually fronted in prominent places, e.g. in the lead of unicorn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

PS As for misinterpretations by early IVC archaeologists, there are many, the Pashupati seal being the prized doozy. The WP article on Pashupati seems to think the association with the various manifestations of Shiva is unsubstantiated. Rudra the Rigvedic precursor of the Shiva has no mention of seals; Shiva does have a section but most modern IVC archaeologists think the association is unwarranted, that even proto-Shiva is farfetched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That's overstating what most say - "unsubstantiated" certainly, but tenuous but possible, rather than far-fetched (though it is that in a literal sense). Rudra is the Rigvedic precursor of Shiva, but he has very different characteristics, which is rather the point. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We are going off-track again, I think. I was making the point that there are several traditions of Siva (Vedic, ascetic in a forest, Lord of the Beasts (Pasu + Pati), or the Himalayas (Ish (god) Isaan (northeast)), erotic, god of the Hindu trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh), an essential figure of the Hindu creation myth, the symbol of Death, of the end of time (Mahakaal), deliverer of the Ganges, ...) on which various Hinduism scholars, Wendy O'Flaherty/Doniger, Gavin Flood, and others have written volumes. In the 1920s, the literature was less sophisticated. The name "Pashupati seal" has stuck, but most scholars whether of archaeology or history of religion today would name it something else if they had to do it all over again. Unicorns and IVC aresimilar. The disconnect there is even greater. The term "unicorn" is provocative, catchy, or careless, used mainly by colonial archaeologists for an audience back home. There is no Indus mythology of the unicorn; there is no post-Indus South Asian mythology of the unicorn. Kipling who was wiser, and more Indian than these archaeologists, has written somewhere for his Anglo-Indian and Indian readers, "... for ye know what the jest is worth." They forgot to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Mauryan empire

Why did you remove the maximum extent of mauryan empire from the info box

You don't have any credible source to prove it wrong. This is straight up vandalism Most of the sources depict the maximum extent to be correct it should have been left there for reference purposes. Arjuna randi (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong editor; removal was explained in edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"2021 India flood" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 India flood. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#2021 India flood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Weighed in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Our recent discussion

Hi Fowler&Fowler. I'm glad we were able to reach a workable resolution to the content dispute at Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878#Added_image. Now that we've done so, and it's been a couple of days, I'd like to talk about your behavior during our discussion. As you mentioned, you are an experienced editor, so I was surprised at how rude you were. You showed strong ownership behavior over the article. However, I don't take that personally, as I suspect you would have reacted similarly to any other editor who took the same actions I did. It's still a problem, though. On the other hand, you insulted me, implicitly threatened me, attempted to test my credentials in a way that no editor is entitled to do, and accused me of setting a trap for you. All that, I do find personally discomfiting.

You said: "You are in a long long line of drive-by editors (with no previous experience of writing anything on India-related topics, let alone Indian famine related topics) who want to stuff their favorite famine image in the article. I'm sorry you have done nothing but stuff an image, in the best traditions of WP:Lead fixation and offered no defense, only asked me, "Why?" "Why?" ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum... I am a busy editor who has created most famine-related content in British India"

You said: "I do know a few things about India. I am the main author of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, soon to be 17 years old as an FA. See my million viewer award on my user page. I won't ping admins yet, but if you continue in this fashion, attempting to facilely play Wikilawyer with an experienced editor, I soon will."

You said: "Of the 12 famines listed there, I've created and written 10 (all except the first and last). I've never seen you edit any of these articles. Your history gives no clue to showing an interest in any famine topics. Yet you feel completely entitled to changing the main image in an old article and are arguing with me about your right to do so."

You said: "This is not an old enough dispute between two content editors, only a talk page campaign by a drive-by who is bristling that their edit of adding yet another image of starving victims (there are already five in the article), but this time to the lead has been reverted, and wants redemption to salve their bruised ego."

You said: "More facile Wikilawyering. If you have knowledge of the topic and want to collaborate, please tell me what the the Indian Famine Commission had to do with this famine, where it discussed a version of entitlements later publicized by Amartya Sen in his Nobel-prize-winning work, or what the ancestors of V. S. Naipaul, another Nobel-laureate, for example, had to do with the famine."

