The sayings of Isaac NewtonEdit

The sayings of Isaac Newton, from left to right: (a) I keep the subject constantly before me, (b) and wait (c) till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, (d) into a full and clear light

Archive 22 Archive 23

Happy Holidays!Edit

Thanks for appreciating.Edit

Anyone can use my pictures. For verification you can see coordinates and also refer to the Delhi riot news. You can also do reverse search which is most helpful in verification. Thanks for appreciating my work. Hemant Banswal 08:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talkcontribs)

Thank you so much for recognizing my work and for awarding me with Barnstar. Banswalhemant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Banswalhemant: You're very welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


I think all you need to do is state whether the cited are sourced in a consist matter. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I'm assuming you mean, "sourced in a consistent manner?" I'm not sure what that means precisely, and Ian Rose hasn't answered. Let me ask some others at FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Why are you spotchecking again? We don't need that anymore and I see no issues with the Etymology section. That was to only section I and William Harris didn't write and I fixed any problems that Axl pointed out before. The reviews have dragged on far too long and I really would like to get this over with. LittleJerry (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Listen. I'm doing you a favor. The etymology section has not been paraphrased correctly. The Latin lupus is a distant connection. Please don't badger me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The source states that the PIE root is "probably" also the source for the Latin lupus and the article states that. There is no problem with paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, please don't badger me. I know about this more than you do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the recent discussion about The Times of India at WP:RSNEdit

Many people, including El C, seem to be fully convinced by your argument. I partially disagree.

While it is true that TOI has been - since time immemorial - a pro-government newspaper, it has recently begun to show independence. Nowadays, I see a lot of op-eds in TOI (and Sunday Times) which bash the Indian government for the CAA-NRC duplet.

Press freedom is directly proportional to the gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita) in democracies. Please wait and watch for a few years; you will see a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media.

And TOI is quite a visible newspaper; any false claims published in it will be instantly rebutted.— Vaibhavafro💬 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well GDP has some correlation, but it probably has to be hard-earned; look at some of the middle eastern countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar, ... I don't disagree with your other assertions, but the problem for WP is that a large number of people who will be attempting to use a TOI article as a source might not have knowledge of these changing dynamics. The decision about reliability is made with respect to a generic global WP editor. I'm sure TOI will get there again, but right now in my view, it is not there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Who said I was convinced by Fowler&fowler's argument? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely interpreted the arguments and agreements in that discussion. My closing was not a supervote and should not be viewed as such. I did not express my own view, but here it is: your view that in "a few years" there will be "a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media" is nothing but prophecy, which I put very little stock in. El_C 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C: I apologise for my mistake. I thought you were convinced by Fowler&fowler’s case because you praised his “substantive argument (and breadth of knowledge in this area)”. If you have time, please checkout this analysis by M. Huitsing published by Media Bias/Fact Check.— Vaibhavafro💬 04:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let’s consider an example. The Hindu is widely respected as a reliable source. However, even it is considered to have a slight-to-moderate pro-China and pro-Communist bias (which is not surprising because The Hindu’s stronghold is South India).

This bias can be brilliantly illustrated by the following excerpt from the book The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh by Sanjaya Baru. The page number is 204 and the chapter name is Ending Nuclear Apartheid.

“Many in the audience, including The Hindu’s chief editor N. Ram, walked up to Dr Singh and complimented him for his ‘visionary’ speech. However, a misreading of his speech by the London-based Times of India reporter, who was not even present in Oxford, resulted in a front-page story accusing Dr Singh of ‘genuflecting before the Empire’. Both the BJP and the communists instantly attacked him. Since Ram had praised the PM, I urged him to write an editorial explaining why he thought the PM’s speech was ‘visionary’ and he agreed to do so. However, the next day he called to say that Irfan Habib, the Marxist historian, and Prabhat Patnaik, the Marxist economist, had penned a strong attack against the PM and it would be difficult for him to editorially defend him. Ram, like Irfan and Prabhat, was a member of the CPI(M).”-Sanjaya Baru

In spite of this bias, The Hindu is still considered to be a reliable source. Why is not The Times of India analogically considered a reliable source, even if it has an apparent ‘pro-government bias’?— Vaibhavafro💬 09:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbecoming conductEdit

I objected here before about your conduct at 2020 Delhi riots but you did not reply. I'm going to try once again, but next time will take it to WP:ANI. Your sense of privilege is insufferable, as you showed today with your personal attack on a fellow editor. Please rein it in. NedFausa (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Please do take me to ANI. But first please read the long post I left on Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Please also don't accuse me of having a sense of social privilege let alone it being insufferable or exhort me to "rein it in," as if this is a longstanding behavioral issue with me. Please be aware of rebound at ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@NedFausa: Thank you very much, btw, for this post, which is very cogent in argument and very well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


Hey Fowler&fowler, just reminding you to come back and give me your final comments about the Roar article as you probably forgot to.

Best regards, -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 21:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, @NowIsntItTime:, I will be getting back very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

British Indian provinces coat of armsEdit

Fowler&fowler, There are other British Indian provinces too where these plaque coat of arms images are already added. I've only added the images to the Orissa Province and United Provinces pages. Why are you removing only these particular images I've added while similar images already exist in other provinces' pages too.

You might have created these pages but that doesn't give you the authorship of these pages. Here on Wikipedia everyone is free to edit any article they want to edit and improve. Hemant DabralTalk 11:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemant Dabral: I will be taking those out too. I wasn't aware they were there. But I first wanted to check who put them in there. There was an extensive discussion on Talk:British_Raj/Archive_9#Emblem_and_Flag?, presided over by at least one admin RegentsPark. Please also see: Talk:British_Raj#Flag. Note that the British Raj page does not have a flag or emblem for that reason. The reason why I mentioned I created the page, is not to claim authorship, but to state that I have followed the conventions on these pages. It is possible that the flags were allowed, but they are not anymore. Please read the discussions I have mentioned. We are all human. Creating conventions by extensive discussions, even RfCs, then watching them for violations, takes time and effort, and sometimes we forget to enforce the conventions. When you do something en masse, please make a post on WT:INDIA. Please take these flags and emblems out. If you don't, you will simply create more work for everyone in a difficult stressful time during a global pandemic threat. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright, you can remove these images. Thanks! Hemant DabralTalk 12:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation at 2020 Delhi riotsEdit

Please self-revert while that option is still available to you. Please be cognizant of the restrictions that page is subject to. Thank you in advance for your close attention. Regards, El_C 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. Had no idea I had done that, but you are absolutely right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries, these things happen. Thanks for self-reverting. Regards, El_C 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riotsEdit

Thanks for the note, but yes, I do mind, a lot. Not just because of the quotes--I don't understand your argument at all, and they're already "in the record" already. "the lead is being carefully finalized" sounds like there's some committee writing it, some committee that I and others didn't get invited to. Perhaps you can ask the committee why it saw fit to revert my edits to the rather horrible prose; who on earth writes tripe like "Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters" (as if Muslims weren't targeted in reality, just in someone's mind--was this article written by someone who was afraid of saying it like it is?) or "Fifty-three people were killed, most of whom were Muslims who were shot...". Shit, I can't even restore a decent topic sentence ("Muslims, muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters") because of the 1R restriction. No, I mind a lot. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a toxic topic. It took a long time for it to calm down, and it wouldn't have happened without some general agreement among the editors (e.g. using only third-party international media with correspondents based in Delhi; in other words, not using Indian media, other South Asian media, etc.). In the absence of that, do you know how many newspapers there are available for use and misuse in the echo chamber of the Indian media? Enough that for every claim that Muslims were targeted, there are two that the Pakistanis choreographed the violence to embarrass Modi during Trump's visit. And I'm talking about the well-known newspapers that have the imprimatur of WP's tastemakers. Such is the pressure the Indian government has been bringing to bear on India's press. As for quotes, if you don't add the extended ones, i.e. only the citation, others will add polar opposite claims with the same citation, and then you'll be sidetracked in time-consuming disputes. Besides replacing the sentence, "Muslims were targeted, according to witnesses," (or paraphrase thereof) with "Muslims, Muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters," makes for less than coherent prose, when the very next sentence says, "In some instances, witnesses accused policemen of joining the rioters. In other instances ... Muslims were brutalised." Why? Because the police did not join in property destruction, only in beating up Muslim men. So the first sentence does need to be about Muslims, not property. Your sentence is also redundant when two sentences later we are saying, "The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters." So, again: people write, "Muslims were described (by witnesses) as being targeted ..." because if they don't there will be edit wars (and they've been plenty) disputing the paraphrasing; precise paraphrasing of the source can sometimes be clunky but is a good temporary expedient. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with your grammatical and rhetorical analysis, and that POV commentators will disagree with statements of facts doesn't mean we need to avoid stating the facts. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to tell me why you disagree. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, Fowler&Fowler--if you produce prose like this, "Muslims have been interpreted as having been marked out as targets for meting out violence" (I don't know how you managed to make it worse, but you did), using two weasel phrases and a passive construction to say "rioters singled out Muslims", I'm not sure there is anything I can explain to you. If "pressure" is making you write like that, maybe you should step away from the article. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
:) @Drmies: The problem is that we don't know that rioters singled out Muslims. Some people, by no means all, have made that interpretation. In some neighborhoods that is more the case than some others. Moreover, we don't know who has made that interpretation (the much-needed subject of active voice is absent in the sources; the source says, "The violence is described ... targeted," or "appears to be targeted." "Target (v)," moreover is chiefly an American English construction, and that a relatively recent one. The article is presumably written in some variant of Commonwealth English) What options do we have? An interpretation was made, by whom we don't know. Moreover, such interpretations are presumably still being made. We have no choice but to use the past perfect. I'm happy to listen to other formulations. Please suggest something else. But you will appreciate that constraints loom large. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've undone my last effort at forbiddingly scrupulous NPOV. Thanks for your post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


Your many contributions are appreciated, but please remember to keep your comments on talk pages civil, even if what you read makes you angry. I don't think it's OK to refer to any Wikipedia editor as a "doofus" as you did in this comment, as it contributes to a toxic culture and denigrates a person rather than criticizing content. Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in your intervention. I should not have cast aspersions on the editor's character or mental faculty. I have corrected and apologized to the editor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beland: I know this is somewhat off-topic to the current thread, but could you please remind the editor in the thread above to refrain from breaking out into intemperate language. Four letter words are four-letter words, no matter how much an editor considers them to be elliptical or metaphorical speech. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Apology greatly appreciated. Regarding the above thread, I'm deferring to User:El C who has already intervened to try to bring civil discussion to Talk:2020 Delhi riots. I'd just urge all the editors participating there to focus on article content and sourcing and not on each other or the talk or article history or personal agendas, and to try to be patient and objective or at least respectful of other perspectives. -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


I would like to draw your attention to the WP:INDENT essay which explains why indentation levels should reflect that which is being responded to and should be ordered as such. If you are replying to something I have written after someone else has replied to something else, you should indent and insert your reply in relation to my comment, above the newer comment. Also, smaller issue and perhaps just my opinion, if you post two replies to the same comment, the second should not be indented further so as to appear that you are replying to yourself. Not indenting in the same manner as one would indent computer code (which I do not expect everyone to understand without it being explained) is confusing to the reader, at least to me, I cannot speak for all of Wikipedia. This indentation we use, as partly explained at MOS:LISTGAP, is actually significant for people using screen readers. Without having a messaging system implemented, threading the comments ourselves in the same manner as an automatic system would is important.

