Jump to content

User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Indic script

Hullo, I've seen you mention that you participated in the debate on the official languages of India that concluded that Hindi in devanagari script and English are co-official languages and the remaining languages "recognised ones". I fully agree even if I would pinpoint that the Constitution of India calls for the State to promote Hindi when such an exhortation doesn't exist for English.

I wanted to know your opinion on the ban on Indic script on Wikipedia in the English language. Is there any way that debate could be re-opened? I'm not sufficiently familiar with the technical aspects of editing and debating on Wikipedia but would like to participate in a debate on the issue.

I think it's time to lift the ban because it is hardly applied on most India related pages (apart from the main ones where the ban is enforced).

The rule is simple. Name in latin and devanagari letters and in an additional local script according to the official language of the state of birth for example.

I never understood why only Indic scripts were banned when the same issues arise for all other scripts and why specifically on Wikipedia in the English language when they are not banned on Wikipedia in the French language for example.

Thanks for your input,

Manish2542 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at Samma dynasty if you have time

The article Samma dynasty has a lot of weird stuff on it. For one, there was a picture of a flag from a video game (Europa Universalis 4, file was labelled as such as well) that was removed by another editor but then reinstated by Highpeak for some reason. There was also a map of Ancient Khorasan which was labelled as such in the file but was falsely labelled in the article as a map of the dynasty. Highpeak also keeps adding stuff about hindus and Rajputs to try and give the dynasty a more Hindu/India focus despite debate that the dynasty may also be of Balóch origin. Please could you go through the article and remove any inconsistencies? Thank you.213.205.198.130 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Keriya

When the British first came to the Delhi/Punjab area, they heard of a "Royal Road" of Mughal times, which supposedly ran between a town called Najibabad below the Himalaya and Keriya in Turkestan. It was said that carts could run from end to end, and fodder and fuel were available at every halting place along the way. I thought it was far-fetched, until I realized that Turkestan was then Moghulistan. Mirza Haidar Dughlat conquered Kashmir twice, once from Moghulistan and a second time from Kabul/Punjab. (According to Mohibbul Hasan, that was the reason Akbar laid claim to it.)

Now we have this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

In a hurry, will reply later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Starting fresh

Fowler&fowler, in the spirit of good faith, I want to start off by saying I want to sincerely apologize for anything I have said that violated or came across as WP:NPA to you. I hope you will accept my apology. I hope we can both work with each other. In good faith, we are both here to help this project. It does not help if we have to argue over the minuscule topics because of personal vendetta. Again, let us work with each other to build a better Wikipedia. I hope you accept my apology, and on your end stop calling me "Hindu-POV" etc. (I am not even a Hindu, nor was the family for centuries.) (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for your post. I didn't say you were promoting a "Hindu POV." I said only that the notion of finding the origin of everything, whether animate or inanimate, in India, especially in the nation's pre-Muslim past, is a peculiarly Hindu-nationalist-POV. Here's is what we are dealing with: we have an ivory chess piece. It is six inches high. It has an elephant taking up four of those six inches. It has a rider whose frame competes for space in the remaining two inches. And we are detecting a kurta on the rider/mahout's torso? Seriously? Then we have some obscure 1943 article by a linguist with Google scholar citation index 1, garnered in 76 years. Somewhere in that article the author makes the point that the word "kurta" is not as so-and-so say's it is in the Chinese-Sanskrit dictionary, but it is Central Asian in origin. Which language of Central Asia we are not told. Tell me, honestly, on which forum on Wikipedia will such attribution be considered reliable. And for the pictures, really, kurta-like, bodice-like, choli-like, kameez-like, shirt-like, under-shirt like, what are they wearing. It could be anything. It is unlikely, in the depiction of a battle elephant, the rider will be wearing a kurta, even in 100 degree weather. Contrast that with the kinds of sources I am using. Emma Tarlo's book has Google scholar citation index 701. We can't have people, especially IPs, (really they can't get a page of their own, but they know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia?) holding reliable sources at ransom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
PS It is the same thing that Anupam is doing on Shalwar kameez. He has a sentence of the sort, "The kameez usually has a Western style collar while the kurta is collarless, or with a Mandarin or Nehru collar." He has two sources, one for the "western style" and another for the "collarless." The while is original research, for neither author is comparing the two. More interestingly, the second author has a picture of men in kurta in Karachi and they are all wearing kameezes with Western style collars. The first author is only partially quoted. When I actually read the relevant passage in the source, the expanded text sounded familiar. It turns out it is attributed to Wikipedia! Not just to Wikipedia, but to an edit I made about the collar in 2011! So we are dong original research by combining two sources, one our own words, requoted by others, and the other the words of an author who doesn't know what a kurta is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not disagree with you in most cases. That is why I am here. I think I can work with you. I will look at your response closely once I am not on a mobile phone and respond. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
No probs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Closure of my MUSINGS

