... for the solicitous inquiries. Everything is fine; I have mainly been traveling. When I return in 3 (or is it 4?) weeks time, I hope this time away will have done me some good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About time you got back ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see some activity here. --CarTick 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. we see the warning. we will not bother you with anything else. :) --CarTick 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have not interacted much, Fowler&fowler, but I've long admired your work on Wikipedia. The months-long silence was rather disturbing; I feared the worst but of course hoped for the best. Fortunately, it was my hopes that were realized. :-) Welcome back, and I'm looking forward to reading anything further you have to say about the history of English grammars. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions here are missed, Fowler, as is your voice of reason. But having reverted vandals for a couple days, I can see why you may be taking your time coming back. That's okay; just make sure you do. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again everyone. It's funny, but I don't seem to have time when I'm at home. I'm traveling right now and Wikipedia is a good pastime. Much better than watching boring news on TV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a note on File:Pope1880CentralProv2.jpg that it should not be moved to Commons without getting your permission.
It has been moved to Commons, and I am cleaning up duplicates.
I see a notice that the file "should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States." If I read correctly, the location of the first publication was the UK. Per the copyright rules listed in List_of_countries'_copyright_length, it appears to qualify as PD.
Thus, I am deleting it from en.WP. If you think this is in error, please let me know why.--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just saw this! I had been away from Wikipedia for quite a long time. Thanks for all your good work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had no idea. Too bad. Will post something on dab's page. Well, I'm back for now; we'll see how much time I'm able to afford for Wikipedia! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey's exit is good riddance and to think otherwise is hypocrisy. RP, remember how he hounded User:Hornplease a few years back merely because Hornplease fought the Hindu nationalist trolls who were Blnguyen's supporters. If dab goes, WP, will go to dogs in certain key, controversial areas. Let it be. Anything will go to dogs over years. --117.201.243.122 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Major provinces of British India in 1907}}
I hope your taking up my nomination of Famine in India for a GA review was not a case of WP:Wikihounding. I will look forward to the ways we can improve this article and see how we can promote it a good article status.
Also, since all of the problems you point out at the RFC on British Raj and the RFC at Presidencies and provinces have been fixed, I suggest you reconsider your opposition to the use of templates. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, I can regard your first sentence above as an oblique threat. Have you considered that my taking up the GA review might have something to do with my interests and history of creating and contributing to a dozen famine articles? If you seriously think I am "Wikihounding" you, please raise the topic in the relevant Wikipedia forum, and let others be the judge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm afraid my objections to the template have not been addressed. The size of the template is inflexible; consequently, text slides down the outside of the template—sometimes reducing to a single-word column—if the window size is changed. I also endorse SpacemanSpiff's objections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No threat but I wonder if you are qualified enough since you have a history of selectively omitting clear cut statements from sources in favor of your anti-India POV. For example you omitted the following from Grove:
The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. Page 83 of The Great El Niño of 1789-93 and its Global Consequences : Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Event in World Environmental History
Nonetheless, I hope we can work together towards promoting the article to GA level.
Regarding the template, the text does not "slide down" anymore since it uses the class infobox now. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, try changing the width of the browser window here. I'm talking about text in the article sliding down the outside of the template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS As for Grove, do you have another source which has corroborated Grove's statement. His is the only paper on the Doji bara famine. The Doji bara famine, moreover, predates any censuses of British India (which began in 1871). His mortality statistics are based on methods that are conjectural and not rigorous. Moreover, Grove is an environmental historian, not a historian of colonial India, and consequently, not able to assign political blame. Is there any reference in the paper to the administration of British India? Is there any evidence (by way of political culpability) in the paper to back up this one isolated sentence? Cherry picking isolated sentences in the one and only paper on a topic (involving less than rigorous methods) is WP:UNDUE. As Jimbo Wales himself says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." In this case, Grove is the only author that has blamed the British, and that too only for not providing relief from the famine, not for causing the famine. So, best not to keep beating the Grove-one-sentence-quote-horse to death. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I have just gone through Grove and found some glaring mistakes in the paper that makes it quite obvious that he has not understood the governance of British India. It, consequently, puts your sentence in a different light. I will soon list these in a subpage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text sliding down isn't a major issue IMO since the class infobox is designed in a way that the letters don't touch the box. However if that is such a critical issue for you, the templates can easily be centered, just like the tables, thus occupying the entire horizontal space (but I hear <center> in now deprecated). Regarding Grove, I've said this before and I will repeat it here - if there are problems with Grove's work (Grove is 'your' source - you were the first one to add it to several famine articles), then they should be taken up with Grove or the publisher. Regarding the NPOV and Jimmy's e-mail, let us both bring sources to the table about the Doji Bara and we can then identify what is the minority view, what is majority and rectify articles accordingly. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bring sources to the table?" I'm assuming you have more than one. Which is the second for the Doji bara famine? Fowler&fowler«Talk»
I'm afraid, if you want to determine the majority and minority viewpoints, that's how it works. If there is only one source, then we treat that as the majority. Do you have any other sources on the Doji bara and who bears the responsibility for the 11 million deaths? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you ask on the WP:RS talk page or better yet on the Village Pump? Please also see the template {{One source}} when there is (mostly) only one source. The template will become relevant if more (UNDUE) material is added from Grove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for butting in. I am not following the conversation completely, please pardon me if this information is already discussed. Page 251 from A History of India by Burton Stein, David Arnold has a nuanced point of view, for in addition to doctrinaire political-economy pieties about non-intereference with markets, there was an element of racialism that contributed to official inertia about alleviating irish and Indian famine deaths. But neither doctrinal rectitude nor racism should be exaggerated; the records of Britain's rulers with the English poor-their poor laws and poor houses-was also deplorable. hope this is of any help. --CarTick (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that the British had the poor laws for people of Britain and not for the Irish and the Indians, also citizens of the British Empire, shows the discriminatory nature of the empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read page 93 of Currey and Hugo (Currey, B; Hugo, G (1984), Famine as a Geographical Phenomenon, GeoJournal library, Boston: D. Reidel, ISBN9789027717627) for information on how the English had poor laws only for the English in normal times but would only apply them in India and Ireland in times of famines.
“
But there lay the crucial difference: while the British were committed to the maintenance of the eligible poor in England, they refused to consider this as a possibility in normal times in India, preferring to rely upon the private charitable institutions and practices of the people over whom they ruled. They were prepared to interfere only when whole populations were endangered by widespread famine. The last thing they wished to consider was an Indian equivalent of the New Poor Law.
Yes, this is true, about India, but not quite about Ireland. But no previous or contemporaneous Indian ruler even provided famine relief remotely on the scale that the British provided in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient, pre-colonial (and pre-industrial era) Indian rulers provided relief to their citizens to the best of their ability. See Famine in India for an example of the child PeshwaSawai Madhavrao providing relief in form of banning exports and facilitating imports from Bengal to Deccan, the affected area. On the other hand, the British had more sophisticated and advanced abilities (they had made famine pretty much obsolete in Britain) but they were discriminative in applying their best abilities to citizens of the same empire in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, "The oldest famine in pre-colonial Deccan with well-preserved local documentation is the famine of 1791–92. Relief was provided by the ruler, the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao II, in the form of imposing restrictions on export of grain and importing rice in large quantities from Bengal via private trading, however the evidence is often too scanty to judge the 'real efficacy of relief efforts' in the Mughal period.[28]?" So, you at least acknowledge that Doji bara was a "pre-colonial" famine? Why then are you blaming the British for all the deaths? As for Dreze's working paper claim? He (Peshwa) didn't do diddly-squat. Please read the "Marathas" subsection in Doji bara famine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS How could the Peshwa have imported "large quantities" of rice from Bengal, since, according to Grove, "the main rice crop had failed"? And what "well preserved local records" are you talking about? Please read the Marathas subsection (mentioned above) again. You either believe Grove, in which case the Peshwa didn't do anything, or believe Dreze, in which case, why blame the British? This is a checkmate my friend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you have not grasped the content and sources correctly. I do not blame you for since another editor from the UK damaged the attributions in his bid to bring in divisions by blaming Muslim rulers. I have now restored the attributions. Please re-read since that information is now sourced to some of the same sources you are using for the Dogi Bara famine. We cannot assume that the famine in the Maratha province was the same Doji Bara famine unless the source explicitly says so. The source says the Peshwa did a lot by banning exports and importing food grains from Bengal and we will go by the source. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
F&f, the article was recently moved from its long standing title of Kannada lit in the kingdom of Mysore because Kannada was deemed to be the only language that they had any output in. I'm not sure if that's really the case, I think Tamil and Malayalam were also patronized within the kingdom, but I'm a novice on this subject, and since you've contributed to the article and the FAR/FAC discussions, could you shed some light? I don't want to move it back based on my insufficient knowledge. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to mull this over. Actually, this area is very much outside my area of expertise. I got involved in it as a result of fighting POV warriors! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really good to see that our RfC and discussions are leading to improvements in the tables at British Raj!
Thanks. I was merely following your lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I am glad I could help. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:History of Pakistan/History of the Pakistan region[edit]
Hello; I was just browing through and I happened to come across this page. I would just like to know, is this an old duplicate of the History of Pakistan page, or is it being developed for a new article? Mar4d (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry I forgot to reply. It was something I wrote in early 2007 (?) which was once the actual History of Pakistan page; however, various POV issues (India page editors didn't want the history of Pakistan (created in 1947) to cover any event before 1947). Now that I recall, it wasn't them actually, it was the later Pakistan page editors, that might have wanted the history to be less eclectic ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's so unfortunate. The current article is really messed up and makes this draft look like a scholarly work. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the issue is but this list is brilliant! How did you do this? Some thesaurus you got there! A-Z!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.24.225 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I made it with the help of a dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the knife cuts both ways if at all it does in my case, also, I too tried to search for the phrase but could not get the answer.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I breezed through 60 search results[2] (summaries only) for the string persistent teacher but did not find the meaning implied by your explanations; perhaps the phrase is not popular beyond your circle, (wherever it is). Thanks for the trouble please if possible share a few links in good sources where the said meaning is manifest. Thanks again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on the photo - the book from which I scanned it REALLY got the caption wrong! I actually think the photo shows the landing of the Viceroy Lord Halifax on 1 April 1926. Interestingly, David Lean's movie "A Passage to India" pays homage to the photo in a spectacular matte-shot in the scene showing the landing of the Viceroy (un-named in the film) with an actor that looks just like Lord Halifax (check out the scene here in this clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SzpXKLhEqs&feature=related ) . ---Mrlopez2681 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 1926 makes more sense as the Gateway would have been complete by then. And it does look complete in the picture. Thanks for the clip. Pretty close to the real thing! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot will remove the template once the month is up. If it has not done so in the next 48 hours I will act. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP from Chennai is restoring articles, you have recently worked on, to previous versions. I have reverted his/her edits. Probably one of the matadors you are taking on. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully sympathise, and find the pithy responses a good way to make the point (and indeed amusing), I think the point has been hammered into that talk page enough, and saying it more won't bring about anything really useful in terms of the article. Might be best for sanity and watchlists if we just let the talkpage cool down for awhile. I think it's fairly clear not much will be achieved without outside input, such as FAR. What do you think about a religion subsection? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was debating responding to the last one, but in the end didn't check the impulse to respond. So thanks for the timely reminder. A religion subsection is probably a good idea, given that India has many religions, but I think it should summarize the Religion in India page rather than the Indian religions one. The latter is both poorly written and a bit of a content fork. I'm not too knowledgeable on religions, but I'll be happy to help out in whatever way I can. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be obvious that the subsection should summarise the main Religion in India page, after all the Indian religions page is a subsection of the Religion in India page (not to say the current main location is correct). I'm not sure that the section needs to be all that detailed, just perhaps one paragraph on the history of religions, ie what religions were founded in Indian and when they were formed and others arrived, with a second paragraph on the current demographics for each group? Or maybe a paragraph for the religions founded in India and a paragraph for others. There's a general consensus for inclusion I believe, but I'm not going to start any discussion until the current hullabaloo is over. It can't be hard to get a consensus on a basic summary of religions, surely? I hope Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm not sure what's required to start a FAR, last one I started I just listed a few issues I found wrong. Anyway, there's some impatience as you see, so if you don't have time to start it I'll be happy to give it a go. In addition, if I am your sidekick, I do want my own key's for the batmobile. Just saying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly do it, but let me look at the FAR page first and its criteria. I've been traveling for the last couple of months, and unfortunately not being very focused in my time on Wikipedia, which I've been mainly using to have fun at the end of a day (that probably explains the dark humor or the sarcasm). Give me 24 hours and I'll make a list of issues to be addressed. If the Wikipedia community is going to spend time improving the page, and I know some fine people from my days on WT:FAC, we should at least give them something tangible to work with. It will also give me time to go to the locksmith to get a spare. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to understand why the section 1100–1800 CE is considered "Muslim Period." There might be some confusion among new readers about: why it is considered Muslim when there is the Vijayanagara, Maratha, and Sikh Empires. Is it possible to change it to something else such as "Medieval" period. It will be more neutral and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.241.214 (talk • contribs) at 00:33, 22 March 2011
Dear IP, You have a point, but one also has to strike a balance between very generic descriptions such as "ancient," "medieval," "early modern," "modern," which are too anonymous, don't grab a new reader, and would apply to the history of any region; and the very particular description of every significant kingdom by name, which would overwhelm the reader. Other sources and tertiary sources are a good guide. Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose India history section, is written by some of the best-known historians of India, has this broad breakdown: a) India from the Palaeolithic to the Decline of the Indus Civilization, –1500BCE, b) The Development of Indian Civilization, 1500 BCE–1200 CE, c) Early Muslim Period, 1200–1526, d) The Mughal Empire (1526–1761), e) Regional States 1700–1850, f) India and European Expansion, 1500–1858 g) British Imperial Power, 1858–1947, h) Republic of India, 1947–
In it, Vijayanagara does come under "Early Muslim Period." That doesn't mean that every part of India was under Muslim rulers, but that Muslim rulers and broad hegemony over significant swathes of the region. The Sikhs and Marathas come under "Regional States." The "History of South Asia" template does have regional kingdoms, but, I'm guessing, that fans of "Maratha Empire," might feel affronted to find it in "Regional Kingdom," although, in essence, that's what it really was, except for a brief period. Here's my suggestion: The Muslim Period could be split into "Early Muslim Period," and "Mughal Period," and "Regional Kingdoms" could be changed to "Regional States." Vijayanagara would go into "Early Muslim Period," whereas, "Marathas" and "Sikhs" could go into "Regional States." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS I take back what I said about splitting Muslim Period into Early Muslim and Mughal. The template has to be compact; it has histories of other countries of South Asia. So, my suggestion would be to keep Muslim Period as is, but change "Regional Kingdoms" into "Regional States" and move Marathas and Sikhs into Regional States. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to block me? Why don't you try it! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your language is a clear epitome of your intent and aggressive nature on WP, stop pushing ur POV and discuss before deleting the sourced content. HotWinters (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler - I have not edited the template and the article you guys are fighting about. Just some friendly advice for Fowler - you bring scholarly content to Wikipedia but your approach is misguided. I have experienced this first hand at Talk:India and I can assure you that you are headed for an WP:RFC/U or WP:DRR. Most editors on Wikipedia are neither bullfighters nor matadors - you need to change your attitude, assume good faith and try to win over those who disagree with you via polite discussions. I won't be commenting on your dispute with HotWinters further. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing Wikipedia since the Fall of 2006. My tone has been pretty much the same the entire time. I haven't had any RFC/U against me, but you are welcome to start it if you'd like. Most likely I won't respond to the RFC/U. What can they do? Throw me out. I'm really not that attached to Wikipedia. I can do other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Since India is a featured article and you have been quite vocal and active in defending the article, isn't unilateral addition of new material to "Politics" without discussion on the talk page incorrect? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. AshLin (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) Well, the article is now going to FAR, which means it will be worked on by many people. It is one opportunity when everyone gets to have a go at it. I have to do copy-edit, because the FAR rules say, "Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies," and "Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement." I can't very well turn in something shabby knowing fully well that it is shabby. You are welcome to post objections or improvements either now or during the FAR process. Nothing that I do now is etched in stone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS It is no fun copy-editing this boring crap. Not sure that I'm going to last out the entire article, but I'll at least do another section to show my good intentions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the middle of peer reviewing your fine article. I have always had a soft spot for the Rt. Rev. ever since running across this (forgive me if you know it perfectly well already) by him about one of my bêtes noires:
Let me at once say why I do not think that Ruskin’s Political Economy is good food for you. I think that one of the nuisances of the present day is the attempted revival of the ‘prophet.’ Carlyle, Froude, Ruskin, all bore me in their prophetic capacity. It is a cheap line to denounce, it satisfies the sense that something ought to be done: I am weary of denunciation. We of this generation all go about the world each abusing everybody else, and each forgetting to amend himself. The world’s evils are many and patent. We can all do much to cure them, ‘here a little and there a little’, but do not let us expend our energy in meaningless abuse. Mankind will not be saved by that. I remember listening with sorrow to Ruskin describing a railway journey from Carnforth to Oxford. He ridiculed everyone whom he had seen, described his fellow passengers without a touch of sympathy, and ended by saying, ‘I saw over 700 people on the way, and not one face had a look of happiness.’ I looked at Ruskin’s own face: that certainly had not. I should have liked to ask him what contribution he had tried to make to the happiness of those whom he met. Did he expend a smile, a kind word? No; I respect Ruskin’s goodness, but his method is disastrous. The times do not want a Hebrew prophet denouncing woe: they want the spirit of loving sympathy. How large-hearted was Jesus, how sober-minded, how ‘sweetly reasonable’ as M. Arnold puts it. Teacher for teacher, there is more in M. Arnold than in Ruskin. Both are one-sided, both omit much, but the spirit, the tone of M. Arnold is fruitful, while that of Ruskin (save in art) is not.