You said: "PPS Ganesha811 please also don't play the Wikipedia wiseguy game of putting my words in quotes as if they were somehow nonstandard... PPPS This is beginning to look more and more like the game I'm used to seeing on this page. An entirely new editor, unknown to me, unknown to the broad topic of the page, appears on the page and changes an image. I revert the change. The drive-by editor begins to quote WP chapter and verse, all very politely, but with never any mention of any specifics, none at all. This goes on until I begin to lose my cool, and they then threaten to take me to ANI, or their encounter with me becomes fodder for those who do so later. The whole exercise is a trap, a bait. I'm making note of this here as a typical example."

So yeah, consider my ego bruised. Consider me a typical example. I don't think how you acted is good behavior for a long-standing Wikipedian. Fundamentally, you failed to assume good faith on my part, over and over again. Believe me when I tell you I did not intend to set a trap for you - indeed I had no idea you existed until you reverted my original edit and we started interacting. I say all of this in the hopes that you will read it with the genuine assumption that I am acting in good faith, as I know you are, with the intent that this message might improve your interactions with other editors. You are clearly dedicated to creating high-quality, well-sourced articles, and I respect that. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Had I been in your place, I would have begun a discussion on the article's talk page first. I do that as a common courtesy in any article, let alone longstanding ones. I consider WP:BOLD to be a form of male aggression that WP has been infected with since its very origin. There is a good reason that women stay away from WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for having hurt your feelings. Part of the problem is that I'm strapped for time and people come at me from all directions, not all with noble motives or in good faith. Another thing is that a famine article exists as a famine article because of a reliably sourced text. Images are always secondary. Had you objected to something in the text and pointed out a reference, I would have been more supportive of your edit. You appeared to me to be making an all-or-nothing issue over one image. There was already a surfeit of images of victims of the famine in the article. I apologize again for having hurt your feelings, but I had the sense that you never really offered any reason for why that new image and its details, was more representative of the famine than any other already in the article, including the map. Anyway, why don't you add the Hooper image to a later section and also paraphrase the relevant text from reference I had mentioned (Britain's Barbed Wire Camps? or somesuch)? For my part, I will be keep your message about behavior very much in mind. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, thank you for your apology. I disagree on WP:BOLD, but live and let live. I appreciate you taking seriously what I wrote, and hope we can collaborate more fruitfully on some other article in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Map of Kashmir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir#/media/File:Kashmir_Region_November_2019.jpg

I loved the image on this map, well done. Which software did use to make this map? I wanted to enlarge it and print a glossy map version. Did the original 2004 CIA version have an editable version you used? Hopefully 1500 by 1500 pixels, the resolution is good enough for the final MAP print.

Also, the authenticity of the boundaries between J&K and Ladakh, which source did you refer to?

Thank you for the compliment. Unfortunately, I am on vacation without access to my usual resources. You will have to dredge through the article's history as well as related-histories yourself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

East India Company

Hi, I have seen that my edits to the subsections Education and Social Reform have been rejected multiple times on the page. This is my first time editing so I am not really sure what I have done wrong as I have put all of the information into my own words, referenced the journal article from which I got the information from and generally feel as though I have contributed more genuinely helpful information about the topics from a reputable scholarly source. I am very new to editing so I am sure I am probably doing something wrong but I need my edits to eventually be approved as this work is for a University project. Please can you give me any advice or more specific reasons as to why my edits keep getting rejected as I am genuinely trying to make a positive contribution to the page.