Dear Fowler&fowler,
I have read your note. Pray why do you call my inputs MUSINGS? And why have you listed some of my blogs? They are not in your domain.
I have demonstrated that a PAF F-16 was shot down by an Indian Mig-21 Bison flown by Wg Cdr A Varthaman. It is from Pakistani media. There is a loud bang and soon thereafter two parachutes are seen. It is factual and also mathematically consistent with other analyses by learned professionals in that field.Where have I gone wrong? Do tell. Perhaps I'll learn something.
Why have you removed the Pakistani babaji's statement that he saw three parachutes and 3 pilots. As far as I can see, it is verified within reasonable bounds. Didn't you hear the Urdu in the background?
The PAF has recommended a gallantry medal for Wg Cdr Noman Ali Khan for shooting down an IAF SU-30. I'm serious, don't laugh. So what if it is not on record elsewhere?
Bless you,
Gp Capt Noel Moitra VM
--Moitraanak (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Moitraanak: There are two simple Wikipedia principles. First, every piece of text, whether sentence fragment, clause, or full sentence, that goes into Wikipedia has to be attributed to a reliable source. Second, talk page posts need to specifically address improvements to the article with the use of specific available reliable sources. Further, for a controversial subject area such as "India-Pakistan," the source of the attribution preferably should be a scholarly one and, given the history of the two nations, a third-party one, by which I mean not originating in either country, that is books or journal articles published by: any of the internationally known academic publishers (such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, California, Chicago, Princeton, Warwick, Manchester, Sussex "university press," or Routledge, Wiley, Palgrave, and Springer). For recent events, which are untreated as yet in academic publications, it is preferable to use only high-quality third-party newspapers and magazines. I typically use only: The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, The Independent, Financial Times, Irish Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Japan Times, Reuters, and a few others. This means that if a statement cannot be attributed to such sources, and preferably several such, we cannot really put it into a India-Pakistan-related article, unless the attribution is for a simple fact (a date, a time, an address, ...) These are the limitations of Wikipedia, which, like other tertiary sources, is necessarily conservative. Your sentences cannot be attributed to any of the types of sources I have listed above. For this reason they cannot go into an India-Pakistan related article. There is no independent truth or falsehood of Wikipedia statements outside this system of attribution, that means, no video, no audio, no picture, no interview, is useful for Wikipedia unless it is reported in one of the above-mentioned sources in prose. I hope this helps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
PS By "musings" I simply mean statements that have not been attributed to the sources mentioned above, in other words, an unattributed "spell of thoughtfulness or reflection; a meditation; a written reflection, thought, idea, etc. Usually in plural. (Oxford English Dictionary)" Nothing personal is meant. It is not the best choice of words, but I seem to have fallen into the habit. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No problems. 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Moitranaak

Archiving

The settings does look intentional but am unsure as to whether you really wanted the outcome. Post the completion of User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 15 (all of them seems to be reasonably sized for comfortable navigation), the bot has pushed every thread to User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive12 and currently, it accounts for 295 threads over a span of seven years, amounting to about half megabyte. ∯WBGconverse 12:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

What do I do about it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I mean where is this setting made? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Top of your t/p; User:MiszaBot/config template, wherein the bot is asked to archive all threads to Archive12; unless it is of 600 bytes.
I was checking your t/p history, as to the reasons behind the mess and the circumstances were pretty peculiar:-)
You were manually archiving your t/p all throughout and for the first 12 archives, you had chosen the destination to be /ArchiveX. But, you chose to non-conform, when in August 2010, the 13th archive was created over Archive 13 rather than Archive13. (This was your last archive until October 2011.)
On 26/10/11, you subsequently decided to perform a bot run to rename your archives from /ArchiveX to /Archive X and the first 12 archives were renamed. The bot did not touch Archive 13, which was already following the proper nomenclature and you seemingly forgot that it was not 12 but rather 13 that was the last archive.
Accordingly, on the very same day, you inserted Miszabot's template over your t/p, that asked the bot to archive all threads to Archive12 (which, in your view was the last one), unless the archive size exceeded a whooping 600 bytes. Once, it exceeded, it will move to Archive13.
Incidentally, about a month before your edit, Miszabot had crashed. So, your insertion of the template did not have any noticeable effect and in the meanwhile, you continued to manually archive. Archive 14 and then Archive 15 were created, the latter of which came during July 2012.
Post that archive-creation, you went off-wiki for a long span of time and did not bother any about manual-archiving. Your t/p continued to grow in size unless LCSBIIIBot was authorized in October, 2013 to serve as a replacement for Miszabot.
Since, the template of your t/p was still set at 12 (specifically Archive12, not Archive 12), the bot mass-archived about 108 threads from your t/p at once and in the process, overwrote the redirect to Archive 12, that had stayed since your moves on 26/10/11.
The bot has continued since then because Archive12 is yet to reach 600 kb.
The most decent fix would be to move every 50 of the threads, chronologically, from Archive12 to Archive 16, Archive 17 and so on. It will consume six new archives (uptill Archive 21), before Archive12 is blanked and that orig. redirect is restored. After that, set the parameter at the current template to Archive 22 and reduce the max size, by quite much. ∯WBGconverse 14:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have begun the process. I will likely have more questions for you. Meanwhile, please accept my grateful thanks for figuring out this mess. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I've made the new archives 16 through 21, moved all the files from archive12 fifty at a time to these, i.e. blanked archive12. In the config template: I've set: |maxarchivesize = 100K|counter = 22. Is this OK? Is 100K a good max size, or should I reduce it more? Also, do I need to create the blank archive 22? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Missed the ping. It's all sorted and the current parameters are quite optimal:-) ∯WBGconverse 07:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