I was pleasantly surprised both to find your post here and to discover that you're reviewing the article. I know that reviewing can be tedious business, and I'm delighted to find that you like the article. Delighted too by the detailed review, which I will go through and implement. No, I hadn't seen the quote above, but after reading it, I did find it in his collected letters and went on to read more. I found another that had some wise thoughts (penned to the same female undergraduate):
One part of the training of life is to learn how to go one's own way quietly, wherever one is. Listen to people, but pay no heed to what does not approve itself to you (I include myself and my present letter). Perhaps you would say that you had that faculty. I know that you have, and you tend to fill up your time with dreaming, while you wait for the moving of the waters. You feel that this is rather unsatisfactory, and you wish to turn your dreamings to account by pursuing the lines to which they lead you. Now will that really help you? I only ask, I do not answer the question. No one can do more for another than suggest the real issue. ... My advice always has been, Get method: only through this comes practical strength. Get it by patient study of anything that requires accurate thinking and clear expression. It matters not what: learn to read and understand a Greek play if you will. I know that this prospect only fills you with shivering. You would like something more congenial, more in accordance with yourself. But self is a shifting quantity, and every step in development has to be by the loss (often with pain and grief) of a smaller self to gain a larger. Growth is a painful process at some stages, but it is pleasant in its results, and the stock of pleasure goes on increasing, and the pang becomes less every stage we consciously pass through.
Contrasting this with the superficially practical, even mercenary, advice given to most undergraduates these days, I have to wonder how much progress we've made in the business of giving advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a splendid extract, and is going straight into my commonplace book. I've finished reviewing the article, an undertaking which I assure you was not in the least tedious. One would like to have met Dr C, one feels. Having no shame whatever, I commend to your attention another peer review article, vizElizabeth David on which any comments you felt inclined to make would be most welcome. I shall perfectly understand if you haven't the time or inclination, of course. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you put the Sikh Empire out of regional category. Also regional empires should be changed to regional states. It will be much better. Also French and Portuguese should be in the category of Colonial India.
I take it Zuggernaut has just agreed to what has basically been proposed from the very beginning, so that should sort itself out now. In other news, thought I'd ask if the POV tags you placed are still valid. I reverted another user's removal, assuming that they were still valid, and am just double checking that's correct. Ta, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, could you strike your comments about Hanuman from the India talk page. I'm sure you mean no harm but the remarks have clearly upset and offended some users and have become a distraction. Striking them would be a positive sign of good faith. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have scratched the entire comment, not one of my better ones. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can u help me expand this article? I found very few sources on the web. And none, whatsoever, on the peculiarities of the Trichinopoly.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Welcome back! Well, for starters, you could look up "Cheroot," "Trichies," and "Trichonopoly" in Hobson-Jobson available free on the web. It's not always the most reliable, but does have some interesting stories. I'll look for more sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been commenting on your edits regarding the above at the closing administrator's talk page, and at the Arbitration initiated by Zuggernaut, I considered it rude if I did not explicitly inform you about the same and so I am hereby doing it. Regards.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in it. I expect ArbCom will decline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary for edit 424391004 at Ganga reads Yogesh Khandke best not to edit war with garbage. This refers to my edits [5][6][7][8] which you have reverted. This is an extremely insulting comment of yours, it is a continuation of a series of other such insulting terms, please explain.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you are adding is garbage. "The Ganges is India's national river" can't be the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. A preponderance of reliable sources don't say that. By persisting in such fashion you tax the patience of well-meaning Wikipedians, who have a limited amount of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1)Please check diffs before making nasty remarks, please apologise for making them, the said statement was not added by me. I have made a formal request to you earlier, I am repeating it, you have called me rabid before, please do not use impolite terms to refer to me or the edits that I make, take this as formal request number two.(2) I assume you do not have objection to other material added/ deducted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yogesh made this change[9] which messed up the lead. Jayen then tried to fix Yogesh's mistake, and inserted the "national river" thing.[10] I note that Mississippi River, which could be called the "national river" of the US, merely says it's the largest river system in North America. Similarly non-hype language should be used in the lead for the Ganges. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yea sure. :) i bet you will advocate for the removal of the "national bird" sentence from Bald Eagle lead and may be from the entire article. --CarTick (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to use abusive language when refering to my edits, rv bogus edits by Yogesh Khandke; it's best not to edit war tendentiously. You have no history of contributing productively to this page[11] Please mind your language, all my edits are well-sourced, please check for edit war or tendentious, your undo was edited here it shows what the consensus is on this page. Please consider this formal request no 3. Regards and thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please sue me or alternatively thicken your skin. In other words, stop harassing me on my talk page. Consider this a warning as formal as all the ones you have given me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what I have said on my talk. I've primarily addressed you seeing it was the concern about you which sparked the request for me to take a look. I did touch on your concern about YK as well, but you both need to try again (and if things don't work out, use a different approach which will not cause the other party to escalate unnecessarily). That is, I don't want to see useful contributions being lost from the area(s) unnecessarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[12] based on the discussion that is taking place in India page, I would like to take the opportunity to warn you not to label everyone that disagrees with you as "Hindu nationalist". it is apparent from your comments in various talk pages that you do not care so much about "Hinduism" and have some kind of hatred disdain for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred express your condescension towards Hinduism or any other. i also warn you not to accuse every new user of a sockpuppet of someone as a strategy to weaken, discourage and discredit them. you really need to stop. --CarTick (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu nationalism is not a curse word. I am happy to provide perfectly reliable sources for the RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization, an extreme one at that. I regard your unwarranted musings, "do not care so much about "Hinduism" and has some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism or any other," to be much more in violation of Wikipedia policy than my characterizing someone edits as Hindu-nationalism-related. I have not called the editor in question a Hindu nationalist. You, on the other hand, have posited my hatred for the Hindu religion, for which you have no hard proof, not even for my Wikipedia output. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you have never said you dislike Hinduism, but it comes across as you do dislike their belief and practices. i have seen that in many occasions. here is the most recent. Quote from your comment:The Bangladeshis don't revere the river (being mostly Muslims), and, consequently, and paradoxically, to their credit, they don't abuse it as much. --CarTick (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have certainly not said that, but you have, most recently, "some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism." What hatred? What is wrong with that Bangladesh statement? It's not my problem that Indian editors are getting defensive. They need to be objective. I believe the Bangladesh statement to be substantially true. While people who live along the banks of the river in Bangladesh do defecate there as well, half of Bangladesh doesn't turn up annually to do the same. The Ganges is a tired river. No point filling the article up with nationalistic chest thumping. How will that help anyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connection of how Hindus abuse rivers because of religion and not Bangladeshis do not because of religion is somehow ignoring the fact that Hindus do not abuse a river by any belief which it appears to say because of the words "consequently, and paradoxically" and in fact, the river is sacred to Hindus. The statement above ignores the fact that Hindus do turn up for certain Hindu rituals, and not to as mentioned defecate as an aim which is made quite apparent. To ignore Hindu understanding and practice is one thing, but after ignoring it commenting on all other aspects and passing it as a Hindu understanding and practice is quite a mischief I think. But this is my 2 cents.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to apply the same yardstick to to all religions practices that do not affect believers and non believers, like why should people inflict themselves pain in the name of religion knowingly. I am sure then that you are averse to calling non believers as worshiping demons or idea of breaking others temples in the name of religion and so on and anything of that sort. I am glad that concern for peoples health is utmost in your mind.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just Hindu practices that cause human deaths. British Petroleumdefecated as much oil equivalent to or more than all the combined shit Gangetic plain people defecated on the river in the last hundreds of years. The carcinogeneic constituents of this oil when consumed by unsuspecting people through food will eventually cause cancer in unknown number of people across the world. --CarTick (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing an article about British petroleum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To CarTick: Anyone who despises Hinduism could not have written Indian_mathematics#Oral_tradition and the following section there, as I did singlehandedly. What I despise is not Hinduism, or for that matter any religion, but rather the abuse of the religion and of its symbols and rituals by people. That is what has brought the Ganges to the condition it is in today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A major campaign against the celebration plans was organized by extreme Hindu nationalist bodies such as the All India Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Their chief ideologue was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a romantic nationalist figure with terrorist links who had spent long years in British jails. from The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia Gyanesh Kudaisya, Tai Yong Tan, Psychology Press, 2002, this only shows the shallow scholarship of M/s Gyanesh and Tan, Savarkar was never connected to the RSS, he was always with the Mahasabha. Can't do this discussion on the India page, would be irrelevant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say let us also discuss all the good work done by RSS in detail so that this can become a little more constructive.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine, an American news reporter, said that they, the RSS, were the only people removing the dead bodies after the Orissa(?) cyclone of a few (?) years ago. The police as well as the local population were either helpless or in shock. So, there's something good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS But sadly, they or their sympathizers have also done some bad things, such as killing innocent Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RSS does not believe in killing others as a policy and one should not blame an entire organization for few and as such considering views from both the sides of issue is a must for better understanding. When riots are concerned, the same yardstick should be applied to any other group ie human rights of anyone should not be hurt. As it is the case of Gujarat CM also, the same yardstick should be applied to the then CM of J&K for ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits, the CMs northeastern states for prosecution of minorities, CM of Delhi for Anti Sikh riots, CM of Kerala State for Marad riots, CM of West Bengal state for Deganga riots and so on. A very particular state of secularism in India is that this is not so and behavior of all secularists and Marxists everywhere change on nothing but exactly on religion perhaps as per financiers, which is a paradox. As mentioned correctly, dead and perhaps even decomposing bodies are no good to anyone, unlike the poor who make it possible for transactions through charity, and it symbolizes how selfless people from RSS are.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you are not able to cross check this as you may not have access to this article. if you do, it is in the 415th page. --CarTick (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to check, and, yes, I did already read the relevant quote, but it is not about the Vedic age, only about the focus of the Rg Veda. The RV is not exactly a historical document (although much can be construed from it). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it doesnt matter if Rig Veda isnt a historical document. we are not using it to assert any facts about the river but, rather to state it was mentioned or region of focus in RV. --CarTick (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm back from a (necessary) wiki-break and just thought I would drop by and say hi. Don't worry, I won't be editing much (and would definitely stay away from the main India article). Anyways, I hope there is no bad blood between us. Cheers! --King Zebu (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to Wikipedia! No, no bad blood or hard feelings, at least on my part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply for the sheer volume of patience (amount of patience, volume of patience, whatever) you have in discussions in Talk:IndiaYes Michael? •Talk 07:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike! I need a drink, and not just to celebrate the Barnstar, except that it is early morning where I am right now (in my travels). What the heck, what are mimosas and bloody marys for ... or Irish coffee maybe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! I could use a vacation and lots of travel; so cramped up of late. Catch you around! Yes Michael? •Talk 07:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, good to see you editing back here again. Hope all is going well. I downloaded a couple of documents I thought might interest you – you probably are knee-deep in stuff like this, but I figured I'd let you know they were at Commons anyway in case you wanted to use them somewheres.[13][14] Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on finding them and uploading them! Great work. I am impressed by the number of females (Mrs. ...) in that list (of 1684). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked them. I also found the number of women mentioned in the list quite striking. I found this little pamphlet pretty interesting, too. [15] Incidentally, I've uploaded a fair number of Prinsep images, for Val Prinsep, James and some of the others, but I haven't gotten around to working on their wiki pieces yet. One of these days.... Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would expect views from your side on my comments in discussion on India. Last 2 days there is not much coming from your side, and today the changes are reverted without discussing on it, saying that consensus is not made yet. Better discuss this in discussion and please avoid reverting changes without discussing why the changes are not good..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)It is usual practice to establish firm consensus before making changes or adding images to a Featured Article. Yes Michael? •Talk 19:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it is not usual practice to just revert changes that are discussed after not participating for last 3 days and in the end claiming that there is no consensus..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a change when there is clearly no consensus, you should not be surprised if it is reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, for all the hard work that you have put, you are unable to understand that others can be correct too or have better understanding of own culture; and would like to present its symbolism and meaning as best as possible. As it is on page Ganga, I am not disturbing topics on pollution in the river but improve Hindu symbolism in the article here, which seems to have missed out.