Thanks

Heroicmernaids98 (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The 1944 journal article of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, which you had used as a reference in your edits to Company rule in India is too old. Generally speaking, publications of the last 50 years should be used for statements involving interpretation, and if possible those of the last 25. See for example Great Bengal famine of 1770. Older sources may be used for factual statements. Some of the sentences you have added seem like WP:POV (That most of the 700,000 villages in India had indigenous schools strains credulity.) Company rule in India is a much-written topic. For the craziest of assertions about it, there is a supporting source. Therefore WP:DUE is very important. For this reason, it is best to stick to standard undergraduate textbooks (see WP:TERTIARY) which are generally vetted for due weight. As for your other questions, I refer you to @RegentsPark:, @Kautilya3:, @Johnbod:, or @TrangaBellam:, who may be better versed both in Wikipedia regulations and giving advice. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Gazateer of India

Hello, I am looking for the Imperial Gazateer of India, 1931. I can see that UChicago has it, but unfortunately, the map images do show. Would you know where else this might be available? Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What are you looking for? The map images do show. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

user:Sitush

Hello sir, user:Sitush Is great Wikipedian Please delete all Jats) related.pages. This wikipedian big wikipedian , please see this edits in 24 hours. Changed jat relate page continue. Changed.Please action this user. 2409:4051:1C:428F:9548:FDF0:9363:5E6C (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hmm kind of like a zoo, no? Happy kitten!

Drmies (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmies: As for the zoo above: "And year by year our memory fades; From all the circle of the hills." The pictures above are reminders. As for the zoo of Wikipedia, the jungle I should say, I'm slowly losing the urge, the drive, the instinct, to care. Sad but true. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Our cats, btw, are now old, on prescription diets. We worry about them all the time. They remain stoic, of course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Mingma Gyabu Sherpa

Hello! Would you please finish an edit war on Mingma Gyabu Sherpa article and revert the article to the last sourced version? Regards Szelma W (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been done by GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk). Regards Szelma W (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh Great! I am assuming you mean she has tidied up the article. I had no idea so much effort has gone into climbing the eight-thousanders in the last couple of decades. Thanks for the info. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for clarification on your point about Harappa and the ASI

Hello, my friend! A few months ago, you stated the following:

"They don't in India, but that is because India doesn't have any major sites. The promotion of "Harappan," despite it being a type site, was a deliberate and ultimately futile attempt by the ASI to diminish Pakistan's geographical claim to IVC and bolster India's. You may read about it in the Discovery section, and also in this talk page's archives. It has been much discussed. Sorry, this is all I have time for." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC) (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Indus_Civilisation)

I was just wondering if you could please elaborate on this point as I could not find more info via searching the talk page archives nor via Google search (I am new to Wikipedia). How would the Harappan label help India's claims to the IVC if Harappa is within Pakistan? It would be appreciated if you could point me to any reading material on this too. Thank you.

It's not a zoo

Hello Fowler&fowler! I just want to let you know that talk pages are NOT for displaying animal images. Talk pages are for discussing about edits and problems with Wikipedia. If you don't stop the animal pictures then you could get Indefinitely blocked by an administrator. For more information about blocking, see Wikipedia:Blocking. Twilight Sparkle 222 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Twilight Sparkle 222, there is significant latitude for users within their Wikipedia:User pages, and displaying free-use images does not by itself exceed that latitude. Best, CMD (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry Fowler&fowler. Thanks Chipmunkdavis. Twilight Sparkle 222 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Twilight Sparkle 222:. Thank you @Chipmunkdavis: for knowledge, precision, and eloquence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You're very much welcome. Twilight Sparkle 222 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I like your zoo, and most of the way you keep it, but could you please at least consider decapitalizing "salt marsh"? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Thanks for noticing! Have decapitalized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2021 started

Hello,
WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2021 has started. The India WikiProject has a backlog of around 10,000 unassessed articles, built up over the last few years. The time has come for comprehensive housekeeping and that's what this drive is all about. The drive will run from 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021.

We request you to participate in the assessment drive. Learn more about the event here, learn assessment process and rewards details. Please add your name as a participant here.

Feel free to discuss this on the event talk page or at WikiProject India noticeboard.

You received this message, because you participated in earlier iteration of the assessment drive, or we felt that you may be interested to participate. -- Titodutta (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Having come to know you well, I can imagine what you might have said in a different disposition. I agree both with what you have written[7] and with what you haven't written :) Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Austronesier:! I love falafel. I have loved it from the time when it was unavailable in the US (readymade), and we had to make it ourselves. As for the rest, you have me pegged pretty good so who am I to dispute anything. I can only say thank you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In a way, it's my reaction to your short exchange with @Drmies above. I'm sure you still care; but maybe there is just too much that cries for action. Even if we only begin to dip a toe into the quagmire, it inevitably feels as if we'll be sucked in unless we rapidly pull back for our own sake. At least, that's the point where I feel I am now. NB in that's WP; in scholarly writing, I'm in a high.