MY BLOGS

Hi, You have listed 33 of my blogs on my Talk Page. Why? My blogs are outside your domain. This can be construed as willful malfeasance, though I'm sure you had some other reason in mind. Await reply.
--Moitraanak (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about your blogs. Where have I listed them? I may have used the expression generically in the sense of WP:NOTBLOG, but nothing more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moitraanak: Those blogs are all cited by you (not by fowler) and that's why they show up on your talk page. I've separated out a references section on your talk page so that this is clearer. Best. --regentspark (comment) 18:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Some IPs from Kuala Lumpur editing Indian topics

Please see this ANI complaint about a series of IPs working on Indian related articles. You crossed paths with one of them and you might have a proposal of what to do. Purely in point of time, User:Hammy0007 created their account at 01:57 on 23 April right after 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs) made their last edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert on India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

Hammy

Did you see his very first edit, 2 days ago. Perhaps a pity the request wasn't granted! Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a funny one! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes He has been banned. He did lots of vandalism. But what if he returns and start making disruptive edit again in different articles. For example ogive 2405:204:1118:A3E:F14A:794D:E46F:D73E (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Manchester guardian purana-qila1947.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manchester guardian purana-qila1947.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sherwani

Would you like to have a look at article about Sherwani. User Highpeaks35 is reverting my edit. The informations that i added were all supported by reliable sources and you can verify it. I will be thankful to you :) 2405:204:1118:A3E:352C:5ECA:4557:12F3 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: What a pleasant reminder and surprise. Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

British Raj

Seems I ran into a minor dispute reinstating one of your edits. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I seem to have become a marked man. The more neutral I become, the more enemies I gather. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mehrgarh

Please note that the image File:Mehrgarh_ruins.jpg which you removed from the Mehrgarh article, was uploaded by me from Wikimapia, where it has been available for 13 years under a Creative Commons 3.0 license [2]. Since your messages are generally inflammatory in nature, I am hereby asking not to ever post on my Talk Page again. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care how many years. The image is copyrighted. I will soon take it to AfD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence?

  • Tubslubeamorepersempre: "Ip biting, i see lots of improvements here, including links and corrections of grammatical errors"[3]
  • IP 79.75.50.221: "IP biting. take it to the talk and explain EACH edit. They are mostly improvements." [4]

Same editorial pattern as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: :) Hmm. Does seem like more than coincidence, but more evidence will probably be needed. Such sort eventually do themselves in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You guys are chasing me. Ask a CIU or open an investigation then.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Chasing you? No, I will be opening an WP:RFCN when I find the time. I haven't forgotten the the pathetic, puerile, obscenity of your username. Watch out, the pressure hasn't begun yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Mix that in with racist personal attacks as well [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Cute kitten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

On your comments on my talk page

My apologies - I should've checked the talk page on Jammu & Kashmir before making my changes. For what it's worth, I'd like to clarify that the reason I made my edit was because the then-current introduction line was confusing. I have no issues with J&K being characterised as disputed whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note

I realize that I may not be the best messenger at the moment but can you please walk away from the heated back-and-forth at Talk:History of India for now? Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry. I have no longer any interest in editing that page. I tried earnestly in 2007 (as did Nichalp); I tried again this year. I should have learned my lesson sooner. I should have known better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I've made a more sober effort on that talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, As your name suggests you seems to be an alien, so better try to explore more about your country and do not interfere in the matter of our country, have you ever read history of India? Prs1hg (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a happy kitten. It's tail is pointing up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious violence in India

I am too busy at the moment to look into the changes made here; could you spare a moment? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You should realize that I've spent days in trying to edit and read many of the sources, took me many edits which you thoughtlessly undo. I can't keep seeking your permission at every turn. But I'll explain.
There was a claim of Hindus being burnt under Lodi dynasty for their faith. Killing for faith I guess is true, but I do not see it anything attributed to Bahlul Lodi about such an action targeting someone for their faith. Only Sikandar is said to kill someone for their faith (page 240). The Cambridge History of India. W Haig, The Cambridge History of India. Chapter 9 runs from pages 229 to 250.
Aurangzeb's war killed "4.6 million Hindus" in Aurangzeb's invasions of Deccan, it had been stated here. This is an untruth, it is 4.6 million people https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q5w9qmd1UeMC&pg=PP113.
If you read the footnote of that death toll, it lists it as a combination of 2 million civilians and 2.6 million Mughal soldiers (100,000 soldiers killed on an annual average for 26 years). http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1419/95/1419952710631.pdf Go read page 246 of this pdf, since the Google Books only contain some pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SainiRori (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. The problem with that page is that the ancient-, medieval- and early modern sections were never meant to be described, nor emphasized, in such detail. The lead, which is a summary of the article, reflects that subordinate status of such material, to the point of being nonexistent. Old claims, especially in a largely ahistorical culture such as India's, are usually reliant on oblique warrants, and sometimes plain hearsay. The expressions, "religious violence," "ethnic cleansing," even "genocide," are usually applied reliably to modern forms of violence. In the coming days, as and when I find time, I shall be removing most of the pre-modern material, leaving in only a short history, sourced to well-known textbooks. Thanks for indirectly informing me that the article had strayed so far from its original mandate. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but, trying to find more about the 4,6 million deaths attributed to Aurangzeb, Persecution of Hindus came across making the same inflammatory attempt about him. It is a post that has zero connection to any persecution. It has another source in form of Paul Joseph https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-Nw0DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT1091&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, a sociologist who doesn't cite where this estimate originated. But it seems sure it is the same toll as that of Matthew White of 2 million civilians who died of famine and 2.6 million Mughal soldiers. I've thought about removing it but that article has the same problem as Religious violence in India.