What I notice here is that when you are finished doubting natives & presenting arguments that are proved factually incorrect -like here - Talk:India#No_consensus_in_the_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_for_India_also_Bharat, the familiar behavior is giving warnings (like on Ganga and on India page too), and generally throwing words without giving reasons - tantrums or however you put it - so some admin will jump in and give a few notices and bans; somehow forgetting that pages are Ganga and India, not Thames and multi-national United Kingdom, as usual without any reason. This is indeed sordid behavior anywhere and everywhere, and no one can help the bunch of admins and editors looking after each other.
I also understand why people leave immediately after joining Wikipedia. The India page and its sorry state of affairs, has been because not only editors like you who keep on abusing natives and give out frivolous warnings and generally incorrect arguments, but and also admins - who don't give reasons to you but just give unreasonable warnings to natives who give all the explanations necessary - are unable to come to terms with this understanding; and therefore make huge wastage out of efforts(for example the topic on Bharat as a synonym of the country - the issue that is 25 page size long - has gone to the wastage after giving all twenty-five valid reasons from my side and still it is me who got warned by the admin while others like you just stuck to the incorrect line that Bharat is not an official name and generally be unreasonable right from the beginning). Your tone makes it looks appear as if I am on the page of U.K. and somehow doubting eccentric British practices instead, but the editors here are hardly from India and generally gang up on newbies(who give all the good reasons and ask, why is the name Bharat absent?) - this is indeed hilarious and always almost discouraging. I would suggest that editors and admins should go out more & learn another language to edit pages that are for as diverse culture as India and the like - which I am sure will be an anathema to the mentality I see here. For example - the first thing I see on Wikipedia is the absence of the word Bharat on India page and now it has been made - by all its editors and admins - "by the British, of the British, for the British" information gathering page. More than you I think it is because of admins, who by their unbalanced behavior, encourage mischief and generally tend to allow things to go wild without even understanding as much.
As I said, I don't blame you or the admins; but the dictionary, the language and the literature that has not understood that the name of the country is Bharat - in spite of 300 years in India, 150 years ruling India and 60+ years after the end of the Raaj. This mentality is annoying for anyone who lives in culturally diverse place, who reads, writes & and talks more than one language and is generally overall not bothered in disturbing others but likes to collaborate - is what I can say from my experience. Those who wrote such a kind of dictionaries should learn more from the Indians, the Chinese, the Germans, the French or even the Arabs and take a dip at [| Haridwar] and pray to mother Ganga that generally ignorant attitude should be forgiven by Shiva himself, because it is not going to be forgiven easily!
Anyhow, what eventually people may understand, perhaps may not & perhaps never, is that absence of this understanding is a disadvantage in itself and no one can help it in society. Now I believe that people deserve what they get, knowingly or unknowingly. I am giving the best contribution here as I can, like on India page, and getting all the discouragements. That is not my problem. The point is that Wikipedia will lose out on getting better and won't serve better and and beyond abilities of people who gang up and discourage others instead of everyone doing better and not wasting time giving warnings and generally arguing on the minutest reality of facts and native cultures that people are not able to comprehend..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't leave garbage on my page. Period. Let this be a warning. AGF doesn't mean that a newbie can keep abusing others. We don't have infinite time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Yes, AGF can only go to some extent. All those reasons you state are valid according to you. Please gain some perspective. And no talking of natives please. I am as Indian as you are, heart and soul, and still I disagree with you. Wikipedia is a good place for people who are collaborative, and with an open mind. For others, it is bound to be rough. Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The That is perhaps because you keep on throwing something that is completely wrong and don't see that its incorrect when pointed out. From your side you have commented 4 times as I noticed: (1) India is the English name of the country and Bharat is rarely used in common English usage. (2) The Indian constitution does not explicitly mention that Bharat is an English name and it is a primary source. The Indian Express article is an opinion piece and the opinion expressed is that India should be renamed Bharat. Not that it is already called Bharat in English. (3) What does all this have to do with whether Bharat is another English name for India? (4) Your Bharat suggestion was more than adequately incorporated by fowler - all of which is false. There is no surprise that there is no consensus..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to suggest that India, that is Bharat - be included in the first line as soon as possible, before more and more people move without this correct, as per me, understanding..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read all the discussions that have taken place on this topic. Again. Yes Michael? •Talk 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So should you, and also point out who said what correctly and who said what incorrectly. I would like to see that. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I like it or not, I have had to read it multiple times; please get the point. It is not about right or wrong. It is about consensus, and how everyone feels about it. Unless consensus is not achieved, it is unlikely that populating Fowler's talk page will get you any further. Yes Michael? •Talk 04:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you have stated yourself (in the post above) that consensus has not been achieved. ... ... ... ... ... Yes Michael? •Talk 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have little to add to what you have mentioned so very well. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if I may chime in. Somewhere I think I saw you, Thisthat, comment about how this kind of thing drives people away from Wikipedia. I'd suggest that for relatively new editors it is likely to be highly frustrating and counter-productive to work for changes for the lead—first sentences even—of major articles like India. It's not Wikipedia that drives such people away so much as such people focusing on the most cared-about bits of Wikipedia. Such a focus is guaranteed to cause contention and stress. Much better, if I may be so bold, for relatively new editors to focus on articles that are less in the glaring spotlight. I'm sure there are hundreds and thousands of articles on important Indian topics that need a lot of work, or have not even been made yet. Working on those would not only improve the encyclopedia but provide experience that will prove useful when one does decide to take on the lead of major pages like India. In short, choose your battles wisely, and don't blame Wikipedia for having bitten off too large a piece. Pfly (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you noticed, I care more about right/wrong, and I have provided necessary information to make my points clear. As it is, after getting 'notice for comment'(otherwise don't talk) twice, I have refrained right there, unless someone again states something incorrect. I understand what you are saying, and don't worry about my own frustration/stress, for I get none in doing what I think is correct and bound to cause some disturbance in topics that are made on consensus by people most of whom are not too familiar with Indian culture(according to me, which could be incorrect). As I said somewhere, I don't blame anyone, and I would like to point out that right/wrong will eventually catch up in any social interaction. I am confident that it is only a matter of time. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am sorry to note that you have got your basic understanding of Wikipedia horribly wrong. This is probably not the place for you; Feel free to wait though, as you seem to be confident. Wishing you all the luck. (But till then, I guess Fowler would appreciate less of nonsense on his talk page). Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 09:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly no one appreciates any non sense anywhere, but I may be wrong. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Links to Google books are acceptable at FAC. I was recently involved (in a minor capacity) with editing Shakespeare authorship question and its FAC. That article has 28 links to books.google.com and the matter was not mentioned at the FAC (which was very long and tortuous because some fringe theory people were very unhappy that the article uses scholarly sources to conclude that Shakespeare wrote the plays). There was some discussion among editors on the talk page of the article: one editor felt that the links promoted Google and were redundant since they can be found via the ISBN link; other editors wanted the links because the topic is contentious and it is very handy for readers to be able to quickly see the actual text of a good source. I have admired your work, and have tried to help combat the nonsense you have to tolerate, and am mentioning this purely for your consideration (no reply needed). I am referring to your edit summary "Google books are not only not required on Wikipedia, but have to be removed it the article goes to FAC" in this edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! It is handy and I use to (somewhat obsessively) supply the URLs, but then other editors (also somewhat obsessively) began removing them. It's good to know that one can supply them if needed. Thanks also for your kind words. Equally, your supportive remarks in various forums have been a welcome relief! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, is it usual to have references link to sites where the book is sold? See, for example, the Kulke reference under History in the India page. Also, I can't seem to find any reliable source that says that Bharat has an equal 'official name status' as does Republic of India. The linked reference doesn't work (and, I think, was to a primary source in the first place (and didn't say so unequivocally anyway). --rgpk (comment) 20:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. I didn't realize they were linked to amazon.com! This could be my handiwork from the days (2006 or 2007) when google books were still in their infancy! I'll remove the links pronto (and then I'll write to amazon asking for my commission).
I think this Bharat thing is best ignored. There are no secondary sources, I believe, because it is not called Bharat in English (officially that is). Haplessly for Bharat-protagonists, it is not even called Bharat in the Indian English language media, so they can't use their new subterfuge of Indian English and WP:Ties. When something is official, you don't just get one primary source (the constitution of India); rather, you get dozens of sources attesting to it. (See for example my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Official language(s) of India, which I made four years ago at the time of a similar discussion on the official languages of India.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion on Kashmir was intended to prevent this fellow from putting in what was clearly POV edits. I apologize if the tenor of my statement was considered inflammatory. Maybe you should consider that a harmless debate on tourism in Kashmir had to be inflammed with references to political issues by Humourthisthat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardoxford (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Scratched by Harvardoxford (talk·contribs) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if the tenor of my statement was considered inflammatory enough for you to indulge in censorship. If there is indeed tourism on the Indian side of Kashmir, then let the gentleman with the Hindoo text in his signature prove it by quoting reliable sources. Instead, (in the absence of such sources), he resorts to dragging in irrelevant political issues, amongst others, by accusing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism and quoting the plight of Indian refugees in Indian Kashmir, and calling me ignorant about the issues.
Then, of course, as is common in this part of the world, the entire discussion in censored and blanked out, lest anyone find out that the NPOV policies of Wikipedia were not being fully applied in certain articles like this one.
From your user contribs, I can see that you are not entirely neutral in this debate yourself. Maybe you should step back and allow someone from a neutral point of view moderate and decide where censorship should be applied. Harvardoxford (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's best not to try to be pretentious with me, to pretend at being a drifting Edwardian relic. The letters in the signature, as you well know are not "Hindoo," which in any case is not spelled that way. It's best also not to guess my point of view by scanning my contributions. Your attempts at humor delivered in broken English, which I'm happy to pick apart if you'd like, might seem funny to you, but they can be considered inflammatory by others. If you attempt the nonsense again on the Talk:Kashmir page, I will refactor it again. If you persist, you risk having your editing privileges restricted. If you are unhappy with my swift justice, please consider reporting me to any of the forums available on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your correction of my spelling of Hindoo Hindu, shows your ignorance about how proper nouns may be spelled. The letter may be HindI, but the text (i assume you are unable to read it) are from the Hindoo Hindu scriptures. The use of saffron as a font text was not lost either.
Please do not threaten me with curtailing my editing privileges if I attempt to neutralize the POV editing that is so rampant on the India related articles under your supposed care. I, sir, intend to commit myself to stopping POV pushers like the Hindoo Hindu gentleman from persisting.... your childish censorship interventions not withstanding.
In any case. don't make it personal.Harvardoxford (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be warned that "Hindoo" is archaic spelling and considered offensive by many Indians. It has a history of being used as an ethnic or racial slur against them, as the link demonstrates. Accordingly, I have scratched all occurrences of that spelling both on the Talk:Kashmir page and here and replaced them with the more common spelling "Hindu." I will assume good faith and chalk its first use on your part to ignorance, but any repetition will be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, are you sure that this photograph is correctly captioned? Most contemporary histories state that the local populace fled indoors and hid when the British flotilla (which was considerable) arrived whereas here they seem to be hanging around enjoying the show. I think this photograph was likely taken sometime after the fall of Mandalay. --rgpk (comment) 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you say is possible of course, but here's the accompanying text at the British Library web site, which seems to suggest that it was the real arrival. Also, by 1885, that sort of thing would have been noticed by others (as the execution story was) and eventually outed. But, it's possible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Couldn't resist:
Come you back to Mandalay, Where the old Flotilla lay: Can't you 'ear their paddles chunkin' from Rangoon to Mandalay? On the road to Mandalay, Where the flyin' fishes play, An' the dawn comes up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!
Those steamers, or similar ones, were still plying when my grandparents were living in Burma before the war. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's right then. Thanks for the poetry - you know, though, that he never went anywhere near Mandalay!--rgpk (comment) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. He didn't go anywhere near Burma, I think. Took the boat from Calcutta to Singapore (?). But a 23 year old who can write like that has to be forgiven some of his trespasses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did visit Moulmein, briefly, when his steamer stopped there. By the old Moulmein Pagoda, lookin' eastward to the sea; There's a Burma girl-a-settin', an' I know she thinks o' me. That, at least, was based on personal experience. --rgpk (comment) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fowler, noticed that you are presently traveling. I just wanted your help regarding the creation of an article on Sylhet Referendum, the result of which led to the award of the most part of the Sylhet district to Pakistan while Karimganj district was made a part of Assam. Can you, as per your convenience, suggest some sources? Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently editing India Article: Point to note for review and edit and reconstruction[edit]
I see that you are currently editing "India" article. I just wanted to tell that the history part and the division of history into three sections i.e. ancient, medieval and modern India was a great job on your part. The research has been well done and the points greatly made.
However as I was going through, I thought that during ancient times in India and through that time and since continuing from then India has been involved with China. However in history nothing has been mentioned of trade, culture and history relations and history of India with China.I thought this point to be made so you may see through what I am saying. This is a great website with great depth of researched knowledge and article. I hope you will incorporate some or many of the major thoughts in this website (http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm) into history of India and somewhere in the first page article of India in wikipedia. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.180.252 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Rajputs, Origins, Ahirs etc. [Section: Major cleanup underway at Yadav (merge with Ahir?)][edit]
Fowler, I started looking at the list you've made here but you seem to have fixed most, if not all. Could you confirm that or strike out the ones that have been fixed? We need to start removing tags from that page. --rgpk (comment) 14:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - it's TB your Australian friend of yore from the British Raj page. I did leave a long reply to your kind message, with a few suggestions, but it got deleted. Unfortunately (from memory) this is what the "nationalists" always did: delete or make accusations - never any time for honest academic debate! So, I got censored ..... again! I know that you can restore the page, if you choose to do so you will find my reply to your message. Rgds: 121.217.132.217 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)TB[reply]
I noticed that you posted a map of the Mysore region from Rice's Gazetteer. That same volume also includes a map of Mysore city. Would it be possible to get that map?
Ardhajya (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Ardhajya[reply]
I'm happy to do that, however, I won't be back home until early July. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help a young editor get A330 to FA. Just have sympathy for a young first timer. Thing has a lot of careful research...but...it's an airplane article. Kinda dull. Saw you had reviewed a previous plane FA. Wondered if you could help the thing by edits or a review. TCO (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a quick attempt at listing the arguements. Emphasis on the word "quick". Since your opposition was strongest (and the one that convinced me to change sides to Oppose), feel free to alter the Opposition sections to make more coherent rebuttals. The ones i posted where just brief summations which you may see as inadequatly defending the position. P.S. excellent debating, you really convinced me how flawed the arguements to support really were. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smitty, for the kind words. Will take a look at your summation. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for your continued editing on this move. I am not as available to edit as some, though I wanted a sane, policy-based voice in the argument. That you were able to keep up with multiple arguments from multiple others simultaneously is wondrous. It seemed at times that you were on your own, you were not. Thanks again for your efforts. Cliff (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cliff for your post. You and others came through though at crucial junctures, so I never felt I was on my own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I've only reverted twice, unlike you. Scolaire made the original change, not me. Tendentious tit for tats are immature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how can I get involved with project India? Thanks. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is to pick up a page in your area of interest that hasn't been worked on too much, and then begin to improve it. Heavily trafficked or controversial pages are usually not very rewarding. What aspect of India are you interested in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valuable input. Thanks! I am interested in writing about WWars and India's contribution. A lot of Indians fought as part of British forces in both the wars. I did a lot of research on this topic during the 2 years I was in UK. I do visit UK often and have travelled within extensively. To be honest, I was in the Royal Borough. The taxes there are too high. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a topic I don't know about too much, but you should get in touch with user:AshLin, who is an army man and has been working on the British Indian Army page. There are the pages, India in World War II and Indian Army during World War II. Although they have been worked on quite a bit, they might still give you some links to sub-pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. :) BTW see the latest UK Indian GLAM collab - Tipu's Tiger. :)) AshLin (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced, you may like to vet the alt and the caption though. The article on Mysore history is great. A couple of suggestions for your consideration -
In Sira province, what happened at the end of the period? Did it fall to Haider Ali?
