User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa

Hello, Fowler&fowler. I'm a bit disappointed to see you accusing your fellow editor(s) of bias. I'm sure you have strong reasons and enough evidences to stand your ground but such comment feels unwarranted as it is neither helpful in building consensus nor trust. Wouldn't have bothered too much if it was some new user but since it's coming from a experienced editor like you, I'm compelled to leave a note. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing WP editors of bias, only saying that the choice would be biased, or would result in catering to the bias of Indian newspapers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias too is meant in a neutral sense, i.e. as a tendency to favor something, which obviously is the case with Indian newspapers, without implying that it has resulted from some preconceived notions, let alone malicious ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But when you chose to invoke that word, it invariably brings its negative connotations along, regardless of whether you mean it well or not. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Invoke that word? What does that mean? "Bias" has many meanings in the English language. I used it in the statistical sense: (OED, 3rd edition, revised 2021): 5. Statistics. Of a statistical result: subject to a systematic distortion arising from the method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc. Also of a method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc.: introducing bias (bias n. 6). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that you are anyone else is prejudiced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what follows is based on personal knowledge + OR + extrapolation, which is the reason I am placing it here and not at the RM discussion

Regarding this list: it's noteworthy IMO that many of the names are of those who had/have careers in the west. In several of these case, I believe, the 'preferred'/'original' individual style of the name would have been of the form P. Given where P stands for the father's given name and Given is the individual's given name, and the longer form is probably adopted as a matter of convenience or compatibility. To wit:

• Robert Kanigel writes about Ramanujan, "'Srinivasa'-its initial syllable pronounced shri- was just his father's name, automatically bestowed and rarely used; indeed, on formal documents, and when he signed his name, it usually atrophied into an initial 'S.' 'Iyengar,' meanwhile, was a caste name, referring to the particular branch of South Indian Brahmins to which he and his family belonged. Thus, with one name that of his father and another that of his caste, only "Ramanujan" was his alone. As he would later explain to a Westerner, 'I have no proper surname.'"
• Note the form used by S. Chandrashekhar's biographer and by Chandrashekhar himself
• Personally I am aware of numerous Tamil emigrants who spelled their name as 'P. Given' in India but changed it to 'Given Patronym' (in effect, treating the Patronym as their 'last name'; even passing it on to their kids) when immigrating to the West, simply because most individuals/documents in the West expect the name to be in that form. Relatedly: I know of people from Bihar/UP whose parents, following caste reform movements prevalent in mid/late-20th century dropped their family's last names altogether (cf Mayawati) and were later induced/compelled to adopt a lastname (often Kumar) by bureaucratic institutions in India and the West.
• It is instructive to take a look at, say, Category:Tamil Nadu MLAs 2021–2026 to see how Tamil people in Tamil Nadu typically write their name.
• Personally, I would place a lot of weight on the style used by The Hindu if I were, say, emailing a notable Tamil person and wanted to know what would be the 'correct' way to address them.

All that said, this is not to argue that, say, Viswanathan Anand should be moved to V. Anand because, whatever be the reason for it, 'Viswanathan Anand' is how he is (formally) known now. Ditto for many of the other names in your list. And I am sure there are both individual and caste-based variations, which Sitush or SpacemanSpiff may be able to shed some light on. So take this is just a set of general factoids rather than an argument for what that one particular article should be named. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I have stopped getting involved in naming discussions as they are a quick way to get a headache. However, in TN, the naming structure is definitely changing. Venki Ramakrishnan is one example where the person's name has actually become the first name. I also changed my name structure during college but my brother did not. Looking at some of the sports bios from TN, Ravichandran Ashwin and Murali Vijay are still under the full name although they are seldom referred to by the full name. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know too much about Tamil names, but am dimly aware of the Tamil naming conventions, both from old names from history books such as C. P. Ramaswami Iyer or C. V. Raman and new ones such as Kamala Harris's mother Shyamala Gopalan, whose scholarly papers are cited as G. Shyamala or Shyamala G. (I seem to have forgotten which one now), P. V. Gopalan being the name of her father.

    There is another issue. In the old days, say in pre-independence India it was quite common even in other parts of India for people to only use there initials and for others to call them by their last name with a ji or sahib at the end. Ambedkar is called Babasaheb after a fashion these days but when he was alive he was B. R. Ambedkar. There are many such non-Tamil names, witness J. R. D. Tata. Even Amartya Sen was most commonly called A. K. Sen until he went abroad. Speaking of AK, the economist Amiya Kumar Dasgupta might have that WP page, but no one would have dared call him anything but AK Dasgupta when he was alive. Who the heck would have called Dhananjay Ramchandra Gadgil anything but D. R. Gadgil when he was alive, or Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis anything but P. C. Mahalanobis. But all those traditions have changed with modernity, international travel, and cosmopolitanism.