New users and IPs

I appreciate your frustration with new editors and/or IPs stumbling around pages whose history and source material they are poorly acquainted with. However, given the community's current stance on this, I think it's likely that if you use an account's age and experience as a reason to revert them (as opposed to the substance of their edit) it's likely to be used as a stick to beat you with in the future; so, in the interests of your own participation and the health of the pages you monitor, I may I respectfully ask you to confine those summaries to content and policy? Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the reminder. You are right, of course. It's just that with Wikipedia where it is in its evolution, I often have the strong suspicion that these IPs or "new" users, with redlinked user pages—which when they are not redlinked, have one word or two, or are redirected to their talk pages, on which they never reply to others' posts, only blank them periodically—are in fact old editors whose invariant biases and compulsions have caused them to fall afoul of Wikipedia rules. How can it be, I find myself thinking, that innocent new users have collectively stumbled on this strategy of never showing any tell-tale signs of personal style? How can it be that they have also unerringly all arrived at editing boldly, even edit warring, but keeping their edit summaries opaque? It is usually with such users who lack a true new user's hesitation or vulnerability that I react impatiently. That is not an excuse, but the context of my errors, for which I am deeply sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I share your concerns with many of our "new" editors; indeed I have long been of the opinion that one of the most difficult aspects of editing ARBIPA pages is the number of editors whose edits show evidence of POV-pushing, but whose activity is too low to invite sanction. The phenomenon you mention is related, I think. It's somewhat unfair of the community to expect us to continue to treat IPs and new users with levels of courtesy and decorum they do not extend to us; but nonetheless, that is the structure we have created, so thanks for taking my message in the spirit it was intended. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Epic Barnstar
For the immense improvements made on South Asian history related article, most notably on Mughal Empire. Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

About Article Lead

Hi @Fowler&fowler: since you are an experience editor I came to you for help. User Tubslubeamorepersempre and Gridlust had added lot of information in the lead section of the articles Bangladesh, West Bengal and Bengal. I am not sure how far those information's are accurate/correct, although they have provided source, nevertheless I still think the lead hasn't been properly written as per Wikipedia standard. I am new to Wikipedia so, don't have the expertise of writing an important articles like these. Please help make necessary changes as per your knowledge and expertise. Thank You--Aakanksha55 (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey you are comeonduckling or this. --Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Tubslub, I don't have any idea what are you talking about anyway, hey @Fowler&fowler: please kindly look into the matter which I have mentioned in my above statement. You are an excellent writer I have seen the Mughal Empire article its written perfectly, the lead section of the above articles are written horrible, not as per Wikipedia standard. Its looking more like advertisement or promotion of the article especially the extreme elaboration of the economy in the lead. Cheer--Aakanksha55 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

LOBS

Fowler, you misunderstood what I stated for Abecedare's queries (I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here). I only responded to the comments he stated as a start. I will get to fixing this by this week's end as I have been a little busy (only limiting my edits to reverting vandalism and looking up on my pending FACs), please be patient. As for poor English, I would appreciate if you really did help me out on Legend of Bhagat Singh's plot section. We can work on this together by breaking it step by step. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No probs. What does LOBS mean btw? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Oh that. LOBS is short form for Legend of Bhagat Singh. Well, to be honest here, I never expected a detailed query like this to come out of the blue. But I do understand why as the film is about one of, if not, the most beloved revolutionaries of India. I could use some help with the book listed on the talk page though as I can't access it. I really could use all the help I can get and help improve the article more as that is what Wikipedia is indeed all about.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I really hope the article does not go through substantial reworking, especially since it just passed FAC and made it to the main page. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't attempt to play Wikilawyer with me. I know poor writing when I see it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I never did, Fowler. I was merely asking that we work on this together step by step to solve your queries.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, that was a response to the post by Kailash29792, not to yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Kurmi Caste Communit and diaspora section

Its second time that you have deleted the entire section. The Banglapedia deletion is understandable but what about other things that are present in the section.

You deleted the subcaste information about the kurmi caste despite the fact that it was well sourced from a book. you deleted the marriage trend that has started taking place. it too had a refrence from a reputable news organization. News from reputable souces can be used as source as per wikipedia rules. if news items from reliable source stops being used then half of wikipedia would be empty.

please explain your actions in details. And make appropriate changes. --NikhilPatelReal (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Kurmis, a traditional non-elite tiller caste in the eastern Gangetic plain, not about the Patidars. If you had something about the Kurmis, cited to scholarly sources, it would be a different thing. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

the other party marrying the patidar is a kurmi. both are endogamous castes hence it is a new tradition for both of them hence it deserved to be mentioned. also reputed news organization had been used for refrence. hence i dont find any reason for deleting it. so why not restore it?