For example:

My comment.

Your reply to my comment.
My reply to your reply posted subsequently to below other user's reply to my comment.
Your reply to my reply posted after below other users's reply.
Your second reply to me posted after below.
Other user's reply to my comment posted prior to your reply to my reply but subsequent to your reply to my initial comment.


My comment.

Other user's reply to my comment.
Your reply to my comment.
Your second reply to my comment.

Because it looks as if you are replying to the other user instead of me and then replying to yourself (which is less of an issue but still potentially confusing).

Hope this is helpful, and if I a mistaken as to any customs here I welcome any talk page stalkers to point this out. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your ownership of 2020 Delhi riotsEdit

@Fowler&fowler: Yesterday you removed 2020 Delhi riots from your list of self-appointed Current responsibilities, which I thought might signal you were done editing that page. Today, however, you returned. I therefore ask you to read my recent contribution to Talk:2020 Delhi riots that administrator El C removed after just two minutes, meaning you may not have had a chance to see it. I sought to comply with Wikipedia's Ownership of Content by posting it, as the policy directs, on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation. El C, though, disapproved, asserting in his edit summary, "this is not the place to make such a report!" For that reason, I am engaging you here on this matter, just to be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with you. NedFausa (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, RegentsPark I understand that it is not the job of admins to intervene in content disputes, but at the same time, there is a limit to which people can nip at the heels of reasonably well-written edits, relentlessly. Please examine this history of death by a thousand cuts:

  • In other instances, Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (some version of my original edit; I didn't have the m-dashes
  • Some Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (edit by NedFausa, which introduces the ambiguity that only some Muslim males are circumcised.
  • Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were sometimes forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (Corrected by Kautilya3 diff)
  • For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to show their genitals before being brutalised. (I changed it to this version, as it came after, "Victims of the violence were targeted for being Muslim." "Muslim" was appearing back to back. (diff)
  • For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised. (I changed it because a new sentence, "Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals." had been added, and now "genitals" was being repeated in two consecutive sentences. (diff)
  • Earlier today, NedFauser changed the sentence to "Muslim males, who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments so that Hindus could ascertain their religion before brutalising them." with edit summary, "reword to clarify that Muslim males were not ascertaining their own religion. Please note: this is not a substantial change to the lead's status quo"
  • Dear El_C and RegentsPark, Each time these editors edit, they introduce errors which have to be set right, even when they claim in long edit summaries that they are not changing the status quo. Please examine my last three edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

India-related FPs IEdit

India-related FPs IIEdit

India-related FPs IIIEdit

India-related FPs IVEdit

India-related FPs VEdit

India-related FPs VIEdit

India-related FPs VIIEdit

India-related FPs VIIIEdit

India-related Classic Pictures-IEdit

India-related FPs IXEdit

India-related FPs XEdit

India-related FPs XIEdit

India-related FPs XIIEdit

India-related FPs XIIIEdit

India-related FPs IVEdit

Arbitration enforcement notificationEdit

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fowler&fowler. NedFausa (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V. S. Naipaul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Maurya EmpireEdit

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits to Maurya Empire for being too large of a one-time edit. Would you prefer if I divided it into multiple edits? Is this a Wikipedia policy I should be aware of?

I'm actually planning on making a number of edits to the article. As it stands, Maurya Empire is a bit of a mess: it is often haphazard and repetitive, contains a lot of unsourced content, and makes the mistake of presenting the narratives of specific poetic sources as fact, even when it contradicts other primary sources. There are also POV and OR issues regarding its appraisal of Ashoka's commanding abilities as a prince.

The main changes I want to make (the ones I made were 1, 2, 3, and some things under 5) are:

  1. Addition of comments on the prescriptions of the Arthashastra for context on early Mauryan economic policy
  2. Addition of references for the comments on internal trade in the Maurya Empire
  3. Addition of a subsection on personal freedoms under the Maurya Empire, as per the Arthashastra and during Ashoka's reign
  4. Addition of a subsection on the symbols of the Maurya Empire.
  5. A section on the scientific and technological advancements and economic institutions created in India during the Maurya Empire
  6. A subsection for Hinduism under the "Religion" section, as the Hindu synthesis occurred during the Mauryan period, and Buddhist influence on Hinduism (and vice versa) is also seen in this period.
  7. Removal of unsourced content (which have been citation needed since 2016):
    1. attribution of waterways and canal construction to Ashoka
    2. attribution of expanded trade with Indo-Greeks to Ashoka
    3. claim of Ashoka being the first ruler in history to advocate wildlife conservation
    4. claim of private corporations existing prior to the Maurya Empire
    5. claim of Bindusara himself being an Ajivika seems to be OR (we know that the Ajivika sect peaked under his reign and that his wife and advisor were Ajivikas, but there are no sources that suggest he himself adopted a sramana religion).
  8. A rewrite of the "History" section in accordance with the uncertainty regarding the chronology and details of the various described events. E.g.
    1. The Mudrarakshasa should not be presented as an uncontroversial description of the founding of the empire, as it contradicts heavily with Buddhist and Jain sources, and is considered a fictionalized account
    2. The account of the North-Western conquests are haphazard and repeated in multiple places.
    3. It is not clear that Bindusara himself carried out the Deccan conquests: Greco-Roman sources suggest that Chandragupta Maurya himself already controlled peninsular India, as does the Jain legend of Maurya retiring to South India.
    4. Whether Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism occurred as a result of the Kalinga war is controversial, as many historians believe it contradicts Sri Lankan legend. In any case, the section on Ashoka should be written in a more encyclopedic tone.
    5. Expansion of the Decline section, which currently does not mention the two-capital theory (that a breakaway capital may have formed at Ujjain during the reign of Dasharatha).
  9. Some reorganization of the content about the contact with the Hellenistic world -- I find it rather unnatural to have an entire section devoted to Mauryan trade with Greece, when the Mauryans also traded with Central Asia and even built significant infrastructure for this purpose. I would find it more natural to have a section on foreign relationships including subsections on Hellenistic influence and the transmission of Buddhism to Central Asia.
  10. Addition of a section listing primary sources of information regarding the Maurya Empire. This could be an expansion of the "Literature" section which is currently sorely lacking.

Also, you referred to the references I added as old sources. This is odd, considering that I have mostly used sources from the 21st century -- you may have confused my edits with the references that were already present in the article. The only references I've added from before 1990 are:

  • Craddock, P.T. et al., Zinc production in medieval India, World Archaeology, vol.15, no.2, Industrial Archaeology, 1983
  • Joseph Spengler (1971), Indian Economic Thought, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0822302452, pages 72-73
  • Benjamin Walker, p. 69, Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. In Two Volumes. Volume II M-Z
  • K. M. Sarkar (1927). The Grand Trunk Road in the Punjab: 1849-1886. Atlantic Publishers & Distri. pp. 2–. GGKEY:GQWKH1K79D6.
  • Arthashastra R Shamasastry (Translator), Book IV.

Of which Shamasastry is still the standard translation of the Arthashastra are Sarkar and Walker are just cited for the fact that the Mauryans built the Grand Trunk Road.

Do tell me how you'd prefer to have me make my edits -- I'll be happy to make them separately if it makes for easier documentation.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page, and gain consensus for your edits. Consensus will take time. This is a high-level article with many watchers. Not everyone will respond right away. I would say at least a couple of weeks. This is a difficult time for everyone, and yours seems to be a big edit. Thanks and best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
PS pinging @Chan-Paton factor, Kautilya3, पाटलिपुत्र, and Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. I've created a section in talk for discussion. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riots edit objectionEdit

F&f, can you clarify a point regarding this post? Are you objecting to:

  1. this edit in which the editor removed a citation that they said did not support the claim that the riots ended on March 1, and replaced it with {{cn}} tag? From your statement that "I have no idea how long the violence lasted, precisely. it appears that you agree that the March 1 end-date claim needs to be examined and the previously cited HT article is not sufficient to support it.
  2. Or, are you objecting to this edit in which the editor removed the sub-section related to March 1 events? If so, you can yourself revert the deletion (it will be within 1RR) and following WP:BRD, the issue can continue to be discussed on the talkpage till proper consensus is reached (I agree that editors should not be in a rush to declare consensus on any contentious issue and should wait at least a day or so; not a hard-and-fast rule but a common sense recommendation).