In the last part of the lead ,perhaps a single sentance could mention the short reign of the Haider Ali/Tipu Sultan dynasty till 1799 with Anglo-Mysore Wars wiki-linked; basically to give a better transition to the next period of history.
Concerning your revert of my edit, there are two groups of Zoroastrians that migrated in the first millennium. In the 9th century, the Paris had migrated, while the Iranis migrated in the last few centuries. For you to state that the Zoroastrians that migrated in the first millennium were only Parsis is incorrect. It even states such in the first sentence of the lead in the Parsi article. Thanks, warrior4321 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On addressing the FARC issues and retaining the FA status of India. Btw, could you do a ce on Flag of India if you have some time? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Spaceman. Will look at Flag of India. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the confusion. I was going to post it at WP:ANI and then recalled Boing's comment that it should be at WP:AN because I am basically seeking advice about how to deal with these contributors (rather than reporting a specific instance, since there are loads of them). I have re-notified all the individuals but the thread at WP:AN probably still needs hatting or something. What a mess I have created. :( - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. You've done fine. Two people have already weighed in at ANI after me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would think that TT might be a little more discreet given that s/he is at ANI right now. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate how I've engaged in any such thing. This is a clearly defamatory and unfounded claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.72.125 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tyrannical treatment of non-registered editors of Wikipedia articles by registered users such as yourself is utterly shameful, as is your summary and high-handed deletion of questions. Sickening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.72.125 (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want a block on your IP address, please stop trolling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So challenging your authority and your unjust treatment of me and my edits is defined as "trolling" and warrants your threatening to block me? Wow, way to disprove my assertions of arrogant and tyrannical treatment of unregistered users by registered ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.72.125 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr IP or Anon: I hope that you get to understand the AIDS was not there when Gandhi died. Though I have had major differences with Fowler&Fowler over content, he is the most knowledgeable editor I have ever come across. I saw your page and I can see how much explanation has been given to you on various issues. I hope you will help improve and not make such statements again. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are hereby conferred the barnstar of Integrity for your work on India related topics, specially Gandhi, by Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is with reference to your edit of the lead, of the article on India. I see that you changed the words Annexed and colonized to controlled and administered.
Now, you'll recall how we had evolved a concession on the annexed/colonized phrase (recall the "occupation" discussion around 4 years ago). And that version has remained unchanged since. I understand the background to your change (FAR). However, I believe a version that has been agreed upon, and has stayed stable for over 4 years, should not be changed without a proper discussion.
I've therefore reverted to the previous version. We can talk about it, and I'm open to rephrasing it. But frankly, I dont like the controlled/administered version. Both EIC and the British Empire controlled as well as administered India. So the sentence doesnt make much sense.
As for accuracy, India was a British Colony, and India was "colonized", are both pretty factual, and well published (we haggled on "occupation", and agreed on "colonized", remember? :)) And so is the annexed part. My suggestion would be, to simplify the sentence to say something like "...gradually annexed and colonized by United Kingdom" and leave the EIC and United Kingdom distinction to the British Raj article, and the History section of India.
AJ-India (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the FAR. Unfortunately, no where does it say that "Administered" and "controlled" are the right description of the events of the period. Nor does it follow that you can make a change without seeking a consensus. The version I reverted (yes it is a revert), is one that has stayed for close to 4 years. My suggestions (to remove EIC etc), are exactly that: suggestions. The point being: how much detail one wishes to provide in the lead. The way you've re-phrased the sentence, isnt either accurate, nor worded well. As I explained above, both EIC & the British Empire "controlled" as well as "administered" the territories they annexed. Thats a given. In any empire/government/system. So your verbiage kind of sounds odd, and that was the reason I suggested a re-phrase. Note that the sentence's original structure was well suited for the "annexed" & "colonized" version, as it described the two phases.
finally, one can haggle on when they "began annexing" and "eventually colonized", but to me thats besides the point. Its a detail, available in the History of that period (in the relevant articles). That India was gradually annexed, and eventually colonized, by the British (via the EIC, which was later dissolved post the 1857 uprising, and replaced by direct rule), is pretty well established and accepted. As long as we stay true to that, I don't mind any verbiage change.
And yes, thanks for the warning! Couldn't expect better, could I? I guess somethings don't change with time. But do beware, that unilateral changes dont work. And it is in the interest of the article, to work by consensus. I've been here as long as you, and I therefore believe you also understand this. So: if you wish, we can work out a mutually acceptable sentence. I re-state, am open to verbiage (not haggling on colonized/annexed, though I believe they are well descriptive of the events). But you version is inaccurate, and redundant.AJ-India (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you can't trump an FAR with long arguments on user talk pages. "Direct rule" or "direct administration" (by the British Crown) or "Crown rule" is used by historians to refer to the post 1858 rule. "Colonized" (especially when linked to colonialism) is POV and inexact; for it also means "to be settled by people" as in the colonization of settler colonies (Canada, Australia, ...). I have reverted your edit. If you edit war, I will get admin help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, lets deal with it that way. Am reverting your edit, its your POV.AJ-India (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you made vague insinuations against Sitush in a variety of places? On WP:DRN, you claim that Sitush needs to thoroughly read sources, when, in fact, he reads sources better than any editor I've seen; he's also extremely active on WP:RSX, trying to actually get whole articles rather than just relying on snippet views like most editors on caste articles. On James Tod, you accuse Sitush of pursuing the Wikipedia award mill, when, if you look at his User page, he lists only 3 GA contributions and 2 DYK, spaced out quite widely in time--hardly someone seeking to game the award system. In fact, I believe that I was the person who recommended he try for a GA on James Tod, since it seemed to have been so well expanded and written that it was worth seeing if it (the article, not Sitush) warranted the recognition. You accuse him of rushing on Tod, when a look at the article history shows numerous edits over a period of more than a month. Sitush has been the victim of extreme attacks both on an off wiki, accusing him of sock puppetry, paid editing, POV warring, complete ignorance of India, bias, bad faith, etc., etc. And yet, I look at Sitush's editing history and see an exemplary editor who is getting more and more frustrated by these attacks from people (not you) who only want him, MatthewVanitas, and CarTick (who was successfully driven away) to go away so that they can keep their own caste articles as positive as possible through the use of primary sources, sources long since discredited, and, quite often, no sources at all other than "I'm an X and I know for a fact that my ancestors were the greatest warriors in the history of the planet, descended directly from gods, anyone who says otherwise is a liar or jealous or incompetent." Oh, wait, they also like to engage in knocking down the caste level of groups they oppose. Why would you add to the critique of one of the few editors willing to deal with such consistent, malicious, and completely false harassment, and yet still keep editing? This is a problem that will only get worse as we expand our efforts to reach more Indian editors (unless we specifically take efforts to bring in historical scholars, rather than just getting more South Asian editors of any type); I have no doubt in my mind that caste articles, and the behavior in them, will eventually become a major ArbCom case (akin to the ARBMAC, P/I, and Troubles cases), because this is clearly a long term issue that is not going away, because it involves a fundamental clash between what Wikipedia values as "knowledge" and what a large number of people in other cultures do.
I know I'm ranting here. I know I'm biased here. But this is the most intense time I've come really been close to the very dark side of Wikipedia; not the vandalism, not the alleged politicking, but the relentless POV warring that has the potential to alienate good, neutral editors and leave only entrenched POV warriors. So I guess what I'm saying is that, while it's absolutely great that you're coming to help with these articles, it's unbelievably painful to see, enmeshed in that help, criticism of the best editor these articles have had. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. I think you are right about some of my comments. They were excessive and unfair. I've refactored them where I could (DRN) or explained them where I couldn't. I have also apologized to Sitush. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. After I posted the above, I looked at your talk page and user page in more detail, and realized that your thinking is definitely needed at a lot of the India articles--you seem to have a real clear head for sources, solid writing...overall article improvement. So sorry if I sounded harsh...it's good to have more neutral (or, perhaps I should say "striving for neutral", since none of us really are) eyes watching and hands typing on these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I'm glad things got sorted out, at least on that front. And thanks for the compliment. India articles do attract editors who are still living with unreconstructed views, where their family's myths are factual truths. That is especially true for caste-related articles, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a really depressing 24 hours and missed the thread above + ancillary things elsewhere. F&f, I am grateful to you for modifying the comments to which Qwyrxian refers, and even more so for finding all those images for Tod. Your comments regarding content for that article were also very enlightening but, sad to say, it is going to be a long time before I am any good at writing leads. I am well aware that the way my brain operates is not inclined to summarising an article to which I have added a lot of material, even though I am perfectly capable of summarising the sources for that material. It is difficult to explain and I do not expect you to understand. However, it is one reason why such articles need such input. I am far from faultless. So, again, thank you. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi F&F, I see that India retains its featured status. Congratulations for single-handedly managing that! --rgpk (comment) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Well, you and others pitched in as well. I never felt I didn't have company. Hope your travels are going great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this page and reply on my talk page. If this message is good enough, I will add bits to it and send to all Indians on wiki at around 6. Please suggest improvements. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Mehrgarh article there is an extra period in the first paragraph, extra ( ]] ) on the front that is not needed, Baluchistan is spelled incorrect which I fixed, BCE was capitalized. I failed to understand how that is not CORRECTION! Thank you (Necknoisenowthis (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I see that you are bit unhappy with him. He is a very reasonable guy. Though India got out of British clutches in 1947, Indian history doesn't start at 1947. It is a country with a long history. Some countries such as Australia that are now countries of mostly migrants may not consider the history of Australoids as their history as their and for them the history may begin from the time the europium settlers came there, but that's not the case with India. In India, students are taught their history that starts from the ancient Vedic age. I hope this may clarify some doubts.Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani history, given the contributions that you have made to both the respective topics on Wikipedia, if you have not done so already. It would be great to see your name in the participants list, if you're interested ofcourse :) Mar4d (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite. Will do (if I haven't already)! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Risking perhaps eliciting paroxysmal mirth, I say this: you are the most helpful and skillful India-obsessed editor left on site. What does "helpful" mean? Arguing sources correctly, building neutral and aesthetic content, adding experience and value to discussions. I mean wow, what would Wikipedia be if the thousands of editors were as skilled and editorially diligent. I think we'd be peacefully compiling on-wiki blueprints for functioning fusion reactors ... instead of handing out 3RR and NPA warnings to gormless newbs. To read some random India-related page would be a true cordon bleu affair, rather than the sad, biased, mentally unhygienic street-stall pop slop that we're drowning in. Our old India FA hands have largely phased away or are fixing to do so. And others have been, to put it lightly, blown away by blowback from their roguishly gnomish activism: YM, RA, et cetera and ad nauseum.
You may see your ... colorful interpersonal history as disallowing the mop. And you told RP the same. Baloney. As an expert editor you'd get separation of concerns down pat IMHO; very occasional spot-mopping would hardly affect your defense of historicity. Your, ahem, "friends"—sock or not—who may be reading this with murine disbelief needn't concern themselves that a prevailing RFA will detract one jot from the hermeneutical fun—you'd not crush them with tools; your rhetorical flair more than matches theirs. They could only benefit from your adminship, as it well known to have a highly moderating impact on undesirable interactions, allowing for smoother dispute resolution and (for you at least) more focus on sourcing and content-building.
Before you decline via the usual "not being ready" or "not wanting it", etc., remember: this is not about you, or what you deserve, or returning in kind the embarrassingly unnecessary praise you've burdened me and other guys with over the years. It's about skills. Yours. And some words on the occasioned off-the-cuff delivery: "This is some fellow, [w]ho, having been praised for bluntness, doth affect [a] saucy roughness". You're perhaps the learned Kent to India's mainly keening, sadly screeding Lear. I remember maybe five years ago dab made a poorly-received comment that the subcontinent was brimming with editorial mediocrity, with chaste talent shockingly rare—and the resultant grammatical and collaborative standards shockingly low—compared to most other places. He was right. And I can see no better way to raise the sourcing, writing, and discursive standards here than to hand the exemplars toolchests, especially considering the depleted—and depleting—state of the India-related admin pool. I acknowledge I've not helped here, due to RL.
Else, should you decline, you'll have wasted several hours of my time, a blockable offense. :-) Either way, take the (non-polemical portions of the) above as belated thanks for helping making the pages, by way of your palpable erudition, reasonably tolerable for us non-expert and non-sock dilettantes. this alone, with the collaborative skills needed to build it up, with skills highly fungible with those required by handling the odd mop task request, make this attempt to shoo you to the broom closet ... worthwhile.
Regards. Saravask 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) I had much fun reading this! I am assuming you weren't pulling my leg (at least not the entire time). Well, in the past, I've taken the "I can't" or "I'm not ready" route, mainly because I've thought an adminship both a Sisyphean task and Houdinian nemesis. However, the endless dog-fights that have whittled away endless dog years (and preempted countless dog ears in countless might-have-reads), have made me reconsider the mop. As the Sage of Vienna might have said, and as my family echoes in as many words, my superego is insufficiently internalized, and the janitorial route might be as good a route as any to achieving completion. The only hitch, (and there's always one of those) is that the next three months are ego intensive, leaving no time for buffing floors. But, here's a thought. Why don't I work with something less jarring, like, say Murphy's oil soap, many of whose ingredients (Account creators, Autoconfirmed users, Autopatrolled, Edit filter managers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Reviewers, Rollbackers, Confirmed users) you left at my doorstep the other day? Why don't I work with them for the next three months and then you can nominate, say in early December?
So, here are some questions:
How is a "rollback" different from an "undo?"
What is an edit filter manager?
What does a reviewer do?
Thanks again for your confidence in me and for the great post! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that, generally speaking, the account creator permission is only given out to those who actively seek to participate in the account creation queues, and IP block exemption is handed out only based on request and verified need (for example, a non-admin who regularly edits on on a hardblocked IP range). Another administrator has removed these two permissions based on usual practices; however, this is not in any way a comment on you or your contributions to the project. Apologies if this has created any issues; please do not let this dissuade you in any decisions you might make.