ALSO, You deleted the subcaste information about the kurmi caste despite the fact that it was well sourced from a book. why did you do it? --NikhilPatelReal (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

By its own admission, the Patidar-Kurmi marriages are minuscule in numbers. There is nothing there to make a new section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I do understand that the marriages are small in number but you have to notice the change in trend. The original custom of both castes approve only of endogamy. this new trend of patidar kurmi marriage has started due to the belief that patidar and kurmis have same origin. hence such change in custom should be mentioned. it was important thats why it made headlines of a reputable news paper and i think writing about that marriage is not wrong. so should i edit it? ALSO, You deleted the subcaste information about the kurmi caste despite the fact that it was well sourced from a book. why did you do it? i have asked 2 times why did you delete the sub caste information? should i restore it?--NikhilPatelReal (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on Golden Temple

May i know why you reverted my edit 😊 :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/907807072 I added an important info regarding architectural style of that monument. Yes it was lead worthy. It should appear on lead. If you think something is wrong then make correction or copy edit. But remove it. Thank you2405:204:138F:7D98:34FE:26DB:734D:9817 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead, per WP guidlines is a summary style restatement of article content. It cannot be edited directly with new content. The architecture is already described in Golden_Temple#Description. It is that section that needs to be briefly, but comprehensively, summarized in the lead. The lead in such an instance does not even need sources. Please also read WP:Lead fixation. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ack

A quick acknowledgement that I saw your ping from yesterday. Will read through the discussion about the edits to the lede and later section, and provide my 2c in about eight hours.
PS: with regards to this edit, pings don't work unless they are accompanied by a signature! Abecedare (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that about the pings. Thanks for that too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
On a quick look I don't see any substantive problems with your Version 3. And some changes I positively like eg the description of how Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam and Christianity entered India. I have a few quibbles, eg, is there a way to avoid repeated "by xxxx"...; did Christianity and Islam enter on India's "western coast" as the current sentence seems to (inadvertently?) imply... etc But I'd like to let the text and my thoughts percolate before I post on the article talkpage; don't expect you to respond before then. This is just a heads-up to assure you that your edits/pings are not being ignored. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the "by ..." is overdone. I think Christianity and Islam did arrive first on India's west coast, or southwestern coast. I will look for some sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
SeePrange, Sebastian R. (2018), Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast, Cambridge University Press, pp. 2–, ISBN 978-1-108-42438-7 for Islam. I think this sentence can be about the diverse culture of India's west coast. The Proposal 3 version doesn't say "first arrived," only "arrived." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't bother delving into my above points too deeply yet. I myself am not sure if they first arrived via the north-western land route or the western sea-route and just want to be sure that whatever we say is intentional and not just a unplanned quirk of the sentence construction. Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
On another reading I see what you mean by "I think this sentence can be about the diverse culture of India's west coast." That certainly makes it accurate; will have to think about whether its due (or if casual readers are liable to miss the point, as I did :-) ). Again, will let it all sink in and will post better considered comments on the article talk page, perhaps sometime tomorrow. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, whether these traders beat Mohammad bin Qasim, who arrived in Sind, within a century of the prophet's death, is not clear. Here is Christianity: Andrade, Nathanael J. (2018), The Journey of Christianity to India in Late Antiquity: Networks and the Movement of Culture, Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–, ISBN 978-1-108-32151-8 The due part applies also to Judaism and Christianity, but those have been in the lead for more than 12 years, and have been the subject of renewed consensus. I was thinking that this is a nod to the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea networks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Please see if your comments were addressed, strike them out if they were. But is that all the comments you got? Or is it just the tip of the iceberg? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead. Can you please check and comment on the FAC page? --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't got time to read further, never mind. Can you at least see if the comments you made were addressed? Please, I have had enough of cliffhanging for over a week. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
And another week has passed. I'm not forcing you to make more comments; just asking you to see if your existing ones have been solved and strike them out if they're solved. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Kashmiri

Hi, Fowler. Could you please review this edit and see if it stands to be alright? --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A matter at VPP that may interest you

Given your past involvement in a dispute relating to the Bengal famine of 1943 article, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:JAN / WikiJournals. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, @Sitush: Just took a look at the various discussions. And now I have a headache, which at the very least needs a cup of strong coffee. Like you, I'm amazed that all this has been happening behind our backs. Very bizarre at first glance and antipodal to the Wiki spirit. I will read the discussion in a few days again when I'm feeling less tired. And then make a post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please forgive me for crashing in here; won't do it again. I have replied at the relevant forum. I stopped my attempts to get BF43 into JAN because I too was uncertain that JAN is in line with WP's various philosophies etc. Sorry again, sorry you have a headache, and best wishes in all things. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Sorry to bother you again (that's why I did not approach you for almost two weeks). In that time, the article has gone through great rewriting, would you like to re-check and comment? If you don't want to, never mind. At least I hope you are not opposing the FAC. Three support votes against an undecided verdict should not fail the FAC, I think. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Brahmin diet