Posting this here since it deals mainly with a process issue and not article content itself, and thus may be a distraction if discussed on the article talkpage. Let me know if I am missing something. Abecedare (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Abecedare: Thanks for posting here. There are all sorts of dates and time frames given for the riots. We, for example, say that mobs of Hindu were going around Muslim neighborhoods attempting to scare Muslims out of house and home in the days leading up to Holi (celebrated March 9). We mention that in the lead. So, what do we mean by putting even the date of March 1 as the last date for the riots? I mean, do we mean, killing? Do we mean intimidation by mobs with threats of death? If the former, what date do we assign to the decomposed bodies found in the fetid canals for days afterward; if the latter, then even March 1 is too soon. I guess what I'm saying is that various editors, who shall remain unnamed, are, at least from my point of view, taking advantage of your good nature, by constantly bickering about inconsequentials on the talk page and wasting time, holding up progress being achieved by other editors such as SerChevalerie. I'm frustrated. I've added dates from the reliable foreign sources on the talk page. I'm sure I can find sources for the March 1 date. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I've seen them. Hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
PS It didn't even take that long. See this piece in the Diplomat, which says, "Within hours, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in more than three decades exploded. Between February 23 and March 1, mobs of Hindus and Muslims clashed, resulting in dozens of casualties, while vehicles, shops, and houses were razed to the ground. In all, 53 people were killed, mostly Muslims." and again later, "Even after March 1, when clashes had dissipated, hard-line elements of the BJP, including Mishra, continued to stir animosity by propagating a narrative that the violence was provoked by anti-nationals, aiming to undermine India, including during celebrations of the Hindu festival of Holi on March 9." This is an analysis piece, not an opinion piece. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
PPS I'm not hung up on any date. One could finesse it. We could write: The week of 23 February 2020, and leave the enumeration vague. Or several days following 23 February 2020. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your position that it will be hard/impossible to nail down any single date as the definitive end-date for the riots. That is the reason I believe that you too would agree that given the current choice between
(a) 23 February 2020 – 1 March 2020 (7 days)[1], which states the March 1 end-date as a fact, and
(b) 23 February 2020 – 1 March 2020 (7 days)[citation needed], which at least indicates to the reader that the dates are not unimpeachable.
option (b) would be preferable. Right?
Of course, (b) can only be a temporary solution while the discussion on what the final arrangement should be takes place. That final choice could be between excluding dates altogether from the infobox; keeping it really vague "around end-Feb 2020"; slightly vague "Feb 23 to approx March 1"; reflecting the range of dates offered by sources, eg, "3-10 days starting Feb 23"; providing the most common end-date in the infobox and detailing the complexity in a footnote etc. You and I, both have dealt with such ambiguities in numerous history articles and are well familiar with the commonly used templates in such scenarios. And also too familiar with the discussion required to be waded through to reach a consensus; although, as you state, this need not be the highest priority for discussion for now and (b) may be a decent placeholder that may be acceptable to all the current discussants.
Hope you and fam. are doing well and protecting yourself from the pandemic (a sentence I couldn't have imagined writing just a few months back!) Cheers.. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and I too could not have imagined thanking you (in earnest, that is; I would have thought, "what pandemic?") for the good wishes a few months back! I hope you and your family are protecting yourself, as well, in these surreal, yet scary, times.
In case (b) above, can I remove the citation needed tag, by citing the claim to the Diplomat article? It is analysis, not hard news, but as long as we will be discussing the date anyway, what harm is there in letting the March 1 date remain, properly cited? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, @Abecedare:. Sorry, I meant, citing it to the Diplomat article and adding {{Better source}}, which would indicate that the source is not unimpeachable, as you eloquently put it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
PS The Diplomat article is: Singh, Jasminder (3 April 2020), "The 2020 Delhi Riots: Implications for Southeast Asia", Diplomat, retrieved 12 April 2020, Between February 23 and March 1, mobs of Hindus and Muslims clashed, resulting in dozens of casualties, while vehicles, shops, and houses were razed to the ground. In all, 53 people were killed, mostly Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Good find. Best to discuss it on the article talkpage but be prepared to spark discussion on what the ideal content for the infobox field would be. That discussion does need to happen at some point; just a matter of when you and others would prefer to deal with it. Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Panic grips Delhi after fresh violence rumours, police say situation normal". Hindustan Times. 2020-03-01. Retrieved 2020-03-09. No riot-related deaths were reported on Saturday but a shop was set on fire in the Welcome area, said police.


I took the liberty of reinstating something that you removed from Prof. Thapar's page, namely she declined an award twice, but having not met some editor's arbitrary standard it was undone, despite my clarification that it captures her antidisestablishmentarianist outlook and independence as a scholar (mind you it wasn't like Caesar refusing the crown thrice!), as she wouldn't let her work to be even subconsciously affected by accepting one of the country's highest civilian awards, which is why you see me here requesting you to kindly put it back, as it not only serves a symbolic purpose in a country whose academic atmosphere is being increasingly throttled by insidious forces of sectarian politics (I will say no more), but also reveals a trait of her personality, surely befitting a biographical entry in an encyclopaedia, which allows her to appear to be resting some notches above the quagmire that is Indian academia... Regards, JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated your edit, but with a proper explanation of the context. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reads even better, thank you! JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


Commonwealth English is better for Urdu, it's not only spoken in India, it's also spoken in Pakistan and Nepal, i am not wrong, Gotitbro revert the edits and put Indian English, (ok , let suppose i am a sock, am i made the edits?). please put Commonwealth English. ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I second this @ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist:, most pages relating to that region have edit notes describing spelling conventions etc. which match what is seen as correct in Australia. Irtapil (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sorry you cannot revert someone else's talk page post"Edit

sorry, i don't recall editing that page Talk:Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir, i think that must have been a simple error when i clicked the wrong thing while looking at the edit history. thanks for fixing it. Irtapil (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my contributionsEdit

Please stop undoing everything i contribute. If you find tables difficult to read, the articles all also have pictures and paragraphs. Personally i find long paragraphs difficult to understand, but i do not go around removing all the long form written sections. If you find the tables i add more difficult to read than most, can you please give some constructive feedback on how they can be improved, or be more specific about what is difficult to understand. I assure you they are not "copied from somewhere", you can see in the history pages that they are built up step by step. Some of the tables you have deleted have inline citations in every cell. And where would they be copied from? many of them use formatting specific to Wikipedia. Please stop. Irtapil (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mughul empireEdit

Hi. I think Baburs establishment date in kabul and the time period it took to invade india (about 22 years), plus the army he rose from kabulistan and adjacent areas should be mentioned in the opening or in baburs section. That is "extremely" important. It almost defines how empire came into being. Thank you ,hope changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E08A:BD25:357C:3C8C (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi i didn't get my answer. I think that contribution is very important for the article.Hope you do something about that.Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:C5FC:B68B:1E2:5B59 (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 

question Edit

am i using user tagging appropriately on talk pages? what's the difference in when i'm supposed to use {{ping}} vs {{re}} ?
are either regarded as rude or spammy if misused?
i used to just link the user page [[user:irgapil]] but that seemed not to notify anyone.
Irtapil (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Gerda Arendt:! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


Sorry if I came across as a bit cranky on FAC talk the other day, I think might have misunderstood what you were suggesting; not in hindsight that you were implying or anything, but have a reactive dislike of being guilt tripped over my chose article subject matter. Anyways, hope you and yours are keeping safe. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. No, not at all. No offense was taken because none was given by you. Free choice is the strength of Wikipedia and I would never meddle with it. (I should add, in that discussion, I was simultaneously ramping up on the statistics (in particular the existence of 700+ warfare related FAs) and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago, so my POV was evolving. I might have said different things at different times. ) Still, something seems to have happened. I just made a little graph for the Transport FAs in User:Fowler&fowler/FA Diversity Transport. It is pretty stark—the landscape of diversity there, that is. How and why that has happened is what I'm trying to understand. Wikipedia's principles are all sound. Was it a case of Lord of the Flies? That is the mystery. I've sounded out some folk who were involved in the last great rewrite of Britannica. They are getting on in years, and won't want to get involved in details, but are still full of wisdom. It will take time to unravel this mystery. Months at the very least.
As for this surreal life we are all leading, who would have thunk? This is the time to read Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year or Camus's Plague ... My wife and I are baking a lot, making yogurt, ... I'm cleaning the cat litter twice a day, which I did only in theory earlier. We had thought about growing veggies, but the survivalists beat us to it. The seeds were all gone, just as the toilet paper was in the supermarkets, as Americans rose to new heights, or should I say expanded to new volumes, of hoarding. All stores are price gouging. Sort of like famine in the old days, so I should add Ackroyd's Conquest of Famine to the reading list. Maybe I'll make a Desert Island List. I've taken to adding pictures of our surroundings, all except the tandoor, on my user page.. I hope you and Liz and the family are safe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Fowler, all is well here, Liz made it out of IRL as restrictions were coming to look after parents in NE. So I now have sole resp for the cats, ulp...they are running circles around and playing me big time...yes am a sucker ha ha. Restrictions beginning to lift in a very controlled and cautious way, which gives people hope. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That is a very nice thing Liz is doing for her parents. I'm sure they appreciate this. Yes, cats know how to play humans. I think the arrangement is programmed into both species. Cute picture. Here too, they are lifting a bit, amid grim prognostications, of course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so much for your attention on Indian National Congress. Back in time I worked hard to improve the article, asked for editors for copy edit but later article became matter of disputes. I had to give up eventually. I will start working on it again as I can see a ray of hope. I will also make sure it achieves GA status. Thanks again mate. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  16:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! A pleasant surprise. I didn't think anyone was noticing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi, do you have access to the MSA Rao source used in the Yadav article? Way back in 2017 you did a fair amount of work on it but in the section on Post-independence there was and remains a citation needed tag for statements attributed in-text to Rao. The style of writing reads as if it might have been your work. I suspect we would need to qualify things if it was from Rao's 1979 study (just to put his stats in context) but first I think it needs an actual cite, unless I have missed something among all the usual pov edits and incompetence that affects the article. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, Long time no see. So, welcome back!
I've reviewed the history. I apparently made my last substantive edit in 2011. The lead in that edit is the same as what is currently in place! But the Post-independence section doesn't ring a bell. Not saying it wasn't me, but I'll have to do some rummaging to figure out the Rao bit. I don't remember that author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I am on mobile & saw your edit in 2017 & didn't check further. I don't have access to Rao here so am stumped. Might be simpler just to delete the info because the stats will be outdated anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
He seems to be well-known in his sub-field of sociology, but most of his books are on snippet view, which means he was active quite some time ago. Yeah, you could delete it; I'm sure we can find modern sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have one of his books here but not the one cited. I will delete as outdated/tagged for years. Thanks. Hope you are keeping well. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
And I hope you are too Sitush in these strange times. The other day I took one of our cats to the vet. No longer are humans allowed in. Ceoil, who too is a caretaker of felines will appreciate the protocol. Upon arriving in the parking lot, call the receptionist on your cell phone. Upon seeing a technician in mask and gloves, crack open your car windows, unbuckle the cat carrier, put on your mask, and exit your car. They didn't say with both hands raised, but it wouldn't hurt. Maintain a safe distance while the technician extracts the honored patient. Wait for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or as long as it takes, until the vet calls you with a diagnosis, a prognosis, and other essential details. As a rule, money is not an essential detail. A similar protocol exists for receiving the honored patient after a cure has been effected. The honored patient seemed pleased with this arrangement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Of course, there was a 50/50 chance of the patient being pleased - cats veer between a desire for extreme distancing and being the centre of attention. I am not supposed to step outside my house as I am "clinically extremely vulnerable". As luck would have it, my neighbour is a vet and so my dog has had more walks than me & next Monday is being taken in for some dentistry. Thus far, it is the first time he has enjoyed being with a vet; I doubt that will apply after Monday. - Sitush (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear but glad that you're taking good care of yourself, and your neighbor is helping out. Unlike us, dogs and cats receive general anesthesia for dental work. So he won't feel a thing during the visit. The apportionment of blame will begin after returning home. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Australasian Antarctic ExpeditionEdit


Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It was my distinct honor and privilege. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel the same about Monteverdi's Vespers (FAC open) and Aza24's approach to make his operas a featured topic (FLN open). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about operas, but will take a look at both within a week. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The operas were completed by Brian, long ago, - all that was missing was a list of the topic. My single earlier approach to have a list featured failed, and I never tried again, but now hope. The vespers received good comments already, and I'm a bit behind with the last section after some restructuring. Help with the lead welcome, - I miss Eric (Corbett). - I'd like first to deal with some requests that accumulated on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was Malleus Fatuorum whose first FAC, or early FAC, on Computers & Manchester, or somesuch, I had weighed in on. That's a pity. I liked him. He later thanked/defended me somewhere in some discussion about my reviewing style. A long ago it was. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I like him, too bad he couldn't be held here and now serves elsewhere. He could write a lead, did it first for me for Andreas Scholl, actually when he changed his name, discussed on my talk first (afaik). He was first to oppose banning Br'er, and told me all I'd ever need about arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


I think your post here contradicts itself and thought I should let you know -- I support "was", but you say you agree with me, and argue for "is". Am I misunderstanding your comment? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:) Before the morning coffee, I am known to say all kinds of things. Will correct and make coffee pronto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)



A copy of this file was used on So I copied your file to Commons. I think it was already there but someone uploaded another version on top and messed up the information.

I hope you find the new information much better. --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

Hi!, I was researching on Central Zone languages, due to my online session in Urdu classes, then i found the article named "Hindustani language" there was the die-huge promotion for Hindi, I liked some of some of the edits of you, (User:Taimoorahmed11, and Fylindfortberserk and some of users were also copying your edits), well, there is the lot of support for Hindi language, rather it was called with Urdu, so I want to request you that, can you add on Hindustani article that Urdu was older specialisation than Hindi, please - (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CharanSinghRedFortDelhi15August1979.JPGEdit


Thanks for uploading File:CharanSinghRedFortDelhi15August1979.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "History of India" pageEdit

You might remember that you reverted my edit on the above-mentioned page on the basis of it being too large and blue-linking too much. Thus I have decided to shorten the editing and limit it to one para per edit only. Blue-linking was a new term to me and I have interpreted it to mean the hyperlinks; I have vastly decreased the hyperlinks though I think more of them would be better. If you still have any problem with my edits, please discuss on the page's talk page. Also, I would like to mention that despite being a "high-level" article, the first sentence of the page was grammatically incorrect. Looking forward to more collaboration.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Yadav Article's Heading image of Ahirs in DelhiEdit

Brother, please delete this picture. Because the picture used here is specifically of only 1 sub caste. In Yadav community, atleast 150-200 sub-castes are there. So, this picture generalize them in one Varna Soodra but many authentic sources put them in Kshatriya varna. You may not understand what I am saying but the thing you should understand is that 150-200 sub-castes cannot be generalized in one sub-caste's picture. There is also no specific data or any article related to this photo. If you can please please please remove this picture. Then, I will be highly highly obliged if you will take this matter into your account. Yours Faithfully Abhimanyu Abhimanyu4169 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to check your latest comment for grammatical errors; it's hard to decipher. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have attempted to fix the damage, but this is before coffee; will take another look after. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


F&F - I'm going be be blunt here. I did archive the Dimple FAC, but it was not so much because of your oppose but in spite of it. Your methods of reviewing are starting to cause much disruption at FAC. I think you often have some good points, but they are buried under a wall of prose that is often hard to penetrate as well as being obscured by points that are not really relevant or actionable at FAC. I strongly suggest that if you want your reviews to continue to have any influence, that you take on board the suggestions of folks and try to cut down the verbiage, as well as basing your points firmly on sources, not on your feelings that something just has to be so. As an example, your point about which version of a film the subject of the article saw in the 1960s turned out to be incorrect - partly because you assumed that something must be so because of your own experience rather than reading the source closely. And when you conveyed your point, you buried it in a blizzard of words that made it very difficult for folks to understand your point. Please also try to assume good faith of the nominators and refrain from discussing their motivations for things - it helps to keep the temperature at reviews down if the review doesn't get into discussing the editors, but sticks to the article content.

FAC needs good reviewers that engage with the nominators in a congenial manner. While I'm not going to say that the recent reviews you've had clashes on were all your fault, it would be best if things changed. I'm dropping this note here in hopes that we can call work to improve the situation, and hoping that you'll see the above not as a bash at you but as an attempt from someone outside the clashes to help you avoid furture ones. I'm going to drop any of my own FACs that I had planned on trying to work on for the near future in order to be more hands-on at FAC, but it also needs help from others to clean up the process. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

True. ... I didn't arrive there as a commenter; it evolved somewhat randomly, and I should have been aware. I should have done a straightforward source- and paraphrase review at that point, rather than getting involved with religion. Maybe that is what I will do in the future: a source and paraphrase review, ..., concisely that is. Those are the issues in pretty much all my opposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
But it was fun in the sense that I ferreted out info about this actress I knew nothing about, a lot, both plausible and implausible, and the article stands changed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The verbiage part will be harder. Its an aspect of my always trying to ensure I've left nothing out. My family knows this well. I'll try. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The other funny thing is that I don't have an awareness of clashes. People remind of bygone clashes, and I have no memory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I add a +1 to the request for concision please? I don't doubt your good intentions, but you have a habit of posting an essay where a sentence will do, burying the wheat the with the chaff. They say brevity is the soul of whit. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the soul of wit it surely is. I'll make an effort, find the time to be brief. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth and HJ Mitchell: As I have your attention, I wanted to run something by you about verbosity, verbiage, walls of text, and other expressions I see commonly used.
(a) There is obvious verbiage: "in other words," "for that matter," ... to which I plead guilty.
(b) There is also comprehensive or complex prose: I just posted something on Talk:India (end of section 7; please note one correction); it is long, but essential for communicating nuance to knowledgeable editors.
(c) Then there is prose that while similar to (b) is inappropriate in detail for the context, causing miscommunication. An example is: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources_in_Dimple_Kapadia#Section_2.1_(cont). Here I am attempting to communicate a few things: the sentence in the article quotes a source and seems to imply something, (i) the source, a scholarly book (where scholarly=published by a university press) which has been quoted, has no such implication, (ii) a second cited source (an online magazine) makes some general claims (iii) a third source, a scholarly book, which I have added, contradicts the claim, and (iv) and a fourth source, another scholarly book, also contradicts that claim.
The problem for me is that example (c) above would not be considered verbose on Talk:India; in fact, they would compliment me for enriching the discussion. But sometimes on FAC, not always, it is cast as walls of text. But I am making a valid point. Ignoring it creates an implausible sentence, at least one that would be considered implausible on Talk:India.
What should I do? Details come naturally to me. When I was in graduate school, a professor from one department came to speak in another. At one point, he said, "... but these are details we will sweep under the rug." Immediately, someone in the audience said, "We live under the rug." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dimple Kapadia/archive2Edit

Please keep your source review there. If you post constructive comments, I'll address them. I want the article to be of the best quality anyway even if not necessarily FA. ShahidTalk2me 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi Fowler. FYI, Pings will not work if you add them later like you did here. Best to just add a new comment with the pings. --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that (as Johnny would have said). Thanks. Did you know he went to the same University of Nebraska, Lincoln, the Cornhuskers, that Willa Cather went? Similar English teachers can nurture different talents in the language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi Fowler. There is an editor adding some text about Gandhi and racism in the article. I'm not sure whether it is relevant and/or properly contextualized but the article itself says nothing about Gandhi's views on race. Could you please take a look? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for taking the time to come over to the Mahatma Gandhi article and clear things up! Ooh Saad (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Princely estates vs kingdomsEdit

Hi Fowler. Apologies, I know you're away. But, if you see this, could you clarify the difference between a "Princely Estate" and a "Princely State" as it pertains to the Raj. The article is Kingdom of Jeypore. This Jeypore appears to have been ruled by kings but a source says "the British had taken over the direct administration of Jeypore in 1863". Doesn't that mean that it was no longer a nominally independent Princely State but was directly under the British (perhaps in the Madras or Bengal presidencies)? In which case, I would assume, the kingdom came to an abrupt end. @Sitush: because he's cleaning up the mess that is that article. --regentspark (comment) 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I have been wondering about that, too. I am also wondering whether we need an article on the "little kingdoms" historiographical model, first proposed by Bernard Cohn & subsequently taken up enthusiastically by the likes of Nicholas Dirks. Many of the tiny states/estates in India seem more than a little ridiculous, with a house having a front door opening into one & a back door opening into another. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
What, like on the ROI/Northern Ireland border? Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there are examples like that in most countries (and that golf course that straddles Wales/England, causing recent issues re lockdown restrictions) but we're talking "princely states" with an area of a couple of acres and having five houses or so. Talk about "lord of all he surveys".- Sitush (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If the Raj era sources at Jeypore are right, the thing became a zamindari in 18th century. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm nodding off into such deep states of slumber as I write this that I have to go take a nap very soon. Today is a busy day anyway, so I will answer in a day or two. Yes, Estate is some kind of large land ownership for the purpose of collecting taxes (land settlement). In the Punjab and UP (minus Awadh), there were no large landowners. In aWadh, there were the talukdars. Zamindari was a feature of Bengal and Bihar. I'm not sure about thie portion of Orissa that this estate fell in: whether it was a part of Bengal (with zamindar) or Madras (with ryotwari). Hermann Kulke and his associates have done work on the Little Kingdoms of Kalinga (Orissa) one is Shared sovereignty ... the other is more specifically about Kalinga. My brain is shutting down, so ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@RegentsPark, Sitush, and Johnbod: I don't believe the British ever used the expression "Princely Estate" for their various holdings of direct and indirect administration. But "estate" for "zamindari" they did.
From left to right: (a) The Jeypore zamindari, a U-shaped region included the tahsils of Nowrangpur, Jeypore, Koratpur, Malkangiri, Bissamcuttack, and Raygada, (b) Kalahandi princely state formed the southwestern tip of the Bengal presidency. It abutted the U-shaped Jeypore zamindari. (c) the tahsil headquarters of Jeypore estate are marked in red. From Malkangiri to Bissamcuttack is approx 130 miles. So the estate could have spread over thousands of square miles.