    So why are we in a hurry to give this young man, whose future looks anything but traditional, the forced benefits of tradition. My gripe on that page is that there is a relentless effort being made on changing the young man's name. They just had an unsuccessful page move a few months ago. What is their hurry is what I don't understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    Spaceman and your observation that naming conventions are being homogenized with globalization is both interesting and consistent with my RL observations. As for for the particular case of R._Praggnanandhaa vs Rameshbabu_Praggnanandhaa: if it were clear, either through a media statement or use on a personal website, that the subject preferred one form over another, I would have !voted for that since either is justifiable under wikipedia policy. But my impression is Praggnanandhaa and family are focused on more important issues (chess!) rather than such trivialities; so I too am indifferent to the matter and don't intend to participate in the RM debate. For me that debate was just a spark for the above-listed thoughts on the general topic and not of interest in itself. Thanks for the indulging them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

One general info needed

Dear FF Sir, I had added this on an Ahir page: " Ahirs who were mainly classed as having lowly status in the social hierarchy took to Sanskritisation an attempt by low castes to rise up the social ladder, often by tracing their origins to mythical warrior characters or following the lifestyle of higher varna." but after your recent changes on Yadav page, I am bit confused as to whether I should modify the lines on Ahir page and add your reference there to make it ambiguous or leave it as such as other references are very explicit in their description about non-elite status ( indirectly shudra) for this group. Sir, I request for your small response to it below here for the next step. I will go accordingly to it. Thanks RS6784/Akalanka820 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820: Sorry for the delay. Let me mull this over some more. Will post here by the same time tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820: Probably best to avoid saying anything about low-caste etc. Why don't you use the same language as the Yadav page with the same references, "have claimed descent from the mythological king Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence." cited to the same reference Smeeta Tewari, but without the extended quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

thank you Sir, for the great suggestion, I will go as per given inputs. Initially there was issue of difference between word Ahir and Yadav in some of the reference otherwise I do have taken some material from your good work. This led to me to avoid things initially. I will reframe the thing as per your great inputs here. Any further suggestions to it is also welcome & would be even more helpful. For the rest part I do have added proper references and quotes for whatever added. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A small following query, the above good suggestions are for changing the lead part ? I will change this accordingly to it. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would also request for some input on this page Rajputs in Bihar, the page has been just transformed into rape of Dalits or depressed classes by certain Landlords related to Bhumihars and Rajputs basically making it a Landlords v Depressed classes theme which was common in northern belt. It would be great if you can give some spare time ( I know you are working on bigger projects), but this field definitely needs your ( great editor) valuable input and suggestions. 05:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Chandragupta Maurya

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Instead of facile Wikilawyering, please read the quotes from sources I have adduced from Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Burton Stein, David Arnold (historian), Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal, and Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018. Read in particular Stein and Arnold's sophisticated treatment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read again, and none of your sources say as you claim in your own edit summary, that "He founded a power based in Magadha which during the regin of Asoka became an empire". The closest would be Sugata Bose who says that "The Maurya empire reached its apogee under the reign of Ashoka (268–231 BCE)", but that's still very far from claiming that Chandragupta is not the founder of the Empire. As far as I know, this goes against mainstream scholarship, and is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at best. Please retract yourself or justify. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing this for a very long time. I know how to paraphrase judiciously. It is old scholarship you are talking about, and even that of a particular period. The very modern sophisticated sources don't and the much older sources such as Vincent Smith's Oxford History of India didn't. Only a nationalist or semi-nationalist, social historians of India did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot produce mainstream sources that specifically back up your claim, then your "judicious paraphrasing" is just pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, in addition to being fallacious. There's no need to spend time on something so obvious and basic: please revert yourself and let's move on. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Gautama Buddha

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You do not just revert 1 week of work by a major long-standing contributor such as Joshua Jonathan, complete with an insulting edit summary [1]: this is rude and un-Wikipedian, you should improve on the work of others, not just revert to your preferred version. Adding an "in-use" template is not a trump card. Stop edit-warring पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC

Lol

Literally at this. Hope to see you around, editing in similar good spirits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Indus civilisation

Hi Fowler. I suggest either letting it go or filing a WP:MRV. Pointy edits are self-defeating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