History of Brahmin diet concerns me, but I haven't the expertise to check it over, nor the time to accumulate said expertise; would you mind taking a look? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also Indian vegetarian cuisine...Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sure will take a look, though I don't know much about the topic myself. Hopefully by the time I'm done expanding the cuisine section in India I'll know a little more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

You uplifted my hopes only to bring them down again. The article having gone through multiple GOCE edits, I believed the prose significantly improved. I got the key pages from the director's memoirs translated , but if it is illegible, I'll give you a typed version. Besides, I re-watched the movie on Sunday via Prime Video, and felt the Wiki plot was more than 90% correct, just some statements needed to be placed in chronological order. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please post at FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Be happy! Long Live Lord Fowler! --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I want to solve all issues before I attempt another FAC. I rewrote the development section with help yesterday. Now where all do you want me to remove Mahendran's book as a source from the article? If a statement is available only in that book and nowhere else, you cannot call that OR worth removing. Maybe I can write, "In his 2013 book Cinemavum Naanum, Mahendran said...". The Frontline article is not a carbon copy of the book in English, and has maybe one or two factual errors. I believed primary sources only fail in places like box office coverage. The book does not lack complete third-party coverage, here's proof. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please post only on Talk:Mullum Malarum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Then please reply to what I wrote there. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

India scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the India article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for October 2, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Great news F&f. Congratulations on a job well done! --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Thanks Jim. Who wrote that? It looks pretty good! My compliments to the author. Will take a closer look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations from me, too. If I may make so bold, though, I get the feeling the blurb concentrates too much on recent geopolitical stuff at the cost of material on pre-1947 history (in particular, I'd prefer to lose the stuff about strategic importance and such that verges on cruft). I'm happy to take a hack at it if you would like me too, but you're considerably better qualified. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me come up with something and then compare. Will post within a day. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Normally someone making a TFAR request includes a blurb in their submission, but you obviously didn't realise that so I used the blurb from last time around updated a bit to reflect changes since. The main thing is to stick to the 1000 characters. Also pinging Dank as our blurb expert so he's aware of this discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, great Jimfbleak. I will write something in the next 24 hours, and then others can whip it into shape. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:,@Dank:, @Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark: I have rewritten Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2019, giving it a more historical and geological slant, in keeping with Vanamonde's concern. The photo too is of an inhabitant of India the arrival of whose ancestors predated the human by aeons. I have also made the connection with Gandhi's 150th, which I hope readers will get. The character count utility says 992 characters, but it doesn't include the photo caption. Feel free to alter it in whichever encyclopedic manner you wish. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Current character counter is 789; it has to be between 925 and 1025. I can expand it if you like. Pinging David Levy about the image. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do expand it, and improve it too. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work, @Dank:. Two minor quibbles. You might want to change it to:

"Modern humans first migrated into India the subcontinent over 55,000 years ago, and settled life emerged in the western margins of the Indus River basin 9,000 years ago. Second only to Africa in human genetic diversity, the subcontinent India is home to a diverse mix of languages, religions, and cultures. After 190 years in the British Empire, India gained its independence in 1947. Mahatma Gandhi, born 2 October 1869, is widely considered to be the founder of the modern state nation."

The reason is that the Indus lies mostly in Pakistan, and Gandhi was determinedly anti-state. He use to be more commonly called the Father of the Nation, but that sounds a little quaint now to me. But I'll leave that to your (and others') better judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Perhaps change "in the British Empire" to "[[of British rule"?--regentspark (comment) 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
"rule" is accurate in some ways and overstates in other ways. It's up to you guys. Making the suggested changes now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Last night, my "diversity ... diverse" seemed okay, but now it seems repetitive ... feel free to tweak that. I was able to keep just about everything you did, F&F ... great work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I think British Empire is OK. Large parts of India were directly ruled by the British in the British Raj (1858 to 1947), but British India's boundaries were constituted earlier during Company rule in India (1757 to 1857). It is that period of 190 years we are referencing. Both were in the British Empire. I tweaked it to replace the diversity-diverse bit with diversty-large, and a few other minor edits. Thanks again Dank! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

India

Hello:

I have now finished my copy edit of India. I went back and had another look at the lead and made a minor change to an overly long sentence. Given the scope of the article I think it does an excellent job of summarising its contents.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Twofingered Typist:,
Thank you, in turn, for making the prose shine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Font size