To respond to your questions above, a rollback automatically reverts to a previous version and does not give one the opportunity to make an edit summary; it is only used for vandalism and a few other very limited functions. An edit filter manager is someone who has the technical ability to write and install edit filters; this permission also allows the user to "read" edit filters and their actions. The best place to find out more about them is at Wikipedia:Edit Filter. The "reviewer" permission is pretty much obsolete at this point; it permitted non-administrators to review and approve edits on articles subject to pending changes, a software trial that has now ended. Risker (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If adminship is your goal, then this is not the best route for you. You get recommended for it when it is the least expected for you. In the meantime, you should continue what you should be doing, which is improving the encyclopedia along with helping those tasks. That is exactly what I have done prior to any adminship opportunities (and I have declined a couple of them before I have reluctantly accepted).
That is the best advice I can give you right now. –MuZemike 05:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Re to MuZemike) Hi there, I'm not sure I understand your reply. What is not the best route for me? (In the past, as I've explained above, I've turned down offers of nominations for adminship, fearing them to be time sinks, but I'm now wondering if I've wasted more time in endless dogfights instead.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Risker: you ought not have done hishomework for him, especially with him AFAIK being a lecturer ...
To MuZemike: words like "least expected" are seldom conceptually helpful—just dumb mental games, IMO. Neither is unsolicited advice. Let him take his decision based on the greater good, and not on your professed blather that doesn't really matter.
To F&F: your request for a stay of administrative execution is hereby ... granted. I'll be happy to nominate, whether in December or whenever else you're ready. As far as "improving the encyclopedia", great advice for all of us, as usual, even if it's not particularly profound or often heeded here.
Keep it up. Saravask 08:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The downside of being a great content editor in historical topics is that you have to deal with contentious agenda editors who care little about sourcing or the generally accepted point of view. Fowler has had more than his fair share of dealing with these sorts of editors which, on some occasions, has lead to acrimonious exchanges. I am certain he would make a great admin, partly because he is the sort of editor who would use those tools with discretion and partly because I don't see him using them in areas where he is involved (though it would be great for the encyclopedia if he did!). Interesting experience or not, Fowler, I'll be happy to support an admin request whenever you think you are ready and willing to put up with what could be a messy prospect with an uncertain outcome. My guess is that you'll get 200+ support !votes, it is the oppose !votes that will be interesting!--rgpk (comment) 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to go for RFA when you feel like you're ready. And most of us admins here on this talk page, as RegentsPark said, have dealt with editors who have clear agendas to push and who don't really care about anything else. It's good and noble to improve the encyclopedia, and adminship is certainly a means to that. However, don't forget to take care of yourself also. –MuZemike 17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for the good advice and words the of encouragement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
F&f, do you have any books regarding this? I came by through a sock case and noticed that the sourcing does not meet FA standards; in parts I also smell some odd synthesis. I think it's due for a FAR, but I don't have access to significant sources on the subject. On a more general note, the sub-articles need attention too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an FA authored by user:Dineshkannambadi, who was churning out Karnataka-nationalist fare in the days when Indian editors would turn up at an FAC by the droves to support anything vaguely redolent of India. Most of his stuff is OR and someone will need to FAR all of them, one by one, if they have the stomach for the poor prose, the unbridled regionalism, and the obscure sourcing. I've done my share of squabbling with DK, who has since left Wikipedia. As for the books, I'll check; I doubt I have anything article-specific, but do have Ancient and Medieval India books. It's funny, but I didn't know anything about Karnataka until I started going to these FACs. Btw, another article that needs to be cleaned up is Lothal, which too was written many years ago, by user:Rama's Arrow, and is sourced to single book by a controversial archeologist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to take Chola dynasty to FAR for a while, but after looking at some of the others, it doesn't seem that bad -- it has its share of problems, especially with a lot of OR being inserted in front of references and some unreliable sources etc over the past couple of years, but it's fixable and the foundational work seems to be ok. But the Cholas are also very well written about, so removing some of the fringe stuff is easier, even general Indian history books from Stein/Kulke/Wolpert devote good real estate to the topic. Same with the case of Vijayanagara Empire. A year or so ago dab and I spent a good chunk of time cleaning up the Kamboja mess that was created by the student of one of these fringe publishers. There's still a lot more on that history-mythology amalgamation that needs cleaning up. —SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Chola article was written by others. The Karnataka gang was opposing it in the FAC. That's how I learned about regional tensions in South India (as they played out on Wikipedia)! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just remembered. They were fighting about who had more influence in Southeast Asia, the Karnataka-based dynasties or the Cholas and other dynasties from farther south! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the "political dynamics" of these articles, but eitherways, I'll plan on taking Western Ganga to FAR soon. I'll get my notes together on the problems with the article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fowler&Fowler. Regarding File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg image, I find that someone has added the comment that there is insufficient information in the fair use rationale. Secondly, I believe a separate fair use rationale should be added for each use. The pic is being used in two articles. Thought I might let you know...-MWℳ 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the stats link you gave at Talk:Ganges, where it has "295 (267/28) Fowler&fowler", what do the numbers 267 and 28 mean? They aren't explained anywhere that I can see. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think they mean major/minor edits. Or rather nonminor/minor Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there source for a list of British residents in Delhi? This article, for example, refers to an assassination attempt on one resident but we seem to have no information on the resident or the attempt.--rgpk (comment) 22:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) I thought at first that you were talking about present-day expat Brits in Delhi! Hmm, not sure, off the top of my head, about a source for names of the British Residents to the Mughal court (presumably from 1765 to 1858). Will look around and post here later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list. Unfortunately, I can't find the darn link I found it on. Don't know how reliable it is. At least one detail—the beginning of Charles Metcalfe's first residency in 1811—seems to contradict the Imperial Gazetteer of India, which says that he was made Assistant Resident in 1811. Anyway, here it is:
British Residents to the Mughal Empire (in Delhi):
1803 - 25 Jun 1806 David Ochterlony (1st time) (b. 1758 - d. 1825)
25 Jun 1806 - 1811 Archibald Seton (b. 1758 - d. 1818)
25 Feb 1811 - 1818 Charles Theophilus Metcalfe (1st time) (s.a.)
1818 - 1820 Sir David Ochterlony (2nd time) (s.a.)
1820 - 1823 Alexander Ross (b. 1777 - d. 18..)
1823 William Fraser (1st time)(acting) (b. 1784 - d. 1835)
1823 - Oct 1825 C. Elliott
26 Aug 1825 - 31 Jul 1827 Sir Charles Theophilus Metcalfe (2nd time) (s.a.)
31 Jul 1827 - 1828 Edward Colebrooke
1828 - 1829 William Fraser (2nd time)(acting) (s.a.)
18 Sep 1829 - Nov 1830 Francis James Hawkins (b. 1806 - d. 1860)
25 Nov 1830 - 1832 W.B. Martin
1832 - 22 Mar 1835 William Fraser (3rd time) (s.a.)
1835 - 1853 Sir Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe (b. 1795 - d. 1853)
Nov 1853 - 11 May 1857 Simon Fraser (d. 1857)
David Ochterlony, Charles Metcalfe have Wikipedia pages; the others, I haven't checked. They were also known as the White Moghuls. Many took Indian wives and quite a few were murdered. Good luck. Would be good to have a list (and perhaps even the individual residents pages, if enough info can be found). I'm guessing one or the other of William Dalyrymple's Delhi books should also have some info. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's it. I was trying to remember the name .... but couldn't. For some reason that list didn't turn up the second time I did the Google Search (or perhaps in my hurry I missed it). The website itself wouldn't be considered reliable, but based on that list other more reliable sources could be found.
Also, the first resident was appointed in 1803, after the formation of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, not in 1765, after the Battle of Buxar, as I had mistakenly supposed. One of the important tasks of the Resident was to protect the Mughal Emperor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, are you able to upload a high-resolution (> 1000 px per side; else the maximum possible) version? Saravask 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid, nothing that hi-res. I'll look around some more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining the words "garbage" and "warning" in these diffs: [17]? That's rather rude wording, and gives no indication whatsoever what your objections to those cites are. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No excuse for my rudeness and my sincere apologies for that, but there is another seemingly under the radar rudeness in which you and Sitush seem to be indulging. That is one of relentlessly inserting the word "shudra" into the lead of many occupational caste articles based on the returns of Google book searches. I understand that in many cases you are countering editors who are for their part inserting over-blown characterizations of these castes, but countering them in this fashion is not the way to do it. Determining the consensus of opinion among scholarly sources is not simply a matter of counting which of the Google book returns are pro and which con. I've already told you guys that the reality is more complicated, that you need to look at a peer reviewed widely used textbook, such as Susan Bayly's, to determine the trends in scholarly opinion, but it seems that you keep blithely carrying on with your approach. Since I'm usually strapped for time, when I see the behavior repeated again and again, I lose my patience, and my frustration comes out in the (inexcusable, but time saving) edit summaries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Great work on the sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) I checked those pics. They're great. Iangar must have been one of the first Indian Professors at the university. By the way, last week, I came across S. Muthiah's book Madras Rediscovered in which he claims that there is a statue of E. B. Powell within the campus of the Presidency College, Madras. I went to the college to take a pic but could not find the statue at all. Do you have any picture of Powell with you?-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of E. W. Middlemast at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HurricaneFan25 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware that it had been nominated. All the remaining issues have been addressed (I believe). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British Imperialism in Burma/Myanmar & British rule in Burma[edit]
Hello, There is still a problem here with the British imperialism article which contains material that would be out of place in the British rule article. This region is not one I am familiar with and as you have commented in the past perhaps you could have a look at the content of the two articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Saravask's talk page. Message added 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Thanks. I am not sure just how many citations we need to stop the broken record! I have asked at WP:RX for the relevant pages from Rao. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) I think eventually the obscurantists will tire. When that will happen is anybody's guess, in part because many people in India are still trying to be rehabilitated within the caste system. Until there is a critical mass of people that reject the system altogether, this will likely continue. I was reading an old ethnographic report (older than Crooke or Russell) and was amazed by the number of specialized castes. There were all sorts of groups. Sort of the equivalent of: musicians who play the guitar, musicians who sing accapella, caste that fixes cuckoo clocks, caste that works on grandfather clocks, ... I remember thinking that if everyone were socially equal, and making a good income, a system like that of family apprenticeships could have been a good thing and in fact is what they had in many parts of the world. The hierarchy sadly messed it up. Anyway, that's my take. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not well placed to comment on the generalities and the issues are massively affected by the (pernicious?) religious underpinning etc. My feeling is that this is a most dreadful legacy but, of course, I must try not to let my opinion affect my contributions. I am divorced from the day-to-day reality on the ground, for which I am grateful. I find these sort of things sad but we as a species can aspire & I am mad enough to have some faith that one day we may indeed get there. Again, my commendation for your good work on the article. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AN notice: Yadav/Yadava/Ahir merge discussion[edit]
... for the revert. It was starting to turn into a pointyEru-Melkor interference-exulting pictorial dialectic. Normally I take these things slow (as in patient reverts) out of sheer fright at the prospect of posting to a talk page. But maybe I'm wrong sometimes. Saravask 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There had been a long patient discussion on the talk page for the pic currently in place. So, when someone who had absented himself from that discussion shoved back in a much touched up (in hue saturation and what have you) old hack of a picture, there was only one thing to do. Anytime. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS Actually the glossy pics worry me, not just in India, but country and city pages in general. New York, London, New Delhi, all have the same problem. From the pictures alone you'd never guess that the cities have an underbelly. Where are the pictures of the slums, the homeless, ...? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's starting to appear like a tourist brochure, feel free of course to undo any of my additions. I'm just putting stuff there per WP:BRD as (biased?) ideas: my edits are not meant to resound with utter finality like the judgment of God.
We can also discuss with others on talk about how to balance them out. Maybe we can add images of ordinary Indians? Apatani, Toda, etc. that I recall we discussed long ago? I'd support your inclusion of them. Same with ("aesthetic"--is that possible? LOL) slum images. Saravask 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I didn't mean you. of course.) Yeah, the picture thing is a problem. We need Wikipedians in India (or those who are able to travel to India) to take pictures, especially one's that come with supportive documentation as to authenticity (and are free from privacy issues); otherwise, people will object that the Apatani is not Apatani, as they are indeed right now in Talk:Yadav, where I added a picture from Flikr. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A harmless Yadav girl? IMO they are questioning the authenticity of that image only because it depicts a typical Indian--"chromatically/pigmentally challenged" and all. I doubt that/those guy/guys would have done so had you stuck up an un-annotated/un-vetted image of an alabaster-skinned Yadav Bollywood starlet, LOL.
This is part of the big problem on en-wiki: subcontinentals, above all others, are singularly obsessed with how their caste/linguistic group/region/country is *seen* by others--hence all the non-rational and ham-handed puffery and the disputes that attend those who perpetrate it. They could hardly care less about the actual facts: what/how does this typical Yadav look/live like, what is their dispassionately related (non-spun) history, actual descriptive demographics rather than this congenital "cargo-cult" fixation with fictive superficialities: fake provenances, what language is "most classical", what literature is "most ancient" or "most Sanskritised", ad nauseum.
I often imagine what would happen if every Indian received a full brain transplant--from a German or Scandinavian donor. These ~ 1.2 billion would wake up, look around, and be aghast--at the filth, the litter, the tediously stupid and dilatory way in which most everything was done. They would stop wasting their time with spinning their groups this way or that on WP ... and instead start picking up litter, change their lackadaisical and "in-this-world-but-not-of-it" fatalism (Joseph Campbell called it the second-growth "bhakti rubbish" after empiricist-leaning original Buddhism was successfully extirpated) and start taking inventing and innovating. Actually doing things now rather than bragging about (often made-up) passe literary/cultural/political attainments of *a few* of their forebears long ago. IMO the dispassioned and fact-focussed Indians in such a scenario would aesthetically and developmentally surpass Japan within ten years.
But now folks need to deal with these spin-meister memoids who are more concerned with pushing and puffing fake achievements, fake histories, and fake appearances rather than writing rational disinterested accounts. Excluding images of ordinary Indians is part and parcel of this. It is amazing how different the no-nonsense Australians are in this regard: in India you will never see stars who look like those in Bran Nue Dae, Rabbit-Proof Fence, and many others. Sable-skinned tribals? Never. The run-of-the-mill bogan and other unapologetic and unashamed subalterns are (militantly) celebrated in the culture and mass media, and even (maybe especially?) the most down-and-out Australian subjects/places regularly feature, and are enthusiastically embraced. I presume to know all this because I have close family in QLD and have spent a lot of time there, comparing Aus and Ind attitudes.
Tall poppy syndrome is also a positive factor that translates to less Aus-related bunk appearing on WP. And in RL proud, rational Aussies refrain from bragging about their near-peerless and concrete achievements (I mean, Patrick White is amazing; no Indian, even Tagore, can compare with him, let alone Faulkner or that Cormac McCarthy, who should have won the Nobel this year, alas ...) Meanwhile, wretched and jealous India wimpers on WP, scrunched over a glowing screen and dilating upon long past "glories", imagined or not.