Sorry, didn't see this. Will look at that link. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started with step one of MRV at the closer's talk page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Smoothing filters

Could you please turn to a statistician (or something similar) friend for an explanation of the data that we are looking at. The signal is at the edge (2019)---so please ask how smoothing will impact that signal. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

West Bengal Official Language Act, 1961 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, West Bengal Official Language Act, 1961, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Storchy (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do this. I am an experienced editor. I can add references in a New York minute. Please let it be. It will be finished by the end of today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Darjeeling. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing this out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Indus Valley civilisation

Your edits at Indus Valley civilisation at this edit has the edit summary: obviously IVC may not be substantially more common, but it is still more common. You can't legislate what we write *inside* a article. MOS:CAPS does apply to article space. Your edit summary appears to me to be WP:BATTLEGROUNDy and [most of] the edits you have subsequently made appear to me to be WP:POINTy rather than in WP:GOODFAITH. You moved the page to "Indus civilisation" immediately following the move close. Some of your most recent edits appear quite inconsistent with that action. I would strongly suggest that you self-revert your edits that fall to the matters I have raised. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I did become aware of that, so I fixed it. It doesn't use IVC except in the statement that the capitalized name is more common in the literature, has been since 1997.

As a description, from 2006, "ancient Indus" has been more common than IVc or Ic, the latter both plummeting irreversibly to oblivion. There is no mandate that we have to use "Indus Valley civilisation" in the article except in the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Your evidence for making such a claim is? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your issues are bogus. You know nothing about the civilisation, though a expert on English grammar, citing books written by lawyers-turned-dubious-grammarians, you do arrogate to be. Good luck in your endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and just work with guidelines instead of wanting things your own way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You seriously think you know enough about IVC to beat me at this game? You can't even read Dyson correctly. He says, "ancient Indus valley civilization" on page ii. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, IVC is outside my area of expertise. I'll change that to a more appropriate page number. Thanks for pointing out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't because there aren't any. 13 references are to "Indus valley civilization" and two to "Indus Valley Civilization." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: There is a separate article for Wikipedia:Article_titles where concesus matters. Using MOS:CAPS to move the page seems to be misapplication of guidelines. The term Indus Valley civilisation gives the impression that Indus Valley is enough to identify the civilisation but it isn't enough in reality. Civilisation is no less important than Indus Valley. Thus, the term Indus Valley Civilisation uniquely identifies the civilization and it is the common name used by masses. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm about to go to bed. Will read your post carefully tomorrow. I shall also be filing a move review tomorrow. Please see Talk:IVC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your conduct at the subject page and related pages has already been questioned by several editors including myself. I would believe that your conduct might be characterised as WP:BULLYING. I would hope that you might seriously consider this and dial it back per Donald Sutherland. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cinderella. I will seriously consider. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Towns

The comment was amusing. Nalanda Patliputra etc were towns I believe. Also what about the capital of the kingdoms? It is hard to believe that the kings ruled from villages. Am I wrong in holding this view? Venkat TL (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to inject some reality there. Yes, Patliputra was indeed a town, maybe even a large fortified city. I was thinking of towns founded for economic purposes. Taxila and Nalanda, both large Buddhist monasteries, certainly did attract visitors. Taxila might have been a town. Nalanda I'm not sure. I don't think it was a university, as Sen has so gallantly promoted, by which I mean similar to those of Europe of the medieval era, with some defining principles of intellectual independence and so forth.The records of the capitals of that time are few and far between, but yes they must have attracted people. I've acknowledged your objection on that page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No offence taken, I took it in good humor. Thanks for the answer. In my opinion, comparison between cities separated by two millennia is pointless due to the stark difference in population. So I think that the settlements of the bygone era should be compared to the other settlements of the same era to classify them as village town etc. Capital settlements of that time would have been political, military and economic center just by virtue of them being the capital (the seat of administrative power). Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds incoherent. I'm free associating. Well, there's Mohenjo-daro an ancient city if there ever was. There's Harappa, still visible despite the stripping of its top layer for bricks by locals and the British.

The Mahabodhi temple in Gaya did survive ... well in gutted form, that is, until the British restored it to its current glory. All made of brick But I count that in temple towns.

There are all the towns and cities of the Near East, of Ancient Egypt (Luxor), Mesopotamia (Susa), ...

There's Athens, and there's Rome.

Nothing like them, not a trace, has survived of the Indo-Aryan settlements in the Punjab or the Gangetic plains. Fine, the IG plain was mostly silt, but the IVC sites were found in the silt.