You need to read MOS:FONTSIZE. Bazza (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No you need to read it. It is allowed for standardized templates. I will change it from px to percentage for increased clarity for readers who need it. Please don't come tramping through a Featured Article again. This is not the place to post your concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith, and a little less ownership. I did not tramp through a Featured Article. I undid errors introduced by you when you used an absolute font size against WP's WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines. Please point me to the guideline which says absolute font sizes can be used for standardized templates (or anything else). MOS:SMALLTEXT states: Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly, and are usually done with automated page elements such as headings, table headers, and standardized templates. Size changes are specified as a percentage of the original font size and not as an absolute size in pixels or point size. This improves a{ccessibility for visually impaired users who use a large default font size. MOS:FONTSIZE also states: Size changes are specified as a percentage of the original font size and not as an absolute size in pixels or point size. I could have reverted all the changes you'd made previously but noticed you'd also introduced content changes at the same time, so chose to leave a polite pointer for you here. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered and just reverted the whole lot. Bazza (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I made a good-faith error. I'm trying to bend over backward to accommodate the concerns about font size and unreadability on the article's talk page. You should have pointed the error out on the talk page of the article, or here. WP:OWN#Featured_articles says that clearly. I would have done the reverting myself, as I did after I figured out what the MOS text was saying. When you make an edit and speak to me through edit summaries, it doesn't help anyone, as I have no idea how much you have reverted, unless I pay more than the usually warranted attention to your edits When your edit comes out of left field, it is even harder, as I have no idea who you are, what your intentions are, etc., especially when there are editors of all POVs champing at the bit to have a go at me. So, please continue to cast a gimlet eye on my edits. I welcome the attention. But do so by making a post on one of the two talk pages. I'm not blowing you off, am I? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC) @Bazza 7: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for asking (that was an amusing piece of WP:ENGVAR: [7], but I think I understood your meaning correctly!): I am sure you get annoyed by all the other people who try and mess up your article, but you should remember that most Wikipedia editors (like me) only make changes which correct errors introduced earlier, and so are undeserving of being labelled tramplers, or accused of not following WP guidelines. All that said, I think you are making work for yourself by fiddling with the standard presentation settings which WP templates automatically do for you. There is a danger in using specific font and other presentation customisations: you do not know what the reader's device is set up for nor what their reading requirements are. For example, I know some people who prefer to read serif text, but you have explicitly stopped them from doing this by picking sans-serif for specific pieces of text. In the case of changing font sizes I would recommend, in order of preference: a) not setting font size and family at all; b) only changing font size (not family), and then only using WP's "small", "large", and similar templates. If you are challenged by others about how things look, simply state that WP's standard set up is designed to optimise legibility whilst maintaining accessibility; if people really want to alter how they see things, then they can use their own personalised stylesheet to change fonts, colours, etc. To summarise: leave presentation to WP's automation, concentrate on the content, which you seem rather good at. Hope this helps. Bazza (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: :) Had no idea. I meant the sense 4a below, which I just realized goes back a long way. So spoken, used, and worked on has been the English language:

Blow off, transitive, sense 4a, from Webster's Unabridged

blow off verb

intransitive verb 1: to let steam escape through a passage provided for the purpose <the engine is blowing off> 2 slang a : complain, gripe <always blowing off about his superiors> b : to speak earnestly and forthrightly

transitive verb 1 a : to empty (a boiler) of water through the blowoff pipe while under steam pressure b : to eject (steam, water, or sediment) from a boiler 2: to relieve (something, such as emotional tension) by vigorous speech or action <all the repressed eagerness of his young years must now be blown off — Donn Byrne> <having blown off his indigestion>

3: to clean (a dusty place) with an air blast <all looms are blown off three times each week — Textiles Industries>

4 a : to refuse to take notice of, honor, or deal with : ignore <decided to blow off two billion viewers — Harry Homburg> b : to end a relationship with

5: to outperform in a contest 6: to fail to attend or show up for <blew off an official dinner>

— blow off steam: to relieve physical or emotional tension, ill temper, or resentment by vigorous activity or talk; specifically : to talk freely on the topic of one's grievance

First Known Use of BLOW OFF 1631 (transitive sense 4a)

Thanks btw for taking to the time to write such helpful suggestions. Will remove Sans-serif. The only problem is that I need a size of around 110%. The closest canned font seems to be "larger." But it is too big for captions of images and figures. Compare: This is larger This is 110% Do you have any solutions? Can I keep the %, given that MOS itself sings its praises? The personalized style sheet etc. I'll read about later. My early morning brain, before coffee, is unequal to its comprehension. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverts in Muhammad III of Granada ‎

Thank you for your edits to Muhammad III of Granada. I've explained in the edit summary the reason I disagreed with them. Of course, both of us will prefer our own version, but the guideline in WP:BRD encourages us to keep the status quo while reaching consensus, rather than restoring an edit already reverted by another editor. HaEr48 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate source for IVC article ?

Hi fowler, can you look into the reliability of following book on IVC? I found it at WorldCat:
Walking with the Unicorn
2018
Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law, Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 244 Palazzo Baleani Roma, RM 00186
ISBN 978 1 78491 917 7 / 978 1 78491 918 4 (e-pdf)

It's a large collection of papers on IVC on a wide array of topics.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:India

I'm not impressed at all with your behaviour there. I've removed the article from my watchlist. It's a mess, and desperately needs FAR. Next time I see you behaving this way it's straight to WP:AN3. --The Huhsz (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Huhsz: I'm sorry to have reverted you on India, and I empathize with your sense of outrage, but the longstanding convention on that page is to discuss all edits on the talk page first, other than trivial ones that is. As you will have seen in the new section opened yesterday on Talk:India, editors make proposals for edits, discuss them, attempt to arrive at a consensus edit, and then implement it. As for my reverts, I'm copying what I has posted on Talk:India.