As far as I can glean, the Jeypore estate was a zamindari in the Madras Presidency. It consisted of a U-shaped swath of land wrapping itself around (the southeast, south, and southwest borders of) Kalahandi princely state in the Bengal presidency. It you visualize the upper end of the Madras Presidency(top map) to be a mitten, then the Jeypore zamindari formed a broad arc between the thumb and the fingers. I couldn't find the higher-res IGI maps I had uploaded. Maybe I didn't upload them; or maybe the graphics people replaced these maps with their rudimentary pastels. Anyway, I have uploaded new ones which are attached here. A portion of the zamindari lay above (i.e. to the west) of the Eastern Ghats (the coastal range), but the rest lay among them. You could certainly link "estate" to "zamindari" in the infobox. Fascinating geography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC) As for the anthropology: there are some German sources—Sitush has probably already seen them—more anthropology than history (like Dirks and Cohn), but I'm not sure about their value for RP's question I have collapsed these:

Anthropological historians on Little Kingdoms and Jeypore
  • Burkhard Schnepel , “ The Nandapur Suryavamsas Origin and Consolidation of a South Orissan Kingdom ” , in The Orissa Historical Research Journal , Vol . XXXVIII , nos . 1 - 4 , 1994 , pp . 170 - 199 . (That kingdom I believe is what became Jeypore)
  • There is also the German: Little Kingdoms of Kalinga with discussions of rituals and ideology in snippet view. There is also the edited volume:
  • page 211 of this edited volume of the anthropology of India whose continuation into page 212 can be read in page 254 of the digital version :). It mentions Jeypore; it mentions anthropology and history, but does it help us? I'm not sure.
  • There is this source which defines a little kingdom to be something between a feudal estate and a princely state. And from the Germans we know that Jeypore was a little kingdom ...

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

PS I've added a third map, a relevant composite of the first two. This wasn't exactly a little kingdom geographically. I'm done. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

PPS >>> "I'm nodding off into such deep states of slumber as I write this that I have to go take a nap very soon." I just noticed this. My first post above was not a comment about the previous discussion, just my state of extreme tiredness. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion about WP:OWNBEHAVIOREdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the Kingdom of Jeypore pageEdit


The entire page of the kingdom of Jeypore is carrying misinformation and most of the vital parts are left without any citation. The whole page in itself is confusing and unproductive. I request you to delete this page as we can’t let any misinformation being spread about our erstwhile kingdom. JahangirMo7 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

About An ArticleEdit

Hello, how are you? can you review this page Draft:Ali AL-Suleiman and you can move it to the article and thank youעלי_מחמוד_סולימאן you can see his page on Hebrew wiki it was accepted, and it has Turkish independent source --Turki bin Faisal (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yamnaya mapEdit

The map is cruely mistaken regarding the extension of the Maykop culture! Please inform yourself there2A02:8108:9640:AC3:59E9:F083:1AA1:68CE (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Per your request on my talkEdit

And now I am going to run out of time today, as I am off to the cabin tomorrow, and need to shop and pack. So I'll keep it brief.

You are not doing yourself any favors in terms of how you present your concerns. At FAC, things might (unsure) have a chance of working themselves out (in terms of faulty reviews and reviewers) if we let the facts speak for themselves. The data tells the story; no need to point fingers. When your advice and concerns and reviews are ignored (and you are by no means the only one who feels that), you should simply state your case, and leave that review, rather than continuing to pursue something that others will not see or hear. Outside of Wikipedia, that star means nothing to anyone, so let more of it roll off your back. FAC has been slowly dying for a long time now, and any attempt to "pound some sense" into those who will not hear simply is not working. By bringing up concerns others are unwilling to hear, you are only garnering attacks, so time to let certain things go. I don't always agree with your points either, but I can at least appreciate your desire to improve that which has fallen into serious disrepair at FAC over recent years ... but again, those facts and the data speak for themselves, and by continuing to point out specific articles and specific people, we aren't making progress. Structural change at FAC is needed, and even if that is accomplished (which is a big if), I am not sure it will not be "too little, too late". But turning things around will require a lot of conscious collaboration, honey over vinegar, to try to get others to see that their star has no meaning when there are no standards, and reviewers are chased out. I just wish you would take an approach that is more likely to yield results, and we can see that the approach you have taken so far is not doing that. There are many people who would like to see FAC turn around, but have quite simply given up; additional confrontation only encourages them to stay away in droves, and leaves you speaking in isolation. Hope this explains my POV ... there are many on that page who are chronic personalizers and attackers. Don't be one of those people. Don't name people, or articles, and when you encounter pushback on a review, walk away and let the Coords decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No disagreements with you there. The problems lately (from my perspective) are: I and my edits at FAC review have become the target. when I apply "oppose early and oppose often," they come out in droves and support even if they have never walked on that terrain. I've often said jokingly if a nominator wants their FAC promoted, they should simply ask me to oppose it. I persist because there is the counterpoise: submissions such as Horologium (constellation), Coropuna, Rigel and Leech that were enjoyable and drama free. Anyway, thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree that you have turned into a target. But this is Wikipedia, and life sucks. You are completely right. But we can't change that, so don't draw any more ire. We got Coropuna turned around, and Jo-Jo has become a wonderful example of how better guidance about the standards produces better editors and better articles. And an example of how to collaborate pre-FAC, as I continue to work on Jo-Jo's articles pre-FAC. Model the good, ignore the bad (and kudos on Jo-Jo for the "drama-free" part). I understand there is plenty of bad, and it has been targeted at you, but don't make yourself such an easy target! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
"Model the good, ignore the bad." Hear hear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And most importantly, remember, your wife/life is far more important than any of this! If you promised her three months, turn off this darn thing :) Be well, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) SandyGeorgia, I've been watching the discussion at WT:FAC with some distaste, and I wanted to thank you for being a voice of reason. I would do so there, but I suspect that would be inflammatory, given the personalities involved (I am among the few that TRM gets upset by even more than by F&F). And you, Fowler, for raising important concerns that seem to have been dismissed based on the tone of your posts and your own activity, the latter of which isn't especially relevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93 not at all. I get most upset when my motives and capabilities as an editor and reviewer are ridiculed. You, as far as I recall, have never done that. I barely even remember interacting with you these days. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Glad to hear it. I haven't ever questioned your motivations, that I recall, only your methods. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I said. My methods now revolve around creating GAs, creating FAs, reviewing GANs, FLCs and FACs. It's going well. Apart from this minor bump in the road but at least we have a summer of tranquility ahead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A summer of tranquillity, walnuts, almonds, peanuts, dates, bird food, and fresh water in the birdbath," says Mr Esque, the Eastern Gray

Mr Esque agrees with you TRM. All the best to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy your summer; unwatching now (I hate squirrels, for reasons best not mentioned :) Please ping me if further feedback from me might be helpful. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Lab pe aati hai duaEdit

Apologies for interrupting your vacation, but I had a question re your recent edit on Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua, where you removed Mayo, Doon and Welham's with the summary "Please do not distort the social and religious history of the song by citing it to assembly songs of privileged private schools in India". I do not understand how it distorts the social and religious history of the song; if anything, it adds to it by charting its adaptation in distant contexts. I was the one who added the schools, admittedly with the intention of counterbalancing the 'Islamic tilt' of the article. Why? Because school principals in India get suspended or beaten up for making their students sing this, and I introduced the secular "private schools" so that the narrative is not hijacked by Hindu nationalists, who would be all too happy to learn that the poem is only used in Pakistan or Urdu-medium schools in India -- which is what the article erroneously says now. I did not revert because I would like to understand where you're coming from. Please reply (or reintroduce it) in light of my stated intentions. Best regards, PublicusTacitus (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As the last version was not neutral and not wholly correct, I have restored the private schools bit with the original references. If you must present yourself as someone safeguarding the social and religious history of the song, you must then safeguard it fully by going the whole hog, without suppressing information that clashes with your vision of what you want that history to look like. I have explained why the secular schools, too, have as much claim to be included in the song's performing history as the Urdu-medium schools. And whyever not? One didn't censor Schubertian/Beethovenian/Wagnerian history when the Nazis went, "That's a nice tune!" (I admit the analogy doesn't quite work, as in this case the net result is positive, where a song has travelled far for good...) If my re-insertion is seen as opportunistic given your absence, I invite anyone reading this, who is sympathetic to Fowler's stance, to undo my edits. Because I will not be bothering with it again. But if you do so, you must also then end the charade and forever relinquish your pretence to neutrality. Best regards, PublicusTacitus (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The du'a has been interpreted ecumenically for nearly a century, sung in government and private schools for nearly as long. I will make a post at the article's talk page and then rewrite the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Your time and effort in finding sources and rewriting the lead are much appreciated. I would just point out that the Doon reference you've included is on page 104, not 103. I'm not sure why including "it makes no mention of Islam" is necessary, or if it even makes sense. The Srivastava source itself says (I have the text) that the assembly uses a mix of Christian hymns and prayers, Kabir's poetry, Guru Nanak's bhajans. Given the syncretic nature of the ritual, obviously there can be no specific, or overt, mentions of any religion, let alone Islam. The YouTube link you've shared is not entirely representative of the usage either, because in that particular context it is being sung as a nostalgic ode by alumni with drinks in hand, not as a dua. This is closer to the original context: Song No. 3 - Doon School Choir and Orchestra or this another Iqbal poem, Chishti ne jis zameen mein paigham-e-haq sunaya; Nanak ne jis chaman mein vahdat ka git gaya or "The land where Chishti declared the message of truth; The blooming garden where Nanak sang the song of Oneness...". So the need for inclusion of a rider that the assembly makes no mention of Islam is not immediately apparent. Thanks, PublicusTacitus (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indus scriptEdit

Hi F&f. Hope you're enjoying your time away. Could you take a look at this edit? In particular, is a valid source? --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi RP, Pat has beaten me to it. does have some pretty reliable stuff (it is run by Mark Kenoyer at UW-Madison) but it is not a WP RL.