It's all religious-mythological evidence, orally transmitted.

India below the Vindhyas is an altogether different story. The evidence of towns and cities is there for every one to see.

The lack of evidence of early urbanization in the Gangetic plain can't be all laid at the doorstep of Muslims or explained away by structures having been made of wood.

On the other hand, the great thing about Vedic oral transmission is that it was so rigorous. The Rig Veda has survived for 3500 years with no variant readings.

So there were pluses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the Vedic writings not mention any towns and cities of that era when they were written? Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Although the US Supreme Court decision of June 24, 2002 was expected, and although we live in a state that is relatively immune to its ill-effects, my family has been affected in ways I can't easily summarize.

I will therefore be taking three months off Wikipedia (with some provisos explained up top) to support them, and will return on October 1, 2022. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Take it to Tfd

It isn't my job as you state. If you think the campaignbox should be deleted, start a nomination. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's garbage. I've posted on the talk page. Engage me there, not rudely here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the box. I care about it being posted on that page. If you want to post it on the British Empire page, be my guest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Or, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's lead, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's lead, be my honored guest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: West Bengal Official Language Act, 1961 has been accepted

West Bengal Official Language Act, 1961, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, @Johannes Maximilian: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Creighton

Thank you for your work on Mandell! Next time I am up there I will (might) do a little dance outside the church, or maybe the village hall which bears his name, in acknowledgment of your efforts.. And right now I am going to take the dog for a walk in Coldfall Wood and I will park in the road that bears his name, due to his having got around a bit! What a chap. Thank you for improving his article. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! It is more motivation for me to finish the MC article in the manner he would have done.

A walker he certainly was. So walking is good.

Yes, remarkable man too he was, his life story proof that there's no telling what soil and what circumstance genius can sprout from. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Kurmi

Recent edit on Kurmi was much needed. Though, i discussed on the talk page about the recent addition by RuudVanClerk, who was blocked for misuse of sources, i was afraid from removing the content (which according to Fylindfotberserk, was not appropriately sourced). In case you got time, go through Koeri article, as the both castes are similar in many ways. I know, you were one along with Sitush, who wrote these articles. Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t ping me, I’m not well

Thanks. See my talk page for details Doug Weller talk 12:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lion Capital of Ashoka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charkha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation

Hi, F&F. I'm afraid you did violate WP:3RR at Lion Capital of Ashoka, as per this report. I closed it as "no violation", but I was mistaken; see this section on my talkpage. Please be more careful. (And I need to be more careful too.) Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC).

Hi @Bishonen: I apologize. I thought I had tried to insure against this by putting up the "in use" tag, but I'm not sure what happened. I'll be more careful in the future. Again, many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Darjeeling scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 August 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 15, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gog. Will keep an eye on it, on the Errors link you mention, and generally try to improve the article more. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Alamy

Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images ~ TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Images and FAR and TFA

F&f, we are well beyond any limit every approached vis-a-vis how close we cut it on running a FAR at TFA, and we must get the text finished today and focus on answering reviewer issues. Please stop fiddling with images so others can review; stay focused on text. There Are Too Many Images. The images are now completely out of control, at a time when it is important to let reviewers get in there and focus on answering their queries. If we don't get the FAR done by today, I don't see how it can run TFA; we have never cut it this close before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

OK Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Supportive editing and copy editing

Hi Fowler&fowler! Thanks for your appreciative comment on my minor suggestions to your article. I'll gladly help out with editing and copy-editing. For copyeding another lead editor's prose, I prefer to wait until the section is in good shape and the other editor's eyes are starting to glaze over. What I prefer to do is just come in, make the changes and explain the summary edit. I then leave it to the lead editor to keep, change or revert. Of course, questions can wind up in the talk page and if big changes are made, I may explain why there. I chose the FA reviewer-like style for this request because I thought it was the least intrusive way to suggest changes with editors who may not know each other without creating misunderstandings. Overall, though, I'm not comfortable with the potential power dynamics implied by the standard FA reviwer format. I prefer to feel we're cooperative co-editors directly changing the text, with the lead having final say. If you are good with this, I'll pop in when you ping me on some prose that's you feel is as clean as you can get it. It's a pleasure reading your prose. Also, please keep in mind that I can get a bit buried in my own projects: a couple of FARs in progress with their own unique issues, and an article I want to flesh out. Thanks again, and congratulations on making Darjeeling a great article! Wtfiv (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes good sense. Might be easier for me to manage (with juggling a hundred things) to do this section by section. Why don't I let you know when the sections are in better shape? I think SG is concerned that I need to address some other issues first. Sorry for the slightly hurried reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv Thanks for such a nice post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv is A Very Nice Person :) The issue here, Wtfiv, is that the article was nominated and accepted to run at WP:TFA, and it is up in only 10 days. We have never had such a tight situation, so I am ... liberally ... stepping on toes to get this done. Otherwise, the TFA will need to be pulled (and replaced with something far less worthy). We can't run a TFA while it's at FAR (or at least, we never have, and it would raise eyebrows and create a very bad precedent). This isn't the best way to work, but it seems to be working for this case :) :) Because there is such a time crunch, I knew your prose review would be valuable. And then we can turn our attention to closing out your Joan of Arc, for which you have so patiently waited ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally get it Sandy, jumping briefly into Darjeeling was fun, in particular because the article was so good. I chose the solution I did for Darjeeling because of the time-sensitive context. And, if you need my help again, you know I'll be there if I can. I just wanted to make sure that if Fowler ever needs some editing, I'll be there too, but my regular style is different. Wtfiv (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Darjeeling