Frankly, I was about to treat you Stroopwafels (which I truly like; for an Austronesianist, visits to Leiden were inevitable in the pre-digital age, hence I learned to like Dutch food...), but good to see that Falafel hit the spot. –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Corbett National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Turtle peer review

Hi. Would you be able to do a source spot check for the turtle peer review? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @LittleJerry: I'm strapped for time, so I can't promise anything, but I will take a look. A vital topic it is, of course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If you do give to it, start with "Distribution and habitat" and down. Someone else did the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I bear sad news

Sarah (SlimVirgin) has passed away in May. May she rest in peace. El_C 01:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was very sad. I heard about it from Ceoil. She was a gem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

PS @El C: I was informed that I accidentally pinged her in my proposal. Very sorry. Have removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I miss her dearly. We sort of lost touch over the years, but in the pre-2010s, we used to talk on the phone quite a bit. El_C 01:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I never talked to her on the phone, but traded emails with her. Great soul. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

please be respectful

there is no need for personal attacks, insults & addressing a stranger with a disrespectful tone. I stated my honest perspective and if you do not agree with it then instead of saying disrespectful & condescending things like “stop wasting the communities time” then please give your reasons for why you disagree with my contention. I have studied Gandhi, read his autobiography & I am very familiar w/his work. He is known by his last name & he himself disliked the title of Mahatma so if you do not agree with me instead of bullying & insults then explain the reason in a respectful way. thank you Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to make up your mind about which age you want to live in. In the age in which Gandhi had said, "The woes of the Mahatma are known only to the Mahatmas" no one called him Gandhi. Let us be very clear about that. People called him, "Bapu," (the most common), "Mahatmaji," or "Gandhiji He signed "M. K. Gandhi." or "Mo Ka Gandhi" in Hindi. Secondly, let us also be clear that you were disrespectful to everyone who had participated in the page move (i.e. the first one). You unilaterally decided that you would ignore the page move and start one of your own. Well, I have news for you. Page move discussions need to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Closing generally takes time. So before you start accusing others of showing disrespect, please search your own soul. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy after record breaking opening stand 1956.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy after record breaking opening stand 1956.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I seem to be back

Hey. It's been a while... I seem to be back... Hope you're doing well... I already have two reliable editors working on this. If you know anyone reliable who would be willing to help, please do point them in the right direction... Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back! Delighted. But that is "this?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That thread is a bit long... In short, there are over 700 cites on the BF43 article. I am asking for volunteers to check the WP text against the cited source (verify the cite). I dunno how many verified instances is "enough". The standard is 10 or 15%, but this one has already failed FAC multiple times. It needs... it really needs 100% verification, but anything > 60% would be acceptable. I have set up a free acct on a file storage/sharing website and uploaded over 300 files related to BF43. I'm looking for reliable editors (preferably experienced ones) to help. I cannot do it, of course. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I probably won't have time myself, but I think 40% should be OK. The mishap at the last FAC had little to do with the sourcing (in my view). I'm sure it will succeed this time. I'll take a good look when you are done with the source checking. Great to see you back! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good to see you're back @Lingzhi.Random:!--RegentsPark (comment) 16:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) Thank you, that's very nice of you to say... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 00:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate notification at Allahabad RM

I agree with your comment at Talk:Allahabad#Requested move 20 September 2021 where you question the failure of the OP to appropriately notify interested WikiProjects, Talk pages, and noticeboards. Had I noticed that early on, I would have said approximately the same thing as you did. Unfortunately, it's now two weeks after this messy RM started, and a week after the RM listing lapsed, so from a practical point of view it's probably too late to do anything about it now, at least, with respect to this time around.