July 2020Edit

  Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Indian mathematics, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. So yes, anyone may come "traipsing" into an article or subject that they've never edited before and make changes. And saying that someone "mangled" an article by removing a single statement after questioning its reliability is completely inappropriate (regardless of how correct or incorrect they are).Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


F&f, this edit summary was out of order.[1] As you well know, we encourage all editors to all our articles. Don't do it again. Graham Beards (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Single-editor_ownership Would you or anyone you might know like to take me on in the content? I've sounded out the people who matter on the article's talk page. I've written that darned article. Take me to ANI. I won't be joining you there. What the heck is the matter with you? Please don't post any more inane posts on my talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: That edit, by the way, (and I don't mean yours, but Zombie Whateverhisnameis's) is the reason that women don't touch WP with a ten-foot pole. Imagine the male gall. The guy has no clue about the subject matter, has never edited the page, but WP apparently gives him the right to boldly remove content that has been in the article for 13 years. What are the chances a woman would have done that? The real reason for the removal is that the Hindu supremacist balloon is punctured a little when someone (in this case Pingree) implies that astronomy might have come into India from Mesopotamia—for as you and I know everything in the world has been created in India. Sorry, I didn't mean to lose my temper at you, but WP has to find a way to not blame NPOV content creators more than those who are destroying content, relentlessly. I will now return to my vacation. I agree with you. I should not have intervened in the manner I did. It makes me all too easy a target. I shouldn't have intervened at all, actually. The admins looking after that page would have reverted the fellow soon anyway. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tody1: I'm on vacation and unavailable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Official Indian NameEdit

Since you are the guardian of the page India, I would like to request can u please change the script of official Indian name from Roman to Devnagri. (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm on vacation and unavailable. Please post on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Interest in your editing workEdit

Hi Fowler&fowler,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LailaAtTrustLab (talkcontribs) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@LailaAtTrust: I'm on vacation and unavailable. Your best bet is: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification: Discussion about The Hindu at RSNEdit

You may want to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Hindu— Vaibhavafro💬 04:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- MrX 🖋 12:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil at Kamala HarrisEdit

This edit is not cool. I suggest you strike it, and you might want to sign it first as it appears to be unsigned. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't helpEdit

  The Barnstar of Awesomeness
(suddenly dropping out of the sky) I just went through your userpage, and found it quite depressing, as I completely disagree to the number of Barnstars and other shiny objects you have. I am ashamed of our collective editor conduct in failing to shower you with appreciation in a volume and frequency that is more mind numbing than a Who performance. Therefore, I humbly present you with my little token: a Barnstar for your allround, wholesome and... simply awesome existence. Proud to have breathed the same air as you. Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
What a pleasant surprise, @Aditya Kabir:! I remember the days of Shahbag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Such nice memories indeed. Aditya(talkcontribs) 00:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abhijit Banerjee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


The phrase was inroduced on the 20th August by Ajeet108msit and survived several edits by you before it was removed by a inexperiened editor. Forgive me I was on valndalism patrol and assumed that your last edit (the phrase) was OK. Given that it is frequently used ....-----Snowded TALK 12:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Photography in museumsEdit

May I suggest you read the following Wikipedia rules and advice about museum photography?:

Cheers, पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is nonsense, added by one user in two edits of 2008: first and second. How do they become legal just because one Wikipedian has written them? Where is the proof? I will soon put a dubious tag on that rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Sarnath is not just a museum, but also a site museum, a historic place. We can't break the rules. On a tour of the Vatican we can't leap over a barrier and take a picture of the Pope eating lunch and put it on Wikipedia. I will put a disputed tag on that Wikipedia rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
For you information, it seems photography in the Museum has been allowed for some time now [2] I think it might be a consequence of this.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not for some time, but only very recently, if it has; ASI has not lifted it for all sites. I was in Sarnath in 1987 or 88 and again in 2017. It was not allowed then. The picture you are spamming was taken in 1991 it claims and uploaded in 2011. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
If you read what I have posted, you will see that the new rules probably came into effect in July 2018, and the only exceptions are the Taj Mahal, the Ajanta caves and Leh Palace in Jammu and Kashmir (also). As for the 2011 photograph, it is fully covered by Wikipedia Commons rules regarding museum house rules (provided above). You are free to try to challenge these rules, but AFAIK, this has been a 12-year-long standing rule on Commons. In the meantime of course, you are supposed to respect the rules. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Pat, and the policies, on this. If the image does show a model somewhere else, that's a different matter, but I don't think that's the case. The railing shows it's not "small", in normal terms. Btw my own "illegal" (and very poor) photos of the Tara Brooch have been the best on WP, and indeed the internet, for many years. They were rebuilding & had it in a small sideroom, where I found only the display case and an American with a large camera and tripod. Imo, when they put things on stamps and banknotes, not to mention the national flag, they should release a decent free pic. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, Johnbod, but where is a solid source that says this is legal? Some Wikipedian added it many years ago. I don't see a source. All I have seen on the web are opinions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There will be one somewhere - it is US law that applies here. In English law, taking such a photo comes under the law of trespass rather than anything to do with copyright (for an old object), and once you are out of the building there is nothing they can do. Note that most of our photos of Italian cultural heritage breach their crazy and totally unenforced laws on the subject, which Commons long age decided to ignore. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You have a long history of spamming dubious images on WP, not to mention sockpuppetry foor all of which you have excuses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Have a good day, Fowler&fowler. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
No no I'm not done with you, @पाटलिपुत्र: You have already been warned twice, once for writing "an actual Indian" on Talk:India, you were served with an ARBIPA notice on your talk page. Please tell us what you meant by "an actual Indian?" The model in question is our son. The kurta is from Lucknow. What do you mean by personality rights warnings? He is an adult now. Would you like to see a consent form? You write India is a Hindu majority country and that a church should not be in a picture. Another admin has said that could be sanctionable. Please tell us where that is written in the Constitution of India or WP Country rules that we should only show Hindu shrines. Look at your own record of copying and pasting, relentlessly, on Wikipedia. You have confused a little model of the Sarnath capital in the National Museum in Delhi with the actual capital in Sarnath where photography is not allowed, and as usual, you are spanning an illegal picture of that on Wikipedia. Please read and reread: Talk:Neolithic#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming and read the comments of Johnbod, Drmies, and AD Monroe III about your handiwork. You've been investigated for sockpuppetry. You have three sockpuppets: User:Beads and reels, User:Priyadasi and User:Tillya Tepe gold; there are two more User:神风, User:Tahar Jelun are also your accounts by your own admission (see here) which you wanted to be removed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archiveand never really answered the question @Ms Sarah Welch: posed there again and again. Always trying to fly just under the radar you are. Sarah Welch said about you, "you have added, "artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles." Enough is enough. The discussion will be in November. By the way, no one other than you is asking that question. LearnIndology stopped after he asked a number of Wikipedian; and Prolix said to me that he understood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
So... you are adding an image of your own son in the Feature Article India, without any discussion with other editors, and you are defending it adamantly claiming this is the result of a consensus? Very impressive, Fowler&fowler. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That picture has been on WP for 13 years; it has been the main picture in the Kurta page, which I wrote. There were no illustrations available. There still are not. Please don't shunt garbage. Have you written anything? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: What do you mean by, "If the image does show a model somewhere else, that's a different matter?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You said "You have confused a little model of the Sarnath capital in the National Museum in Delhi with the actual capital in Sarnath where photography is not allowed". As I say above, I doubt this is right - the railing in the photo suggests the full height of c. 7 ft. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That was in reference to another picture: File:Sarnath pillar capital of Ashoka.jpg, which is in the National Museum in New Delhi, much smaller, and displayed against a wall; you can see the shadows. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok sure - if you are pretty certain you should add this to the Commons file. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it says in the Flickr file that Pat has referenced for his upload. Will correct on Commons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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) 13:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah. Wait till I pick apart all the nonsense you have added in Mauryan empire, Mauryan art, Ashoka, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You have been going against Wikipedia Commons rules by removing that image, and you have been edit warring with Johnbod [3] as well. Do not blame others for correcting your own inappropriate editing. An editor of your caliber and intelligence should be wise enough to recognize when he is in the wrong. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry about me, but stop with that xenophobic ("an actual Indian") and Hindu majoritarian nonsense (the picture of the Church) you are relentlessly pursuing on Talk:India. If you continue, especially another time you mention"Hindu gargabe," which you continue to misinterpret, and for which you were already warned by an admin, I will personally take you to ANI. Believe me, ou will not have seen the "caliber and intelligence" that I will bring to bear there. So, again, stop with that nonsense on Talk:India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
And stop making threats, that should really be beneath you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a threat, just the plain truth. If you continue to make xenophobic and Hindu majoritarian comments on Talk:India, I will take you to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

My comments are absolutely not xenophobic, and asking for a proper representation of Hinduism, which you have apparently been suppressing systematically in that article, is the normal thing to do when describing a country with an 80% Hindu population, like it or not. Have a good day Fowler&fowler पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Boasting or not, managing articles for 13 years is praiseworthy. This kitten will help you out  

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akshay Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Manilal DwivediEdit

Hi Fowler. Sorry to bother you again. I know you are super busy right now. I am waiting for your response at Manilal Dwivedi. If you could engage in it, It would be grate help for article. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sidney GreenbaumEdit

Put this on my talk page but then thought maybe I should have put it on yours, not sure how it's supposed to work. Here is the relevant quote from the DNB:

"Greenbaum was a very private, intensely lonely, and in some respects tragic person, generous to his friends but awkward in female company and quite lacking in social graces. Unusually for an Orthodox Jew, he never married. He was at his best when entertaining family and colleagues. While drinking a glass of whisky and smoking a cigar he would sit in his favourite chair, talking to his guests. Towards the end of his life he suffered increasingly from ill health.