Compare that with status-conscious and pigmentally obsequious Indians, who live in the mental and physical muck precisely because they are obsessed with spinning outward appearances while ignoring actual slum habits/realities in their largely chintzy, anodyne, and monoform film. Of course the thing to do would be just to post images of ordinary Indians--including the mass who pertain to its pot-bellied underbelly. Maybe we can discuss at Talk:India about how to correct the issue you pointed out on the most-viewed India-related page, which is currently 15th in page views That's why its critical to get the images right and representative IMHO. A maximally clean, neutral, and representative high-visibility exemplar like India sets the discursive tone for all the hordes of noobs projected to come on-wiki due to the efforts of the WMF and the spread of cheap mobile gadgets there. It's a horrifying prospect, but is also an opportunity to grow the ranks of decent South Asia-interested contributors. LOL. Hope you enjoyed the foregoing screed--you made me write it. Enjoy. Saravask 15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) That was both enjoyable and instructive to read. Will reply in detail later. Yeah, I don't know who that Nobelist this year was; at least, I'd never heard of him. Yeah, Cormac M. will probably get it soon. For myself, I've pretty much gone back to 19th century literature or rather pre-first world war literature (of whose last representative was Lawrence). I sometimes think that the medium of the novel stands exhausted today. The kind of upbringing the Victorians had in the realm of the Word (the young Darwin was reading aloud Thackeray and Mrs. Gaskell to his family after dinner) is impossible to contrive for any child today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bother replying to that rubbish--I don't want to do that again, risking lifelong arthritis/RSI from all that typing.
Some of those images are remarkable, especially the potter and wife, which I see is also an FP on ta-wiki. But many of Yann's other images don't pass muster--they evince artifacts listed at WP:FPC/Glossary. Lighting is also key--has nothing to do with complexion (e.g., potter's wife, scythe-sharpener), but rather relates to positioning of light source. Potter and wife were well-lit; school brats not so much. BTW, some of those had rather piquant captions--a step above the pleonastic jabber that usually obtains on WP. Refreshingly frank reading. So I would say you should replace turbines with sickle-sharpener and add haircut to "Demographics".
I guess wait a few days for other comments, then do the replacements. Rotations in "Demographics" or "Economy" would be a bad idea IMO (I just read that SpacemanSpiff wanted it in all sections) *unless* one guy--I'd say you--had the final say in what goes in. I'd say you "earned" it: I picked through India from end to end several times over, checking and formatting most of the accessible sources for quality, accuracy, etc. "History" is the only solidly sourced section--and you wrote it. Other sections used rubbish cites like position papers and Times of India cites; the latter had no qualms ripping off the work of Wikimedians like YellowMonkey and Planemad and passing it off as their own. Also see this disturbing comment by Shyamal (talk·contribs) regarding the "Environment" section--it seems it needs to either be renamed back to "Biodiversity" or else incorporate climate stuff like at Australia#Environment, and perhaps requires a different class of illustration.
As for your comments regarding literature: never read Lawrence, but have read some disturbing things said of his work. But otherwise you're right: the Victorians really hit the karmic jackpot by instilling the classics in their youth--compare that with today, where "post-post-structuralism" (bit of a jingle, that) and various PC "ethnic studies" constitutively turf them out, and hence most folks "read" (I use that term here rather flippantly) J. K. Rowling or Nora Roberts or Stephen King. Wonder if India would have colonised England (first--don't mention recent immigration now) had Shakespeare been born in Anahilapataka rather than Stratford. Now the East is becoming the new West: was overjoyed to see plenty of old 19th-century treasures for sale in Indian rail-side stalls, especially in WB. Tagore's good taste in Western genius lives on there.
Of course the mind-rotting prolefeed (DBC Pierre, anyone?) that dominates today led you to say the "medium of the novel stands exhausted". IMO you are confusing average literary output--romance novels, chic lit, various flavours of ethnic tripe--with peak output. Cormac and a few others are clearly still innovating, and IMO (and that of the academic pariah Harold Bloom) improving on Melville or Faulkner or whatnot. So it is not exhausted--only a lack of focus by most modern "authors" (the boring Rowling et al.) on creatively improving it, rather than just churning out easy and repetitious and formulaic stuff as popular writers now do.
As for pre-WWI stuff, I've not read much literature per se, but *have* read most every 19th-century travelogue pertaining to the great explorers of Australia and the Arctic/Antarctic: Stuart, Hayes, and dozens of others. Now those men knew how to write. Wow. Such elegant turns of phrase, such descriptive power and syntactic prowess. Describing the Tanami or the Coppermine or whatever. And now ... we must read Nikkul--boldface, exclamation marks, and all. The great arc of history wound through the great imperial explorers and colonisers who gifted the world with their classics, technology, and social rationalisations. Only to end with some twerp in L.A. with a tragically plebeian taste for pictorial shlock. Again, agree with you that it was the Shakespeare and the Greek/Roman classics that made that difference. Hysteresis opposes a popular resurrection of the profound. Bloom claimed there is a "saving minority". We'll see.
So there I went again. Expect medical bills in the mail. You claim to enjoy reading it, so have at it. No more. Saravask 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never got around to reading Stephen King or Nora Roberts. Did read volume one of Rowling, a "mature" edition without illustrations, not even on the cover, which I picked up at Heathrow some ten years ago. Mainly, I couldn't get beyond seeing it as a rehash of the post-World War I English boarding school stories, now all out of print, that, through the generosity of two generations of relatives, had filled up some bookshelves in my house when I was growing up. Speaking of WWI, my remark about going back to the pre-world-war-one stuff mostly reflects my current mood, my exhaustion, perhaps, with the different media professing to entertain us. As for the post-world-war-one stuff, did read all of Jack London, Willa Cather, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Bellow, Roth, Raymond Carver, Naipaul, Edna O'Brien and a couple others I'm forgetting. For some reason, I was never drawn to modernism in literature, at least not in English (including Woolf, Faulkner, Joyce, and what have you). Did read a little of the others (Graham Greene, John Buchan, Doris Lessing, Iris Murdoch, ... etc etc, including Cormac M). Never read anything by Patrick White, though strangely, around the time he won the Nobel, I did present a few of his books to others as presents!
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, it wasn't really the world war, but the radio (to be followed by manifold other forms of entertainment) that began to chip away at the monopoly of the written word, and perhaps I should be talking of the pre- and post-radio age. I think it wasn't just the great travel writers, who wrote marvellous descriptions in the 19th century, the average person, by virtue of the enforced immersion in the written word, wrote very evocatively as well. The ordinary letters written by ordinary people (that you find in various anthologies here and there) are witness to it. I sometimes think that the absence in the 20th century of literary child prodigies, such as Macaulay, the Bronte sisters, Kipling, RL Stevenson, Virginia Woolf in the nineteenth, might be a direct outcome of this distraction by the radio and its progeny. :)
Before I free associate this to death, let me say a word about the images. They were collected hurriedly from the "people of India" section in WikiCommons. Many do have picture quality problems, including blown highlights, as you pointed out. So, yes, they wouldn't qualify. Also, I wasn't thinking in terms of how the image would fit into a particular section of the India page, so they are likely random. Thanks for the compliment about the captions. They were meant for the Talk:India page, not as captions for their final location. Some of them I'm sure are far from informative (such as the stuff about tidiness of village India; the particular location, it turns out, is a largish town, even a city). Have to run now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Yadav and skimmed through the discussion on the talk page. FWIW, they are OBCs (Other Backward Castes).[18] (Mentions Kurmi, Yadav etc as OBCs.) They get preferential treatment when it comes to jobs/admissions/elections thanks to their backward caste status.
It's amusing how they demand a "upper" caste status on Wikipedia.
I am sure you are a pakistani and a muslim. You have reasons your reasons.
But in the name of Allah and in the name of prohphet mohammad please correct the article YADAV true to your conscious.
There are enough references like MSA rao , T padmaja,,etc,,.. Lets see how true you are to Allah. A true muslim will never lie,
be dishonest. The muslims friends i have are brave, loyal, honest and fearless. Please change the article. remove the pics and remove the negativity in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.87.146 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Please don't comment on what you think other editor's ethnicity/nationality/religion is. You have know way of knowing anything about Fowler&fowler other what is on xyr userpage. In any event, Wikipedia doesn't allow editing to follow religious or any other POV--merely what RS say. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, that's not at all what I thought F&F was. But as Qwyrxian said, it's not our business unless he wants to share. And really, what difference does it make? I have muslim friends who are Sufis and not remotely like the general stereotype. ...also, F&F, I would and perhaps will say more on the India photos, but for now am not sure what else to say. Pfly (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I just came here after I found this on my talk page. I don't know why anyone would ask me to intervene in an article about a subject I know nothing about, & after looking at the edit history thought I'd ask F&f might know why. But now I'm thinking it might be better to just stay out of this. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw, a quick look at Yadav looks acceptable. When, if ever, will Indian caste system wither and go away? Pfly (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) Sadly, the Caste system in India (which according to some is the world's oldest from of apartheid) has so insidiously wormed its way into the body politic that many people oppressed by it have not been able to throw off the mantle of oppression by rejecting the system. Instead, they have attempted to deny the oppression. It is the Indian equivalent of three or four generations of African Americans denying the fact of slavery and attempting to pass. In race relations in the US, "passing" was a realistic option for only a few people of mixed race inheritance. In India, where the hierarchy of the caste system, is not precisely correlated with color, it is an option for many, and that is what many have chosen to do, especially in the gray zones of the non-elite occupational castes. It is the classic Freudian "identification with the aggressor." Such people (and I mean the groups, not Wikipedia users) get very upset when someone calls their bluff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So should we delete all of the caste articles on Wikipedia, or just rewrite them all so that they are listed as kshatriya, descended from warriors, kings, and Gods? And don't you try any of the "just write what reliable sources say" devilry on me. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) I guess we'll have to settle for them getting upset and calling us Pakistani. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point above f&f. After looking at a few references in the Jat articles, I'm wary of any 'internally' written caste history. Airbrushing and agrandizement appears to be the norm in those histories. The problem with articles on caste and ethnic groups is the paucity of reliable sources. The dispassionate sources tend to be from colonial times but these are (mostly) not written by ethnographers and are usually based on unreliable personal observation and, since pre-colonial India is not known for written texts, there is no way to verify the historical validity of these colonial observations. Since no one other than the group or caste itself is interested in its own history, this leaves us with articles that are less interested in understanding history and more interested in jockeying for status in the caste and cultural milieu. Ideally we should toss all these articles out and replace it with a List of castes in India. "Yadav is an ethnic group in India that today self-identifies as belonging to the kshatriya caste" sort of thing. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in the main, the problem is with the "clean" low-castes—the non-elite castes with which the elites deigned interact and which they did not consider ritually polluting. The people lower down the totem pole, the untouchables and the "unclean" shudras, didn't, and still don't, have pretensions to greatness. For them the oppression was only too real, and their vision, consequently, much clearer. Ambedkar (both the man and movement) was the product of that clear vision.
Among these clean castes, I have now edited Kurmi, where I did quite a bit of the writing but encountered little opposition from drive-bys and IPs; the Yadav, where I have only tweaked the lead (and added references) and added pictures, but where the offence taken knew (and knows) no bounds; and the Kunbi, where I have tweaked the lead and added pictures as well (and where there have been few issues). The Jat people page I haven't edited, but I can see that there would be problems. Interestingly, the mid-nineteenth century British ethnographers noticed similar traits among these communities; many came away with admiration for the Kurmi and Kunbi (as indeed I have), but were less enamoured by the Yadav subgroups.
Anyway, I do think there are enough modern reliable sources that we can use to edit these articles. For my part, I'm impressed with Susan Bayly, William Pinch, Christophe Jaffrelot as general sources or reference works. There are also a host of journal articles. When I first heard of these clean but low castes, I was of the view that we shouldn't be rubbing salt into old wounds by writing too much about the history. Now, two months later, I've come to believe quite the opposite. The history is important. Especially when the victims are in denial and, in better times now, even happy to be the oppressor. The recent histories of the caste attitudes of the Yadavs and the Jats towards the untouchables and those less fortunate is shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not true. In india castes like Nair are ruling castes and
extremely powerfull. almost all the backward caste are powerfull
and have remained powerfull through out the history except
during british rule. Like for example the THEVARS, vanniayars of south india.
the thevars were army chiefs in feudal southindia and vanniyars were
also warriors who were landlords. but both thevar and vanniyar
are backward caste. Lot of things changed in british rule.
Even the Mahars who come under scheduled caste are known
warriors. Point is indian caste system is not what
you understand. and then the JATS, the JATS are so powerfull
in north india and everyone knows that JATS were kings some
1000 years ago and were powerfull even during mughal rule.
India is redeveloping. In medeival world india was the
greatest country on earth. May be in another 50 years India
will be the greatest country on earth. so many developments.
so many intellectuals, so much growth in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect demonstration of exactly what Fowler&fowler was talking about. Were it not for the fact that it happens so often, I'd have said this was a deliberate parody. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article Passing (racial identity) is interesting, I hadn't seen it before. Curious how it mentions "white" Americans trying to pass as Native Americans but not the other way around. An ancestor of mine, about 200 years ago, might have been mixed Native American and succeeded in "passing" as white. There's plenty of family stories and some interesting-but-far-from-conclusive documentary evidence. Some of his grandkids applied for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation but were turned down because grandpa wasn't listed on the official rolls. Clearly an issue with this kind of thing is that people trying to "pass" generally avoid documentation of it, of course. Add to it general illiteracy (as in the case of my may-haved-passed ancestor) and things get very vague very fast. Anyway, sure, India has been "great" historically and fast becoming "great" again. But oppression by class/caste/race/whatever is nothing to be proud of at any time. Pfly (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great story. And, yes, very well put. I think that Indians (of the old world) have not acknowledged to themselves honestly how pervasively the caste system has affected them and still does. And now, tired and sleepy, I have to call it a day. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good night! Let me add one more thought for your page stalkers to read. The whole thing about having kings as ancestors centuries ago seems an odd thing to be proud of. Having kings as ancestors is nothing special. Pretty much everyone alive has ancestors who were kings and other ancestors who were slaves, if you go back a mere millennium or two. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Jats...I'm concerned that you just removed a very large chunk of what appeared to be fairly well sourced info. Some of the sources even appeared to be fairly recent, and to national museums...yes, Tod should go, as should some of the older stuff...but did you perhaps just remove too much? If some modern scholars have claimed these opinions, we should probably keep them, at least as one theory, per WP:NPOV. Now, to clarify, I haven't actually read the sources, so if you have good reason to suspect they aren't reliable its fine, but it always worries me when I see so much removed based on an edit summary that seems to be talking about "truth". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems garbage to me, but it's possible I've been heavy handed. It's late night here and (after adding one more picture) I'm going to bed. But in Japan, :), it is a beautiful sunny day and you (hopefully) have fresh coffee steaming. So, I'll let you restore whatever you want (and I'll take a hard look at it tomorrow). Thanks. And sorry to burden you with some work! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for some excellent editing on Jat people. This article and the satellite ones around it I have struggled with for many years to edit. Thanks for the no nonsense edits. Keep it up. SH 10:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I got back and read this, you have moved much further on with the article. At this point, I'm willing to just trust you (AGF, that is), and just wait and see if anyone else objects. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Jats are one of the most researched and written up topics in modern Indian history. By solid historians and sociologists, that is. There is no reason to cite books which are nothing more than worked up family stories heard in childhood (by the insiders who are writing them). In other words, I'm just collecting the sources right now. And have an extra large turbo (coffee with a shot of esspresso) standing tall in front of me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions and clean up take this community back to 19th century and do not give a true picture as on today. You can not make any idea about today's Jat from this cleanup and your images you have added. Wikipedia was not at that time. Probably you have no knowledge and understanding of this community. So take it that way and improve accordingly. Regards. burdak (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The only reason why the Jats are Jats is that traditionally they were non-elite tillers who in the later British period became landowners in Punjab and rulers in a few princely states of the Rajputana Agency." Fowler&Fowler. Although a vast amount of Jats where husbandmen in north-west india (greater punjab), by 1600 atleast, most of Punjabs chaudaries (village owners), and gentry, where until (and during) British Raj, still Jats. The fact that 11 of the 12 misls where founded by landed Jat volunteers whom had enough resources to maintain there supplies, shortly after the death of Guru Gobind Singh only further emphasizes this point. And to suggest that Jats only became landowners under the Sikh movement is also false, as I have studied at the official land-record offices of Punjab (Tehsils) many cases where ancestral land goes back into the 1630's where the names of Jats whom owned land where titles Chaudhary, but have hindu names (i.e. not fashioned "Singh" as an initiated Sikh would).