Perhaps not too late to influence future ones, however. For starters, I'd favor a one-year moratorium on future RMs at this page, and I'd also favor establishing some ground rules or recommendations about such things as the question you raised, including a list of projects and boards that should/must be notified next time around (because clearly there will be a next time), and possibly adding a {{Faq}} or something similar to the Talk header, mentioning this. Mathglot (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Will mull over it and reply tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dominions of India and Pakistan 1950.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dominions of India and Pakistan 1950.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2022

Hi, thank you for the time and attention you give to the community of Wikipedia. I have done edits always in good faith yet if there's obnoxious behaviour from me, I perceive it to be a genuine concern. I thus hereby would temporarily maintain a low profile for a month or two whilst reading instructive articles about editing. I don't want to comment upon the sanctions as I would be willing to accept such repercussions as a result of my misdemeanor. So I would be happy to be sanctioned rightly if you pursue that way.

Also, I would request your time to refer me to 'WP:' articles that instruct regarding what I did wrong. Appu (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Will reply tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@APPU: I don't think I said anything about obnoxious behavior. I just think you are not conversant with WP rules, conventions, and imperatives. Like a lot of editors, you are attracted to the major articles (see WP:Main article fixation), which is fine, but it is good to acknowledge that they have gone through long exacting revisions for years. In my personal view, it is better to cut your teeth on small overlooked articles and slowly build your editing skills and also avoid disappointments. That is my advice born of my experience, but obviously, there is no WP "rule" that states this. Your call. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Formalities

Hi, I just created Democratic_backsliding_in_India. How can it be made less orphan? Appu (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is good work. Congratulations! A new article does not have to be linked to other articles. So keep working. But here is a word of caution. In my advice to you earlier, I had mentioned small overlooked topics, but forgot to add "uncontroversial," which is important for developing editing skills. When topics are uncontroversial, an editor has to spend more time on finding the right words for summarizing the available source as wiki links are not available as easy shortcuts. A second thing to aim for is the ear of the ordinary novice reader—who is not familiar with the topic.

As it is, Democratic backsliding in India will probably be too complicated for someone who is not well-versed in Indian politics. You could try to remove half the Wiki links and write out the content you had been linking in your own words. Having done so, you could submit it to DYK, and await a reviewer's comments. I'm sure they will be very helpful. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A possibility for new topics would be a "Climate" series for northeast India, which has a notably different climate than the rest of India. You could try creating articles: Climate of Sikkim, Climate of Assam, Climate of Nagaland, Climate of Mizoram, , Climate of Meghalaya, Climate of Tripura, Climate of Manipur and delink Climate of Arunachal Pradesh from its geography. You could model them on Climate of Delhi which seems to be relatively well developed. Creating such articles will involve both finding the sources and summarizing them in ordinary words. It is best to avoid jargon. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. This looks like a nice idea. I will start finding sources for Climate of Karnataka to start off as I am familiar with it the most. Thank you. Appu (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Article deletion

Do you think this be deleted? Since there were already Trump and Bush articles of the same topic, I thought it was not wrong to create one. Appu (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably. But even if it is kept, it can't have abusive comments about other politicians or their wives. In other words, you will need to expand it to include other more neutral comments. I don't know the WP policy in this regard, but I don't like such pages unless they are created after a person is no longer in that position of influence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hi do you think this article should be deleted? I don't think so.

But if it indeed doesn't worth an article, I shall stop lobbying to save it. Would you see it as a constructive addition to the platform? Feel free to say NO. I don't mind. Thanks Appu (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I said above, that article will need to rely much less on links to other articles. Removing at least half and paraphrasing in ordinary language would be the first step. Also, my advice to you would be to develop articles bit by bit, sentence by sentence, in plain view of others, and not dump a semi-finished version of many kilobytes in one fell swoop. It creates too many problems; others are not able to help you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comment "if you don't have a clear policy on how many "gnomish" edits someone can make with opaque edit summaries without declaring some kind of intent on the talk page, you are looking at more problems down the road."

As you can see, in the new article, whose references I started to fill, I am mentioning exactly what I have edited. It's not ambiguous. Surge_Elec (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this needed as an article?

If yes, is this a good one? If it is not, what could be done? Honorific_titles_of_Indian_figures Appu (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)