In 1990 Greenbaum resigned the Quain chair at University College following his conviction in London of a number of charges of sexual assault on young boys. He was able to continue directing the Survey of English Usage. On 28 May 1996, while delivering a lecture at Moscow University, he died of heart failure."

Do let me know if you want me to post the pdf of the whole article anywhere. Also very happy to forego anonymity in the interest of establishing bona fides if that helps.

Erithrocyte (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Erithrocyte: No need to forego anonymity, but please give me a few days. Please don't add the sentences back into the article. The ODNB articles are usually quite long. I will need to determine due weight in this instance even if this is true, and also find a proper hard news source. It would be surprising if this were in the ODNB but never reported in the press. So, please hold on. I will also ask some people more expert in these matters than I. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have spoken to one of the co-authors of the DNB article this evening who confirms that: "in spite of Greenbaum having made two public court appearances, no newspaper ever reported his conviction". He further commented: "this was very typical in England in the 1990s, because there often was a desire not to rock the establishment boat and it was often seen as somewhat distasteful to discuss paedophilia". He would also be willing to be contacted about this and I can supply an email address and other contact details if needed.

Erithrocyte (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks @Erithrocyte: So please give me until early next week if you can. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not to harass, but just to add an additional source that's just come to my attention:

Pages 408-9 of the second edition of Professor Geoffrey Alderman's book Modern British Jewry (OUP, 1998):

BEGINS Perhaps most dramatic, and sad, is the irrefutable evidence of the sexual abuse of Jewish children. Norwood Child Care has reported annual increases in the instances of child abuse brought to its attention.[1] It is true that these increases may simply reflect greater public awareness but, if so, the implication must be that the problem is of longer standing than some had optimistically supposed. It is within the orthodox communities that the problem is at its most intractable, partly because extraordinary steps are taken to conceal its existence. In 1991 a near-riot occurred in Stamford Hill, north London, after it had emerged that a sectarian orthodox family had reported to the police allegations of child abuse against two sectarian orthodox men.[2] The previous year (August 1990), the eminent scholar of the English language, and Jews’ College alumnus, Professor Sidney Greenbaum (1929 – 1996) had pleaded guilty at Hendon Magistrate’s Court to three charges of indecent assault on young boys; his elegantly crafted obituary in the Jewish Chronicle made no mention of this recorded and verifiable fact.[3]

[1] Baker, The Jewish Woman in Contemporary Society, 181.

[2] JC, 5 July 1991, 18; 2 August, 1, 5, 36; 9 August, 6; The Times, 12 August 1991, 6; JT, 15 August 1991, 6. One of the defendants was acquitted, the other was convicted of indecent assault and gaoled, but released on appeal.

[3] JC, 14 June 1996, 25. At the time of his disgrace Greenbaum held the prestigious Quain Chair of English Language & Literature at University College London. He was, it transpired, a long-time abuser, whose paedophile activities were well-known within his circle of orthodox friends in north London. In October 1996 the JC reported the case of the Reverend Anthony Dee, formerly minister to Jewish congregations in Portsmouth and Belfast, who later pleaded guilty to ten charges of indecent assault on young girls and a boy: JC, 18 Oct. 1996, 60; 24 Jan. 1997, 1-2; Belfast Newsletter, 18 Jan. 1997, 5.

Erithrocyte (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and for taking the time to research this to put in the change. I understand the reasons for the meticulous care and quotation marks around the quotes from the ONDB, and it's great to have the truth up in any form. I wonder if you'd have time - and interest - in helping me work out what sources I'd need to get this in as a plain statement of fact? I'm pretty sure that I can get whatever sources would be required with a bit of time and effort and - as you may have guessed - it's something I'm personally motivated to see addressed. And I'm very aware there are victims out there who don't have the ability, emotionally or otherwise, to do this.

If you're aware of the Jimmy Saville case, you'll know how common it was at the time for both institutions and the media to be involved in cover-ups - or something similar, a sort of "let's just not talk about this" which means there are no hard news sources from the time and any discussion at all will be hard to find, but I expect I can prompt new journalistic pieces if that's what's needed, or look into finding the original court documents and getting them put online.

It occurs to me also that as the UK is now fairly committed to exposing cover-ups of historic child sexual abuse, it would be very useful for there to be an easily accessible online register of these cases that victims can point to and say: "this happened to me, it's here for anyone to see". That's not a Wikipedia issue, but something I'm intending to pursue.

Erithrocyte (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Erithrocyte: Thanks for you patience. I've done a pretty thorough search of the sources; I've talked to people on Wikipedia more knowledgeable about policy than I; the bottom line is that the ODNB article, of five-page length, is pretty much the only acceptable WP:RS, and that devotes one sentence to the topic.
It is remarkable that in his Times Higher Ed Supplement article of 2015 published a full decade after the ODNB entry, Geoffrey X, one of the ODNB co-authors, does not mention Greenbaum by name. Whether this was his choice or the THES's condition, I can't say, but that article is of no value to Wikipedia (for which extraordinary claims require extraordinary precision). I deeply sympathize with your concern for the victims, but I think you do understand that absent the sources, our hands are tied.
As for what is reliable in WP, I think a news report or retrospective—but not an opinion piece, blog, column or letter to the editor—in an internationally known newspaper (The Times, Guardian, Independent, Irish Times, NYTimes, ...) or special-topic supplements (such as THES or the Chronicle of Higher Education) but not a small-market newspaper or newsletter, would be a good start. I have to note though that if those sources had references, I would have seen them by now. Publicly available records of the judgments are usually no good as they are considered WP:Primary sources; the judgment has to be reported in the press, or a book, etc, to be reliable. To claim in addition that there was a cover-up would require several such sources clearly stating the same. This is the predicament here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts here, they're very helpful. I am pretty sure I can work on this and sort it out. It might take a year or two, but it's the sort of case that the British media really ought to be talking about, and I think I'm in a position to work to make this happen. For one thing, it continues to be very relevant and always timely to ensure the British media understand the role played by "just not really doing journalism about a distasteful subject" and "just upholding old establishment positions" has contributed to eg Greenbaum's extensive academic career being remembered 25 years after his death but not his sexual assaults. And there must be many more such cases out there.

So, watch this space. As ever, entirely willing to say who I am, but I think it'll become evident in time.

Oh, question: am I free to insert a suitable reference when I have one, or should I come and discuss that with you first?

Erithrocyte (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking inEdit

Hi — Gazal world asked me to take another look at Manilal Dwivedi. I see there’s a discussion of adding some background material about the Indian educational system at the time, and reading through it I can see the relevance, though I wonder if perhaps it’s a bit long. However, I can’t judge its accuracy and I don’t have access to the sources you cited in the article Gazal world is drawing from.

I see you’re taking a break until some time in October in order to work on some non-WP writing. Do you know if or when you might be able to return to Manilal? Gazal world has asked me to take another look, but if you think you’ll be able to get back to it in the next month or so I think that would be better for the article, otherwise I’ll be copy editing material I’m not able to judge the correctness of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Mike Christie: Sorry I forgot as usual. OK. I'll take a look in the next few days. I might be only able to weed the garden a little, not plant anything new. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries; if you think you can get to it in late October when your other obligations lighten up, that’s fine too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it now; otherwise, I might forget again. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020Edit

This is regarding the happenings on Sanskrit page. The action started with your large deletion of text on the page [diff]. While I was perplexed by such a large deletion without any WP:CONSENSUS in the same sense of frustration that you expressed [talkpage], I posted the vandalism template on your user page. Sorry I was unaware about the WP:DTTR rule. Besides on a side point, what do you intend to achieve at the end state on the Sanskrit page? Is your intent of editing [diff] to delete all references of India or Indian Subcontinent or Ancient Indian Subcontinent on the Sanskrit page? If that is so what would be the position of over a dozen Indic languages which have over 70% influence from Sanskrit vocabulary, phonology, morphology, and grammar - would they in your opinion become South Asian languages and not Indic languages? Sanskrit hymns and recitals are chanted every day by millions of Indians. This hymn from Vedas has been viewed by over 40 million people [youtube]. What would happen to the faith of the millions who believe Sanskrit as their language used in rituals? I am interested to know what is your desired outcome on Sanskrit page. Jaykul72 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the content issues at Talk:Sanskrit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your map of the Kashmir Region and the boundary line between Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad KashmirEdit

Hi, Fowler&fowler,

I was glad to see your revised version of the CIA map Kashmir Region. Will you be revising that map again anytime soon to change North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? If you will, you might also move the words Ladakh and (union territory) a little further to the right to place them more in the center of that territory and to better separate the words (union territory) from the name Jammu and Kashmir.

I have a question about the present territorial extent of AJK's Neelum District to which I hope you can provide an answer or, if not, perhaps direct me to someone who can. On maps that are presently available on the Internet, I have noticed two different territorial configurations for the Neelum District. The difference lies in just how far eastward that district extends. Since the map that is presently shown on the AJK government web site shows the Neelum District with a lesser eastward extent than other maps on the Internet, it raises the question as to whether the easternmost portion of that district may have been detached at some point in time and added to the Astore District of Gilgit-Baltistan. That easternmost area includes the villages Kamri, Minimarg, and Domel and the lakes Crystal Lake and Rainbow Lake. On some web sites, those five features are described as being located in the Neelum District of AJK, but on other web sites, they are, instead, described as being located in the Astore District of Gilgit-Baltistan. If the easternmost portion of the Neelum District was, in fact, detached from that district and added to the Astore District of Gilgit-Baltistan some years ago, I would very much like to know just when and why that particular change was made.