Useful Sources: Chiefs and families of note in the Delhi, Jalandhar, Peshawar and Derajat divisions of the Panjab (Charles Francis Massy). Chiefs and families of note in the Punjab (Lepel Henry Griffin), The Jats: their role & contribution to the socio-economic life (Virsimha), A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West (H.A. Rose)
And not only do Rajput and Jat landlords share the same titles (Chaudhary, Takhur as per your favoured source "India before Europe" also suggests), but also the same culture of animal sacrifice (Structure and Change in Indian Society, Milton Singer), infact this tradition had even been bought into Sikhism by the Jats and Rajputs (In the Masters Presence, by Niddar Singh and Parmjit Singh). Thus to call the Sikh rebellion solely a "peasant rebellion" is also false, as rajputs and jats by the time must have had equal status to be joining the rebellion in the first place.
Food for thought... Hope you will consider this in your next edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagNatha (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi f&f, I temporarily semi-protected your page. Let me or some other admin know if you'd rather not have it protected. --regentspark (comment) 18:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For managing the potentially circus-like image rotation discussions in a balanced manner—it could easily have devolved into the freak-show that was the previous round several years ago. For picking through so many images. Thousands. I had no idea. It was a selfless use of your valuable time; it will ultimately benefit the readers and make the page more humane, beautiful, representative, and inclusive. Cheers. Saravask 05:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I hope this slide show thing can get sorted out. But little luck as yet. The cuppa looks good. And I say that as a coffee drinker. Been addicted to Peet's since my student days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, get to drinking it then. And try not to spill any on all the photos you're sorting out for us—remember, coffee stains are artifacts too, and someone'll thwack you in the face with WP:FPC/Glossary again. Man, your coffee table must be cluttered ... Saravask 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only coffee drinker in my family; even our pets (or especially our pets) keep their distance from me when I'm drinking coffee. I didn't know about this glossary. Hmm. Looks quite useful. Will have to study it soon. That reminds me I have to ask the waiter to get me a new cuppa; this one has a blown headlight, I mean highlight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you please be nicer, or at least more silence wrt Zuggernaut. I just read up Talk:India and saw you complaining and semi-threatening him a bit. I know he has a ban and so on, and though I was only on the sidelines and don't know the full story and assume he deserved it, still, despite the ban he has stuck around and been an active editor on things he is allowed to edit--which is a lot more than can be said for many who have been topic banned. And I do know he has been, or was, a disruptive editor on various pages, and perhaps continues to edit in somewhat disingeniousdisruptive ways, he strikes me as a far better Indian editor than many, and has cautioned other new Indian editors against being overly disruptive. In short, he may not be the ideal Wikipedia editor, but it seems to me he has taken some pains to educate newbie India editors--perhaps sometimes with a slightly veiled agenda, but other times seemingly honestly trying to Do Good. ...just some thoughts after reading Talk:India. Forgive me if I'm babbling. I should have been asleep two hours ago. Pfly (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was brusque. Sorry. I was tired. Zuggernaut has a habit of sticking his posts in the middle of a thread and subtly changing the meaning meaning of the thread. Other people do it too, but he seems more conniving in that way. Plus, MangoWong and Nikkul have been champing at the bit to nip at my heels ... I'll try to be kinder. Thanks for the reminder! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pfly, I respect (what I've seen of) your other (always) level-headed opinions elsewhere. But in this case, this soft-on-crime plea strikes me as foolishly idealistic. I agree with the "at least more silence" part (Fowler, you are truly wasting your life replying to ZT and NL and thereby helping bloat the talk page needlessly, making Pfly's attempt to follow the page far more difficult), and perhaps your claims that he keeps his fellows somewhat in check. Let them languish indefinitely their obstreperous pest-hole threads—alone and ignored. "If the dogs are barking, it means we are working". But these people seldom fully reform: they usually go the way of Lir (talk·contribs) or Bharatveer (talk·contribs)—blocks are applied, lifted, applied, expire ... Proclamations (and perhaps demonstrations) of self-reform made by the pestiferous principals are perhaps met with patient mentoring. But, in the end, an indef-ban is likely the community's ultimate peace offering to these folks—that is, it brings peace to vexed non-problem users. So all the hand-wringing and due-process stuff interposed between topic ban or long-term block and agonal ban is just warm-hearted time-wasting.
As for NL, having looked at some of his edits ([19], [20], [21], [22]), I'd say he one of the most pestilentially useless editors allowed to continue here unhindered. My jaw dropped when RegentsPark described him as having an "excellent 'image' eye"—I guess more boosterish and horribly doctored shlock is in order for the page. It may have been said to calm the situation, but what need is there to humour willful stupidity? Again, I repeat: any verbal replies extended to him are likely to be an utter waste of time and space. This is precisely why things like the London riots, litter, social dysfunction, declining cultural standards, etc are bringing down the West, as opposed to the pragmatically (perhaps brutally) strict East: worthless and talentless time-wasting scum are increasingly allowed free reign, both on- and off-wiki. If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International. And "be[ing] nicer" in a verbose way to perennially and militantly useless miscreants is not going to speed our efforts to build the page up—you become their tool and their fool. Silence is best.Saravask 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure there's something (there's lots) to be said for brevity. Silence, however, seldom works either. The trouble makers need to be taken on; otherwise, they start uploading their vanilla fare, and lord knows they haven't tried enough. That's precisely why we had so many shining pictures on the India page in the first place. The problem editors (trolls, vandals, the genuinely confused, the loose cannons) have become cannier. They don't edit war in the way BharatVeer did. It took a lot of effort by a lot of people for Zuggernaut to receive his topic ban. If they hadn't taken him on he'd have completed his rewrite of British India history by now. Like I said, progress is slow, but all in all the India page is a much quieter place than it was five years ago when I arrived. As for verbose, some people (AshLin, who's a respected editor, for one) prefer long discursive explanations to haikus. They see the latter as not involving give and take. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for Zuggernaut, He's trying to stay clear of controversy, as Pfly has observed, but is also gingerly (and coyly) testing the waters of his eventual return. Soon after you (Saravask) made your post about having more images, a hurriedly formed Nikkul Admiration Society, composed of complete strangers (to Nikkul), began handing out awards, engaged in solicitous enquiries, and handed out more awards. It could, of course, all be innocent; but then it might not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, Saravask. I can't deny having always been foolishly idealistic. No argument there! Pfly (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pfly, I wouldn't go that far. I for one don't necessarily agree with Saravask. Benign neglect, or contrived neglect, of the "not so nice," is not a cut and dried issue. It works after a fashion (so long as the neglected don't know it's contrived), but it discounts the possibility that there may be truth in their criticism. When I first saw posts by Nikkul and Zuggernaut, I concluded that they were misbehaving, but then when AshLin and Regtigerxyz (both respected editors) made similar criticism, I became uneasy and eventually went looking at more images. I was tired last night, but today, in light of the amazing diversity I saw, I'm glad that they made those posts. I certainly had no idea that India was that diverse. It's one thing to talk theoretically about diversity, as I've done in my time; it's another altogether to see subtly changing faces, complexions and body types as you move from region to neighboring region: Assam to Mizoram to Tripura. And that is just surface (physical) diversity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That felicitous term, "salutary neglect," is from Burke: "That I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection; when I reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt, and die away within me." (Burke p. 186) I have my mother's copy of Burke's Reconciliation somewhere. Will have to read it tonight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are being unduly harsh with nikkul. He does have some ownership issues with images but, at least that's my impression, he doesn't have the kind of agenda that some of the other editors have and would be perfectly willing to participate in the image selection process if convinced of its necessity. No sense, imo, in driving good faith editors away with a sledgehammer. --regentspark (comment) 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder! I'm cool to his contributing images. It's not the ownership I'm worried about; it's the obsession with a scrubbed, airbrushed, digitally altered India emptied of humans. He's pretty persistent. That's my main concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once again, as with Pfly, here I disagree with RegentsPark's assertion that "he doesn't have the kind of agenda that some of the other editors have". Tendentious/revisionist/fringe/boosterish agendas can be visual as well as textual. The former is at least as damaging to WP and readers as the latter—images, after all, are the most-noticed things on a page. It still astounds me that you guys, despite having far more experience than I (a non-expert) in combating textual cranks, let the India page go for months and years without a single agricultural image, despite the fact that that is what most Indians live and do. I kindly ask: What were you guys thinking, letting him dink around in a biased manner like that? You might as well have invited ZT (or even BV, God forbid) to violate their interaction/topic/indef bans and rewrite the text to accompany NL's visually revisionist metropole-chintz.
You people let NL stick his zazy BSE and his dinky Nano, as if those alone represent the Indian economy. As if all Indians drive around in Nanos among tony glass-and-concrete towers on their way to cush desk jobs at Tata or HAL or in the North Block, or on their way to catch a Chennai Super Kings game at an urban sports facility. LOL. How is effecting that ridiculous mental picture any less harmful or crankish than what BV or ZT did in attempting to impugn reliable sources or obsessively cut-out or demonize the British and other western influences? It's worse, because more people look at images than read text, and images work in a more subliminal and insidious way to shape subconscious impressions—in this case, laughably false and unrepresentative visually revisionist impressions. Time to cut NL's crap.Saravask 05:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no really, foolishly idealistic sounds about right to me--in general in life. I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume the best in everyone, to the point, sometimes, of foolishness. I mean, I've been taken advantage of often enough you'd think I'd learn (like, um, that time I was robbed in the streets of Brooklyn...I swear I thought being kind was a good idea!). Perhaps not so much on Wikipedia, where I tend to stick to boring, friendly topics like rivers. The whole reason I've been drawn into India related things a bit is because my river interest brought me to the Ganges page. Most river pages are paid little attention by other editors, and everyone is generally very friendly. The Ganges page though--wow, I never saw so much heat over a river page! Anyway, I keep intending to pitch in more over at Talk:India, but end up sidetracked into pages about little-known compositions by Richard Strauss, or random creeks in Canada, or about salmon. I dunno, maybe I like quiet backwaters... Pfly (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are all idealists here, including those we rail against. No hard-headed pragmatic realist would be working for days without any remuneration or credit in real life. I had a lawyer once who left precisely timed (1 minute, 2 minuted, 5 minute ...) messages on my office answering machine late at night when I was conveniently unavailable so that he could charge his time without the slightest loss by rounding error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good point :) Pfly (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, good indeed ... for labeling you three "idealistically foolish" and "willfully foolish" also. :-D And Pfly, "being kind" *is* a "good idea"—if your idea of good is being kind of foolish. :-& BTW, don't law firms (like Cravath in The Cheating Culture) round up their hours? As in, "Erm, you did leave that stuffy putz that midnight one-minute message last week? He's a very good client and a nice guy, so let's bill him, uh ... (carry the six, take the cube root, ...) ... three hours." No, Pfly, you needn't have gone to Brooklyn to get your kindly self robbed ... o_O Saravask 12:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) Sorry, didn't see this. Yeah, they probably do round up. All I remember is the long long message whose first half was a recap in real time of the previous message. I believe there is a mathematics theorem (described beautifully in George Gamow's One Two Three ... Infinity) that shows that by the 32nd message the number of minutes are more than all the grains of wheat produced in the world in 2,400 years. Luckily, he had the good sense to stop before that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have received a reply from St John's regarding E W Middlemast, enclosing a copy of a summary record. They have no record of death etc but you may find it of interest.. I can mail it to you if you wish. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks Sitush! Delighted, especially with that record on file, which is priceless. Good way to begin the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS A couple of weeks ago, I was able to piece together the highlights of Samuel Ludlow (surgeon)'s entire life from old on-line sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. It's great when that can be done although, of course, the guidelines re: primary and RS can need a little stretching. I did much the same for a couple of bareknuckle boxing articles (a subject to which I intend to return). - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jat people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism. As already written to you that you have very limited knowledge about Jats and that is only of British era which carries no meaning. British were biased against Jats and their references can not be taken as reliable references. It has been discussed on Wikipedia at proper forms. So better be constructive and do not write negative things. It is a community edtiting and you do not have monoploly rights. Deletion can be done after proper discussion only. I fear your knowledge about Jat community is obsolete and can be treated as Vandalism. You wrote warning on my page but dare not sign. Be constructive and prove that you have proper knowledge. Do not revert well referenced content which you have done, Which shows your lack of knowledge about this community. It is not a tiller community only though some section of it was during British time. burdak (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A note, to thank you for your help in raising James Tod to GA status. The tweaks were appreciated, the images were excellent and the comments (as always) useful. Despite the discontent about the treatment of Tod on talk pages away from the article, nothing too dramatic actually appeared where it mattered. Perhaps people realised that it was in fact a reasonable depiction of the subject after all. The drama elsewhere involving my contribution to matters Indian is, however, reaching new levels. When it comes to drama, I am at present a one-man West End. You are not far behind me! - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Drama there might be, but you've maintained good humor throughout. I liked the bottle of wild turkey bit! Will send a picture of the real one once I find the USB cable for my phone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bluetooth? Card reader? My word, you are not clearly not "with it". I'd like to see the photo(s) - I am curious regarding whether it was butter or margarine on that slice of bread. Or, perhaps, Marmite. Yummy. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to review the recent history of Talk:India where I have reverted a comment regarding you (nothing extreme—no deletion required). Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded for work on the controversial Jat people article, despite some incredible hostility. SH 10:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I wish I had more time. I've been pressed lately by RL commitments, and, moreover, distracted by having to put out fires on other Wikipedia pages. As a result, I've really barely begun with the Jat people page. I think I might add some sentences in the lead that describe the arc of Jat history in the later 19th- and much of the 20th century, by which time, of course, Jats had become landowners and quite the elite in some areas. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant and out of context images in article on Gurgaon[edit]
Dear fowler&fowler... i would like to explain the removal of images which i marked as irrelevant and out of context.