Hi F&f. I have tweaked the TFA for Darjeeling in the light of the impressive work you have done on the article. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 15, 2022. You may wish to run your eye over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I did Gog. It is excellent. I'd like to make few tweaks. I'll be busy this morning, but will be happy to do so in the afternoon (US time). Can I directly edit the TFA blurb or do I have to make a post somewhere else? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Until it is protected before TFA day (can't remember how soon that happens), you can directly edit ... keep in mind to stay within the character count (see Talk:Darjeeling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, F&f, reading that blurb makes me wonder if you want to work deforestation in to the lead of the article? It is mentioned four times in the body ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'm almost ready to revise that last paragraph in the history section. As you obviously know the smaller the blurb the more complicated it is to get the emphasis right. I'll have a clearer idea once that paragraph is written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor comments on Darjeeling

Located at this subsection of FAR talk. Just to make sure you are tracking. The discussion is scattered in so many places :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	What can I say! Fowler&fowler shows a rare combination of painstaking research, great perseverance, writing delightful prose, and everything else that embodies a great wikipedia editor. Take a bow, master! Dwaipayan (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Dwaipayan! The collaboration with you on Darjeeling was an honor and a privilege. For a long time hereafter, I will cherish its memory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for your rescue work for Darjeeling, good to see it on the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda for the kind words! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation

Hi. I didn't make the offending addition of the academic paper that motivated your rollback, and I agree that someone is making edits that have poor grammar also. However, in reverting this article, you have reintroduced some grammatical errors such as "a special kind of combs" and "civilization had dominance of meat diet" and removed some copy edits I did which I think had value. This is a similar case to Sari a few months back. I appreciate that you want to maintain quality, but is it possible to be more surgical in your removals rather than throwing out good and bad together? The portions of the Sari article I had been working on are still a mess almost a year later, and I don't have the time to go back over things while knowing they might be zapped. Dhalamh (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I will restore your edits later today. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Priest-King

Fowler, you do remember we are not using sfn here, right? That format will not stand. A number of your changes are clearly not improvements. For a long time you wanted this article deleted, so perhaps you shouldn't spend too much time on it (again). I'll wait till you've finished & then see where we are. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. How are we not using Sfn? I just got through the Darjeeling FAR and you did the Palladian architecture where the cite books, cite journals and sfn formats were the rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those were the established style per WP:CITEVAR. And I hardly touched Palladian architecture, that was all KJP1- my last edits were these. As discussed on talk, sfn is very much not established by consensus for PK. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You are Wikilawyering. Tell me instead why you are against Sfn. It is directly linked the source, year, and page, and that in turn to the detailed description to the source (via cite books, cite journal and cite web). It protects us from handwaving, i.e. casually citing sources in vague language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It is very poorly written. You have removed quite a few sources I had added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Many of your prose changes are not as good as you seem to think, and as usual you removed many sources yourself. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Jb, they have nothing to do with prose. I did not touch your description in the second paragraph. They have to do with old POVs, old terms, and so forth. I have to run some errands, but will explain in greater detail here in a couple of hours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Here are some issues:

The Priest-King, in Pakistan

• often (How do we know?) King-Priest,
• See for example the museum label illustrated below(a museum label is not a source, nor an indication of wide usage) is a small male figure sculpted in steatite found during the excavation of the
• ruined "ruined" is generally problematic for M-d, as it didn't crumble, it wasn't destroyed (like Persepolis) or stripped (like Harappa), it was simply buried intact in the lower Indus basin dust)
• Bronze Age also problematic for IVC. I left it in in the IVC lead sentence because it had been there before I appeared, but it becomes doubly problematic in describing an artifact in which tools have been used. Coningham and Young (2015), for example, say, "Finally, it is worth noting the difficulty of using the term ‘Bronze Age’ to refer to the Indus Civilisation and ‘Chalcolithic ’ to discuss some of the contemporary and later farming communities in the Deccan and Peninsular India . This is because although copper and bronze objects were utilised in both regions and during both phases, stone tools were also utilised and appear to have retained an important position. For this reason, we shall refer to both the Indus Civilisation and the later farming communities of the Deccan and Peninsular India as ‘Chalcolithic’. This list is by no means exhaustive, and there are many other examples which demonstrate that South Asian cultures and people did not always adopt or select linear progressions in technological and social change."
• city of Mohenjo-daro in Sindh, Pakistan, in 1925–26. It is dated to around 2000–1900 BCE, in Mohenjo-daro's Y
• Late Period, of no value to a reader
• and is "the most famous stone sculpture" these nameless quoted bits are not helpful. They leave the reader perplexed about who said this and why it is representative. If some truly famous person said this, they should be named; otherwise they should be summarized
• of the Indus Valley civilization ("IVC").
• <ref>Kenoyer, 62 (quoted); Possehl, 114</ref> this is what I mean by handwaving. Someone such as me who is experienced is perplexed by this citation. Once I click on it, I have to scroll down again to figure out which publication of Kenoyer is this. The lord above help me if there are several years of Kenoyer and several more of Possehl. It places too much burden on the reader.
• It is now in the collection of the National Museum of Pakistan as NMP 50-852. Y I left it in but as you must know, "now" is generally frowned upon.
• It is widely admired, as "this sort of praise is are generally meaningless; by whom? the scholars? the people who finally get to see it in the museum?
• "the sculptor combined naturalistic detail with stylized forms to create a powerful image that appears much bigger than it actually is,"Y

<ref name="auto2">Aruz, 385</ref>

• and excepting possibly the Pashupati Seal nothing has come to symbolize the Indus Civilization better." again the kind of arbitrary judgment that means little. "Really, nothing?" I could say to Possehl. "The dancing girl? The Indian Rhino? The Bos Taurus? The Great Bath? The brick-lined streets? The city planning?
• <ref>Possehl, 114 (quoted)</ref> Again the same issues. Beyond the scrolling, I don't know who is being quoted.

Look I'm not fighting you. I don't have any ill-will towards you. It is obvious you are great at the art history stuff. But this is art history within the confines of archaeology. We can't disrespect those boundaries or for that matter Indus archaeology's modern methodology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

On a personal note, I'd like to tell you that I was hoping to get a close without direct action being suggested against you or Pat, but the closure request itself was necessary in the circumstances and the rest will have to be up the community. I'll hope you'll accept my best wishes, not withstanding. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fowler. As per my comments at AN, I have some thoughts on questions/statements you made there regarding why I chose to act as I did and whether it was the appropriate call. I did not think my responses would much help your case, and in any event, they would have proved a pretty big wall of text inside an !vote section where they did not belong. So I have opted to respond here, so that you may have the benefit of my feelings on the matter. As I will be away in the next few days, and you have clearly taken exception to the filing (or at least to some aspects of it), I feel I owe you this much response at least. So:

• "Where I cam from" is the WP:Feedback request service, which randomly pings respondents to RfCs to weigh in on disputes and attempt to reach an outcome that is consistent with policy and community consensus, relative to the sourcing and content questions at hand; respondents are neither expected nor required to be experts in the article's subject matter (and in fact, it is often better if they are not). And indeed, this is true of any editor working on any article on the project. Given your 16 year tenure here, I am surprised you are unaware of this. Incidentally, I stayed on the page not because of any particular interest in remaining involved, but because I was pinged back there nine times, including four times by you, the most recent of which was six hours ago. You did not seem to have much in the way of objection to my involvement (whether on bad grounds such as my expertise level, nor on the basis of something more appropriate to this project) when my comments were to your benefit...
• "What my story is." is that after a month of being repeatedly summoned back to that talk page and attempting to hold your and Pat's hands through some of our most basic behavioural policies that you should have internalized at least 15 years ago, I grew convinced there was no hope of stopping the ongoing and severe disruption there other than to bring the matter to community/administrative attention. Even then, I went through considerable efforts to channel community response towards a solution that addressed the closure itself and did not level sanctions at you and Pat personally. Had I been looking to do otherwise, I would have simply reported your conduct to ANI weeks ago, the proposal would probably not have taken the shape of a mere temporary pageban, and the !votes for your (candidly) deeply problematic approach and attitude towards discussion on that talk page would most likely be stacked as high as your lion pillar (however high you are certain it was).