Atelerixia (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


त्वं हि वद - अनुस्वारस्य प्रयोगः कथं भविष्यति? — Preceding unsigned comment added by संस्कृतम् (talkcontribs) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Dandin's example's from Apte's Dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
See also Kav. तदेतद्वाङ्कयं भूयः संस्कृतं प्राकृतं तथा । अपभ्रंशश्व मिश्रञ्चेत्याङ्गराय्र्याश्वतुर्विधम् Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Here, in the example given by you "संस्कृतं प्राकृतं तथा", the word संस्कृतं is followed by a consonant sound प. Hence the Anuswara appears as such. That is correct (in that sentence). {Similarly, in this sentence, the word प्राकृतं is also followed by a consonant sound त. Answara symbol is used as such}. But, when the word comes alone, it should be written as संस्कृतम् (Same rule for प्राकृतम् also) only. Further, if a vowel sound follows the word, then also it should be written as a wording ending with -म् only. For example, in the sentence "संस्कृतम् अतिप्राचीना भाषा।" the word संस्कृतम् is to be written as such, since it is followed by vowel sound अ. And in the sentence "संस्कृतं भारतस्य प्राचीनतमा भाषा।" the word is written as संस्कृतं as the word is followed by a consonant भ. For better understanding, please go through the Anuswara rules of Sanskrit and the rules for using Devanagari script for writing Sanskrit. {While learning the rules, you may keep in mind that Devanagari is not only used to write Sanskrit (means, you can't apply the rules of Hindi, Marathi, Konkani etc.. as such for writing Sanskrit) and, as you know, Sanskrit is not only written in Devanagari script. [Even the name Dandin referred by you will appear as दण्डी only (i.e., in nominative form, without final -n in the word-root) when it is used in Sanskrit as a name. धन्यव्यादः -संस्कृतम् (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It is past my bedtime, so I'll be brief. Thanks for the great explanation. I have a question though. If such are the rules, varying with whether a vowel or consonant follows, then there must be a slight difference in the pronunciation of संस्कृतं and संस्कृतम् | What is the difference? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There are. When anuswara is followed by a consonant, its pronunciation changes slightly according to the 'varga' of the consonant. In Sanskrit, we call these categories of consonants as Vargiya Vyanjanas (classified consonants). I can't explain everything here. Please try to find out yourselves through some Svadhyaya Pustakas (self-study books). Large number of sources are available in the internet for Sanskrit Svadhyaya (self-study). We request you to correct the word to संस्कृतम् at the earliest. You are also requested to refer to कल्पद्रुमः for more details. Most of the Sanskrit-English dictionaries use only the word-root due to the large number of possible derivatives for each word in Sanskrit. (English people, who learn Sanskrit using the dictionaries with word-roots always thinks that the word-roots are the general form of the word in speech or writing. But, actually, they are not. In speech or in writing, the word-roots will not appear as such). You may find out the nominative cases of all the word-roots through some Siddharupa texts. Whatever you say, whether you agree it or not, the short name of Sanskrit Language (संस्कृतभाषा) in Sanskrit Language is संस्कृतम् only (in the nominative case). Not संस्कृत-(the word संस्कृत- is incomplete without -तः -ता or -तम्). However, in the samstapadas, it can comes as संस्कृत- as in संस्कृतगङ्गा, संस्कृतरसाः, संस्कृतभाषा). To conclude, संस्कृतम्, क्ली, (सं + कृ + क्तः।) - पाणिन्यादिकृतव्याकरणसूत्रेण उपेत उपगतो लक्षणोपेतः साधुशब्दः। संस्कृतम् इति देववाणी। संस्कृतम् अस्माकं मातृभाषा। संस्कृतं जयतु। धन्यव्यादः --संस्कृतम् (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. I see the तं and तम् endings changing in light of the letter following. I can also see that the standalone should probably be तम् but I remain troubled that in the dictionary of V. S. Apte (one of the great lexicographers of Sanskrit and late professor at Ferguson College Poona) the standalone is तं, not तम् (See here: -तं Refined or highly polished language ... the Sanskrit language etc" Why do you think he has chosen तं? I am asking out of curiosity, not to disrespect your wisdom. The self-help books are unfortunately useless for Wikipedia citing purposes, though they have already helped me (for which you have my thanks). That is my dilemma here. As for the adjectival use, we are talking about a dead or extinct language, no matter what the current ideology is about its reconstruction. The earliest reference is in the Sundarkand of Valmikis Ramayan which I now reference in the lead sentence. It is Hanuman brooding and he uses "sanskritaam vaacham." Before that time (ca 500 to 100 BCE there was no reference to "sanskrit"; there is none in Panini) the standalone doesn't appear until 700–800 CE, and the native speakers are gone by 1350 CE. So the adjectival use is clearly of greater importance than the nominative historically. I have to put something there. I can put "sanskrit vaach" or some version you think is correct, but the attributive verb/adjective has precedence here historically. Please help me with what combination form to use. Tthanks for your help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

British Raj flagsEdit

Sir my senior in charge User:NS Dibyojyoti is retired now but he told me to left you a message on the article. The raj has flag but not that red ensign flag. We could probably provide star of india and UK flag in order to secure it. So I'm edited that please see it and review it.🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Honan ChapelEdit

Hi Fowler, if you get a chance would appreciate your eyes on this, which is at FAC. Feedback and insight gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I love the picture in the lead, an early 20th-century chapel being photobombed by the early 21st-century in the form of a drone. Reminds me of my cozy college chapel. When everyone has had their say, I'll say something, if my comments are needed by then. Thanks for asking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: After much thought, I've decided to take time off from WP. I will be gone until mid-February 2021. I had attempted to take a partial vacation earlier to do some writing unrelated to WP, but that did not work out too well. So this time the vacation is absolute. :( Your Honan Chapel article looks great. I'm sure it will sail through. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Good for you. Hopefully the writing is creative rather than technical or providing copy. Either way I imagine you hunkered over a typewriter, empty cig boxes thrown about, agonising over every goddamn syllable. Anyways, godspeed and talk in the future my friend. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I love your description, my friend. I've dusted off the Hemingway on the shelves. Nearly a dozen they are. Hunkered over I certainly am, but every now and then stand up and write in his custom. And we have cats as he did, though not quite in his abundance. A distant aspiration, inspiration, a North Star he was, but is now looming larger. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I learnt that you are going for a vaccation. Well enjoy your days and best of luck. But before you go, please point us to a direction at Talk:Kashmir as during your leave its going to be a mess again.  MehrajMir (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mehrajmir13: Your geography and climate sections are good beginnings. They need better sources, but you can add them (and an under-construction-section tag to them) you could also add flora and fauna, economy, agriculture, sections but adequately sourced. I will say something about sources in a minute. Try to keep the other sections, especially the history and demography as they are; otherwise, the Hindu/India majoritarian POV promoters (who these days come in the strangest of WP avatars such as Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian (!) will have a field day)
Now to the sources. As this is an India-Pakistan issue, it is best to stick to what I call "third-party scholarly sources." I rummage them in my Google Books search by restricting in the following fashion (say for flora, fauna, and biodiversity): "kashmir region " "flora " OR "fauna" OR "biodiversity" inpublisher:"university press" | inpublisher:"MIT" | inpublisher:"Academic Press" | inpublisher:"Springer" | inpublisher:"Routledge" | inpublisher:"Macmillan" | inpublisher:"Elsevier" | inpublisher:"Wiley" | inpublisher:"Sage" | inpublisher:"Blackwell" | inpublisher:"Pergamon"
I restrict further to the 21st-century and "preview available. In the first draft, I keep out Indian and Pakistani publishers and newspapers (however scholarly they might be and that includes OUP India and OUP Pakistan) If that does not give enough sources, I would change "Kashmir region" to "Kashmir" keeping the other variables the same. There are also IUCN, Mammal Species of the World, ..., but I generally avoid using journal articles at this stage. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I also avoid newspapers in the first cut. Eventually when I do add them, I restrict to the "third-party international" ones described here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your valuable comment and advise. I do not have to and will not touch those history and demography sections. Wish you a happy and good days ahead.  MehrajMir (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Stopping nowEdit

Sorry, just saw your message ... stopping now ... hope I didn't make a worse mess ... left a message on talk of one other thing that needs to be fixed (an inline citation). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

PS, don't hesitate to revert me if needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The fault is mine. I shouldn't have left such a mess. Will clean up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, I've fixed it I think. Today is about all I have in terms of WP work. Thanks for taking the time to notice the incredible tangle I had made. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure; go enjoy your time off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Help meEdit

I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba, Alha and Banaphar since few days, but obviously English administrators cannot understand Hindi language, that's why I need help of any administrator who understands hindi language. So can you please help me. If you can than please see my reliable sources for making changes in Talk:Udal of Mahoba Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Need helping with editingEdit

Hi! We've interacted before regarding edited content on the "women in india" wikipedia page. I'm hear to ask for your help regarding WP:NOR. Is there a way to use original research without violating any rules? Let me knowKrao212 (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Krao212: Fowler&fowler is on a break till January. But, unfortunately, there is no way of adding original research to an article. Wikipedia reports research done by others (in peer reviewed or other reliable sources but doesn't do the research itself. This is partly because there is no way to judge the quality of the research and partly because, by definition, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source and merely summarizes existing research. Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
When @RegentsPark: speaks, people listen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
PS I'm gone until mid-February 2021. Thanks, RP! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to allow the vector alternative of the CIA Kashmir mapEdit

I have gone through the edit history of Ladakh and saw that you said in an edit summary that only the CIA Kashmir map (File:Kashmir Region November 2019.jpg) is allowed per consensus among India, Pakistan and China WikiProjects. But I want to use the vector alternative (File:Kashmir map.svg) of the map that I have updated and made multiple locator maps from it. But where to form consensus for this? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the CIA map is a physical map, showing the physiographic texture which your map does not. Yours is not as detailed. I am on vacation until mid-February 2021. Very sorry, but no can do. My last post in response. I should warn you that all Kashmir-related pages are under an ARBCOM discretionary sanction and 1RR restriction. You should not be edit-warring, nor attempting a "compromise" as a backdoor entry for your map. Please self-revert, unless you are looking to be penalized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The consensus was on WT:INDIA. You will need to rummage the archives. It is best not to disbelieve a competent seasoned editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)