Lets analyze each image..
1. under villages section.. a image namely "cows and nursing calves in gurgaon".. which is basically stray cows in gurgaon(image name).... what pecularity does it tells about villages in Gurgaon..?? In Every city in india one can find stray cows!
2. under infrastructure section.. images namely "high rise under construction"... an infrastructure represents already existing and not under contruction... moreover the images represents more of plight of labour which is common to entire india.
3. under industry> Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project image namely Roadside construction in Gurgaon... question is what it represents?? but the content is talking about "Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project" and NOT road side construction.
4. under urbanism a image "A traumatized rhesus macaque mother and infant in illegal road side show in Gurgaon." it does not makes any sense. its not an article about treatment on animals!
5. under transportation an image namely.."Newly finished side walk in Gurgaon."... it really does not make sense.. its not unique or peculiar to this city... every develpoed city has good roads and sidewalk too. This is just an unnecessary and excessive image.
6. under bus terminal... an image namely "Bus passengers rooftop in Gurgaon.".. this article conveys utterly wrong information that in gurgaon public travel on roof tops of bus, which is definitely not the case, its just another unnecessary and irrelevant image causing wrong information.
7. under healthcare.. an image namely "Women construction workers in Gurgaon.".. how its relevant to healthcare?? there are woman construction workers in most of india and in most part of world. does working woamn an issue of healthcare?
Dear fowler&fowler its my firm belief based on analysis that the inserted images are irrelevant, unnecessary and convey utterly wrong and bias information. As wiki is known for to its standards conveying such distorted and wrong information is very well against the ethics of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbuddha (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't agree with any point you have made. The birds are no more representative of villages than the stray cows are, likely a lot less. The article is mostly a airbrushed sanitized tourist brochure devoid of human presence. I have restored the more important element to the article—the people of Gurgaon—which sadly for the image makers are not executives living in the never-never land of high-rises and whiskey-soda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in with a revert. I do not understand why the guy keeps ignoring the notice at the top of the page but I'm hoping (probably in vain) that yet another person saying "not now" might somehow get the message across. The photo issue needs to be resolved but the method being used is plain wrong. No more edit conflicts from me, though. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm done with editing it for the day anyway. I've changed the tag to "underconstruction." Yeah, I don't know what that particular editor has in mind ... but I hope our collective good sense will prevail soon enough. Thanks for the note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fowler&fowler/Archive 14! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
I started a thread at Talk:Birbhum_district#Query re: place names and it is getting some useful results regarding an old map. I really need to sort this out because there appears to be some misrepresentation going on at various articles. If I can get Suetonius Grant Heatly fettled then the relevant refs etc could be re-used elsewhere. A lot of the problems elsewhere seem to stem from using a couple of articles from The Statesman, and from unattributed copy/pastes between the various articles.
Anyway, to my query. If you have the time then would you mind reviewing that thread? I am not good with image work and am unsure whether doing what I propose (highlighting things in the image) is workable or even desirable. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will take a look at it, but it may take me a day or thereabouts getting around to it. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "nonsense" have I done? Nikkul (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk:India posts. I am the person who is to make the decision. Two admins Saravask and RegentsPark had proposed that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Yadav". Thank you.[edit]
Replaceable fair use File:BNHSimage national geographic.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:BNHSimage national geographic.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hornbill House, the head office of the Bombay Natural History Society.
Dump the fair use, give me a month, I'll give you BNHS at the WikiConference. AshLin (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will be great. Meanwhile I did upload a free picture from Flikr, which I manage to misspell (and can't figure out how to correct). Here it is for your viewing pleasure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed to block an article till March 2012[edit]
I am not an administrator in Wikipedia. Hence I need your help in blocking vandalists, unwanted writers and editor to disrupt Civil Services of India article. The article Civil Services of India is thus far written well, constructed grammatically and sourced well by me. There are people I see deleting stuff in random days and I end up rewriting stuff again and again.
Could you please block the article Civil Services of India from being edited until this day to March 2012. This would let many off them to ward off being edited. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravelnine (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Assuming that your have discussed this issue on the article talk page and/or that there is clear evidence of disruptive editing then the correct venue for your request would be Request for Page Protection. I know nothing about the subject matter & do realise that you appear to be a new contributor - good, welcome! - but we have procedures for this sort of situation. As a first step, you may wish to read about vandalism, since the term has a very specific meaning here and throwing it about indiscriminately can cause a lot of problems. Just click on that blue link. If you wish to discuss this further then let me know on my talk page, but the main discussion should be on the article talk page. Fowler&fowler may be willing to assist but, like me, is not an administrator. I am sure that F&f will respond if there is an issue.Sorry F&f, hope you do not mind the butting in - I came here for a different reason, related to the burn-out of a rock-star.- Sitush (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You revert something now on Yadav page without discussion and I'll ensure that you get blocked.Also, Please mind the language that you use.This kind of behaviour is highly unacceptable.This is the last official warning to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really. What office might you be holding? I removed an out-of-context quote. I have provided good evidence on the talk page why this is not only inaccurate, but would be WP:UNDUE were it accurate. It is the business of the editor who put it there in the first place to respond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think its out of context not others. What you think you own wiki ? Dream on....--Rockstar1984 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy after record breaking opening stand 1956.jpg[edit]
⚠
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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chzz ► 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've just written on WP:ANI, this was a case of rollback misuse. Please, remember that rollback should only be used to revert clear-cut cases of vandalism, which this one was not. SalvioLet's talk about it! 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of this many tags isn't likely to help get things fixed - and it makes the article look silly.[23]
I don't know if all the issues are applicable, but I suggest you stick to the more critical issues (referencing, npov).
A lot of the tags are just repeating the same key issue; it's effectively saying "This is not neutral! And, it's not neutral! It's not neutral either! And there's neutrality problems!' Chzz ► 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is honestly totally coincidental that I noticed this; it has absolutely nothing to do with the above AN/I notification! I know that sounds hard to believe, but... I looked up the geographic location of an IP address, totally unrelated to anything here, and it was an ISP in Gurgaon - so, I looked the place up on Wikipedia! Chzz ► 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Have reduced the number of issues in tag. (See here.) I think I've been spreading myself too thin, and attempting to deal with the increased load by slapping on tags here and there. Yours is a timely reminder. Thanks. I have to do some rethinking. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is to bring to your notice that the Kolkata article is currently in shambles, far from being a FA. A recent post in the discussion came to my notice that it might be put into FAR. Kindly collaborate to improve the article and bring it to its former glory. AmartyabagTALK2ME 15:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...User:Fowler&fowler/List of current Indian pretenders. First of all, you've violated copyright policies by not attributing the content to the original author(s). Secondly, and Qwyrxian said this in the AfD, userfication is not an option as BLP policies apply to all namespaces. Since the article is being deleted because of unreferenced BLP content, all copies need to be deleted too. Nightw 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note on my talk page, in which you said "the wikipedia page for "India under British Rule (1858–1947)" is "British Raj." " Clearly, it is one of the pages for that period, but not the only one. As we have discussed at Talk:British Raj, I do not agree with your view "It is the name of the country as well as the rule", and perhaps you can provide reliable sources for that? I do agree with "it is not the same thing as British India". You say you have "corrected most of the changes", and I shall see what you have changed, but I may not agree that they are corrections. Moonraker (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
While updating old comments, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments was not followed, but update on an old comment was a small part of the edit, there were many new comments too. Please follow Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions (IMO,none of which constitute the comments) ... – is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." --RedtigerxyzTalk 14:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked somewhere above whether you would be able to withstand an WP:RFA acid bath. You hinted that you might, sometime in "early December". Are you still game or just mouth?
If not, I'd understand. I've seen many NPOV-concerned FA-class contributors (like you) who hate admins; they see them as largely clueless yet meddlesome functionaries. And many think that adminship would retard their content-related work here. Like how you've always called me out on my questionable prose/image edits—reverts/critiques which I've tended eventually to appreciate, even if I don't show it.
If so, that'd be great. I am willing to start a nom after December 1st, but would prefer to co-nom after someone more level-headed like RegentsPark, if he is willing. Having him head up the nom would help forestall unsubstantive acrimony. It may also be prudent to keep WP:1RR in mind (at least for the moment) as it concerns certain animal-related edits; I think at India, we've always heeded it in our prose-related disputes.
But a clear yes-or-no answer is needed—now. I'd much prefer "yes", as WP really needs to increment by one its almost-dry pool of "admins with clue" who are willing to defend content against POV, shabbiness, and bloat. And not just do the usual cheap-and-easy process-related work or policing of civility—though I'm not saying civility is bad, even if I've often flouted it.
Either way, you have my respect and best wishes. Cheers. Saravask 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to disappoint, but the short answer right now has to be "no." Mainly because we've had another minor family emergency and I have to take three or four weeks off. In addition, one of our pets, (and we have six,) is ailing and has to be taken to the vet almost daily. I was thinking that I might be able to get through this period by limiting all my Wikipedia related activity to the Talk:India page, but I'm now thinking that I might just have to take a month off. So, there's little chance of worrying about adding even more responsibility. I'm delighted that you are back on the India page and that you, RegentsPark, Chipmunk, AshLin, Redtiger, and others are around. Sorry, but c'est la vie c'est dommage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad fowler (that you're taking time off) but I do hope all is well. I'm always ready to nom/co-nom/or just !vote support on a fowler RfA (which will definitely be anything but dull!), so let us know when you're ready. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RP. Not to worry, I will be back. I just noticed Saravask's remark about animal related edits! :) I had to laugh, but I couldn't help feeling that I was getting worked up about Veterinary medicine in part because I've been spending time in a animal hospital. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As rgpk said, I'm sorry to hear about your pet—he/she has my best wishes as well. It's just as well from my end, as my access seems to be flaking out just now for some reason—I had a lot of problems trying to load and post to this page. Take your time with RL—WP can definitely wait, and no pressure was intended. Feel free to ping me if or when you are ready to run the gauntlet, and I'm sure rgpk (or AshLin or several others) would be grateful to handle such a request as well. And my thanks to him for willing to nom/co-nom. I hope I (along with Nikkul/MW/Zuggernaut) didn't give you too much grief at Talk:India; it's good and timely that everything has settled down there at last. Hope you come back better than ever. Best. Saravask 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied, apologized, and explained on your talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't accept your apology. You say you apologize, at the same time I am again accused to be disruptive. --RedtigerxyzTalk 17:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then all I can say is: listen to the advice you are purporting to give me at the top of this thread. We all have to make compromises as we go along and go through ups and downs. That's about all I can say right now. I'm in a rush, and as you know, I'm taking a month off. You especially will be needed with the image rotation decisions on the Talk:India page in my absence. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Accusations_by_User:Fowler.26fowler. I have lost my patience and your continuous accusations of me being disruptive/disingenuous. I don't want false praise from you and I will vote and express my opinions (which in 90/100 cases disagree with your) on the talk, even if that means I am being called disruptive again. --RedtigerxyzTalk 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to have a one-way conversation there, since I am going away for a month as I've already told you a few times. But, more importantly for yourself, perhaps the Wikiquette folks may be able to help you with what you are doing wrong. As I've said, you tend to be repeatedly and somewhat underhandedly "bold" to the point of being rude. Your removing the fair-use images without informing me was an example of that. You did similar things on the Ganges page. It is always better to do things openly by engaging people and telling that what you are up to and what your intentions are. When you do things underhandedly people get irritated. No point throwing WP:CIVIL and other Wikipedia dictum at me. I've been around long enough and contributed long enough (the India page being an example) that I understand the basics of Wikipedia. People can get on other peoples nerves by never breaking the formal WP:CIVIL rules, but continuously pushing them within the bounds of legality. In essence that is what you often do and I'm not accusing you of anything, only suggesting that playing "Gottcha" with me is not going to help. You need to look inwards as much as I need to (and will be during my time off.) Anyway all the best. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I'm scratching out the hurriedly written piece. Below is a more careful opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I go away, let me suggest what I see is the main problem here. You are more concerned about "rights" ("I will vote and express my opinions ...") than about "responsibilities." In this latest round, approximately 100 images have been nominated, and these you and I have split equally. I have now taken out the part which said, "Nominated by ***" because its presence would unfairly affect the voters, but there is one simple way of telling which is mine and which yours? Examine the captions. Mine have been written with care; yours are sloppy, sometimes even cavalier. It's not the first time I've told you about it. We have potential voters, many of whom are not that knowledgeable about India, but would want to take part. There is no way they will be able to vote when caption after caption is written in mysterious short hand of the type: "Rajasthani veg meal," seemingly written for an inner circle. In an enterprise such as the FA India, in which people have to cooperate at a high level of functioning, when one person not only doesn't cooperate, but also passively disrupts by being careless, and consistently so, people get upset. Well, at first they merely observe (perhaps impatiently) that the captions needs to be fleshed out. But when you react by both being confrontational on the one hand, and by off-handedly dumping some more sloppy noms on the other, people get upset. In the end, it is me who has to do the cleaning up. A page doesn't just magically go from this random version to this version carefully organized by subject. Someone has to do the work. Someone has to tidy up so that an average wikipedian, unfamiliar with India, can make sense of the vote. I already told you, I was delighted that you were nominating some nice images, but it seems you are more hung up about ensuring that you have al the constitutional rights to disagree than in delivering the product. See you in a month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deleting sourced content, as you did to Mughal Empire and Template:History of South Asia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You are trying to push your pro muslim POV here, If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HotWinters (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_list_of_the_names_of_all_the_adventurers_in_the_stock_of_the_honourable_the_East_India_Company_the_12th_day_of_April_1684.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_preamble,_to_be_subscribed_by_all_persons_who_shall_become_adventurers_in_a_national_joynt_stock_for_the_trade_to_East_India_1698.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_sermon_preached_at_Fort_St._George_on_the_coast_of_Chormandel_in_East_India,_February_21_1668.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello! Your submission of E. W. Middlemast at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HurricaneFan25 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jat people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism. As already written to you that you have very limited knowledge about Jats and that is only of British era which carries no meaning. British were biased against Jats and their references can not be taken as reliable references. It has been discussed on Wikipedia at proper forms. So better be constructive and do not write negative things. It is a community edtiting and you do not have monoploly rights. Deletion can be done after proper discussion only. I fear your knowledge about Jat community is obsolete and can be treated as Vandalism. You wrote warning on my page but dare not sign. Be constructive and prove that you have proper knowledge. Do not revert well referenced content which you have done, Which shows your lack of knowledge about this community. It is not a tiller community only though some section of it was during British time. burdak (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