Indeed, even while formulating the proposal at AN, I carefully omitted information that that could have made the situation look worse with regard to your conduct, but which I judged to be incidental to the closure issue (such as the fact that you were warned for edit warring on the article; have continued to heavily edit the relevant sections of the article while the RfC is ongoing; have been accused of similar bludgeoning behaviour on related articles by no less than three of the RfC participants, and I could go on...for quite some time really). To say nothing of the fact that I avoided quoting any of your very damning comments with regards to your strong sense of ownership of that article (and other articles you continually reference there), often predicated in considerable self-aggrandizement. My friend, we do not care how long you have been in academia. That is just not how our content disputes are resolved on this project. In fact, I would say the very core of your issues here is that you are entirely too close to the subject matter and cannot disentangle your own perspective for how process is meant to work here, through policies you seem to somehow have next to no understanding of, despite your ascertainably long presence here. If you really don't know these things, you are long overdue to learn some of them. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I was frankly gobsmacked by some of the comments you made during that month of ceaseless disruption.

Because yes, in scholarship, debate can be long and complicated (and it can be here too). But you aren't knocking back drinks with colleagues after giving the keynote speech at a symposium and taking on all comers into the wee hours. We have rules here. Rules you flaunted, repeatedly, even as numerous community members repeatedly told you that you were making that page unreadable and the issues unresolvable. For that matter, we also don't much care how many articles you have brought to FA, at least as regards how you were meant to operate in that discussion. You posted more than 40x the content of the average participant in that discussion (excluding yourself and Pat). How could you possibly think that was helpful or in proportion to what your one perspective ought to count for in a collaborative process? Look, I am 'sincerely very sorry the situation has come to this, but I do not regret asking for the closure. It was the right thing to do, and the least I was bound to do, in the best interests of the project.

Now, I am afraid I have exhausted my time here. I am sorry, but my homelife and professional concerns are real and very pressing at the moment. I appreciate that I did not get to all of your comments, including the issue that seems to gall you most, the implication of original research. Later this week, if I can, and you still wish to hear from me, I will address that. Perhaps it will turn out we have different notions of what constitutes OR, or you will simply wish to be done with me in every capacity. I will say though, that I don't think it would affect the outcome of the AN proposal one way or the other, because it does not seem to me that anyone advancing or supporting it is doing so on those grounds. Rather it seems to me that the bludgeoning and the general mess that was made of the talk page are the real concerns, and those you can address and defend as you see fit.

I am sorry that my actions here have proven so unpalatable to you, and sorrier still if I have only put your back up further with these comments. I can only describe the situation there as I see it. And ask that you try to believe that I hoped very much for a more amicable outcome to the issue. That is always me wish when I respond to a discussion notice, and always the way I want to leave a situation. Perhaps in time you and I can see more eye to eye on these matters. I grant it is doubtful of the moment, but I have salvaged respectful collegial relationships from worse situations by trying. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you the best and hope this affair does not negatively impact your desire to contribute in any significant way. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Darjeeling

Hey! I usually format articles from {{IPA-en}} to {{IPAc-en}} ({{IPAc-en}} is an optimised version of {{IPA-en}} and allows users to hover over the phonemes for a better idea).

In regards to my edits on Darjeeling, according to Wikipedia's guidelines seen on MOS:RHOTIC, rhoticity "need not be spelled out in a simple pronunciation guide to a key word in an article". Hope this clarifies my edit. — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 09:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. But here that is a larger set of English varieties (e.g. South Asian Englishes) in which people can pronounce the r and also leave it out per the traditions in which they have been taught. They will become confused by the primacy given to AmE. Please continue this on the talk page of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Bishop Creighton

Very pleased to read on the Maugham FAC page that you are thinking of taking the Right Reverend gentleman forward. I'll be delighted to rummage for additional material; a few possible sources are flitting into my mind. Please let me know when you're ready and I'll crank up the Riley Research Contraption. Meanwhile, tipping my hat to your grandfather, and to you, here is a picture of my Gowers-and-Fowler bookshelf, with a clean sweep of both - just showing off. Tim riley talk 13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A singular honor, I have to say, though the honor is really yours. Not too often that someone takes a picture for this talk page. The Modern English Usage page already has quite a few pictures; otherwise, this would have been excellent. I love Chambers, ... actually all dictionaries. The Pocket OED (also Fowler) sometimes has the pithy words that others are unable to muster. Thank you again and congratulations. Will keep you posted with progress at MC. This post alone has done wonders for the flagging spirit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

A section on one of your archives got me thinking. Are there any historical population estimates for Mathura, Kurukshetra, Ujjain, and the capitals of the old mahajanapadas other than Magadha? Gut feeling says that it seems possible that Mathura and Ujjain, at least, might've sustained large populations in the ancient period... Pataliputra itself, which had 150,000 to 400,000 people (per our article) in Ashoka's time, could've cracked a million by the time Rome did in the 130s BCE (I could, of course, be wildly mistaken). This is, of course, nothing to rival Athens, which had more than 300,000 people in the 4th century BCE itself. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 14:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Your contribution are appreciable which are removing the vandalism. Taukeerppw (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! A pleasant surprise indeed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Fowler&fowler! Your work on Darjeeling has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria! I consider this a true honor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Kashmir Files

I removed that section because it was (a) WP:NOTFORUM, and (b) was probably a sock anyway - since confirmed. I removed the references because that is not the purpose of reflist-talk. It is for sources that back up opinions in talk, not for showing that people actually exist - which is in the article anyway, and some of those references were circular references to Wikipedia articles, which is pointless. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the references but I disagree about the deletion of my replies to them, sock or not. This is because when you reply to an accusation of bias pointing out how a precise accusation must be made your post has a powerful demonstration effect. It serves to warn others that vague hand waiving will not do. When you remove the posts, you remove the warning, and history stands to repeat itself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We largely agree re: Buddha

But please remind yourself that grave dancing (or making pre-closing statements) is a bad look for most of us. Accept that your argument is well-made, the move is quite unlikely, and the RM unlikely to be repeated. BusterD (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm acting like the dad. Probably like you, I'm more interested in an enduring outcome than a mere win. BusterD (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In retrospect, the grave dancing, a kind of facetiousness, was the sublimation of accumulated anger at page moves in general. If a title is grossly POV, fine, change it. But Wikipedia spends far too much time on dickering about which name is most easily comprehended by hoi polloi. Anyway, you're are correct. I've moved on to other things. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghandi

Hey, I am sorry, but I removed no entire section on the Kheda campaign. Please check the revision history to confirm and then un-revert. Greetings, MeAmME (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please be so kind to respond. Otherwise I'll have to assume that you don't care, and that I can revert your revert myself. MeAmME (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I became distracted. Thanks for fixing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Attlee and decolonization

Hi - I wanted to ask about the undoing of the paragraph on Attlee and the decolonization decision. I had added that paragraph because I had not been able to easily find the point where Britain explicitly committed itself to self-rule, and the rationale for its commitment. I was wondering if we could restore some of what had been there earlier, particularly the distinction between Churchill's prior unenthusiastic conditional offers of Dominion status and Attlee's proposal of a relatively fast-moving Indian-led process that he set in motion immediately after his election in 1945. Most of the sources I've read see the September 1945 joint statement by Attlee and Wavell as the beginning of the process. I would like to include that information in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards, as I would find it useful to reference. Steve Negus (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Steve Negus: Sorry, I couldn't find your post earlier because it was not arranged chronologically. But no big deal we have all made that error before. (You could click on "New Section" in the menu options above to make life simpler.) I am busy with some other stuff right now, but will examine what I did and why and reply here sometime tomorrow. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with the Chekavar page

Hello Fowler&fowler, I was wondering if you might have a bit of spare time to take a look at the Chekavar page. Since you've edited Indian caste-related pages in the past, not to mention the FA article India, do consider lending your views on it.

I had basically edited the lead paragraph on the Chekavar page to say that they were a warrior section within the Ezhava community, exactly as it states in the Ezhava lead paragraph. I used the same reference too. Then another user named @Lakbros changes it to say that they were a warrior caste, and he removes the hyperlink linking the Thiyyas with the Ezhavas, in order to establish the Chekavars as a separate warrior caste. The incident has been escalated to the ANI, as linked below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Caste_vandal

Any views on this would be greatly appreciated, thank you! TheWanderer9 (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello: Thanks for the post and for the confidence implicit in it. Unfortunately, for the next several months I shall be focusing on a small handful of topics only, as my user page and user talk page banners state. Another time, I would have most certainly helped out, but I am flat out of time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)