The comment adverb, "however," or the adjective "notable," are not redundant words in the English language. They express contrast, note asides, or single out aspects that are striking or deserving of our attention. They are semantic aids, very much a part of encyclopedic prose. You can't en masse employ ellipsis of syntax and sense, straining the tolerance of natural language, not to mention trap a well-meaning, longstanding, competent, editor who is attempting to do his duty to keep an article on Wikipedia's main page free from unencyclopedic edits. If the powers-that-be on Wikipedia seriously want to take me to the woodshed for a defense of Wikipedia ideals, I'll take the sentence. ... Please also note this note from the GOCE coordinator.

Again, I welcome your contributions, but like all such to that page, they need to be discussed on the talk page first. Some sections, such as government, economy, industry, demography, and some sub-sections of culture, which were not written by me, indeed written anonymously, do require updating. This has been mentioned by editors on Talk:India. But proposers there are many. "Implementers" and "closers" there are few. If you would like help in a rewrite of the Industry subsection, for example, it would be a great help. Please raise the topic on Talk:India. Indeed WP:FAR itself states in its first step: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page." The article is not ready for a formal FAR. An editor did take it to FAR in January, but to no avail. What people often do not realize about an FAR, is that the burden to revise the article falls on the nominator. India is one of the most worked on topics in scholarship—its history, economy, demographics, and culture. Managing such complexity is no mean feat. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your cordial reply. There is no need for you to repeat what you have said elsewhere, as I have already read it.
  • "however... [is] not [a] redundant word(s) in the English language I never said it was. It's a clunky way to signal contrast; better writers will often let the contrast stand for itself, or else use the shorter "but".
  • very much a part of encyclopedic prose Hmm, you might want to check out Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. It's honestly better encyclopedic prose to reduce use of words like this. And of course MoS compliance is a FA criterion.
  • As for "notable", what does that even mean? The most important? According to whom? Can that be verified? It's expressing an opinion, making a value judgement, in Wikipedia's voice. It should be done with enormous care.
  • I welcome your contributions - I'd believe that more if you didn't undo them. WP:ROWN is an interesting essay explaining why one should avoid reverting whenever possible.
  • like all such to that page, they need to be discussed on the talk page first No, no, a million times no. That is the spirit of WP:OWN. As I said, OWN#FA is not a get-out-of-jail card for endless reverts. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the article is far from being perfect.
  • I don't particularly care what our article on India looks like, but I'm ashamed that it went through TFA with spelling errors on it. You probably should be too, if you're going to take on this mantle of ownership. Don't; let others improve it, please. If people are agitating for a FAR, that should be a sign it isn't as good as it should be. Let it grow and change. It needs it. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear The Huhsz, Here is the story of the "FAR" attempt in January 2019. As I have suggested on the Talk:India page, why don't you attempt to rewrite a subsection? How about India#Society, which is more interesting than the "Industry?" There are plenty people who will help you with the sourcing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Why don't I? Since you ask, mainly because of the behaviour on your part that I am complaining about. I very much doubt that I will do that. I don't intend to return to that article as long as you are rudely reverting errors back into it. Please tell me you at least fixed the "center"s? Enjoy your break. --The Huhsz (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Vacation

To: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93: @Doug Weller: @Abecedare: @Sitush: @Bishonen: @Dank: @Moxy: @Johnbod: @MilborneOne: @Kautilya3: @Twofingered Typist: @Ms Sarah Welch: @Lingzhi2: @Ceoil: @DeluxeVegan: @Tamravidhir: @Laser brain: After the India TFA I do feel a little tired, and I will be taking a three-month vacation. (This year I managed to last a full nine months on Wikipedia.) I wanted to thank you all for making my time here enjoyable. I plan to be back sometime early in January 2020. Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to you! Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy your rest. Have a 台灣啤酒 (or if you're brave, a slug of 高粱酒) on me! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy your time off. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Vow, have a nice vacation, Fowler. Well-deserved. Thanks for all your hard work, especially with the India page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all. Also adding @Fylindfotberserk: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy a nice vacation . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy everything f&f!--regentspark (comment) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy the break. Hope the pre main page nonsense didn't tire you out. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed ... there have been a bunch of TFAs recently where people felt like toes were being stepped on at the last minute ... I'm in the process of suggesting changes, and I plan to mention India as one of many blurbs where the process wasn't ideal ... if you'd prefer I not do that while you're away, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 09:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy your vacation, but - not knowing this - I just mentioned you in the DYK nom for Bengal famine of 1943. Perhaps the GAR will take all the time, let's see. Just fyi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you. The DYK sounds good. I don't have to be around when it features on the front page. Thank you for mentioning me. The work, though, is mostly @Lingzhi2:'s.

@Ceoil: @Dank: Sorry, I should have been more careful in choosing my words. I didn't mean that the TFA process tired me out; rather, the process was the nine-month one of improving the India page, and even more so its related articles, many of which involved prolonged conflicts with POV-warriors of considerable Wiki-lawyerly skills, and familiarly old animosities. The TFA process, for sure, can be improved, but, all things considered, it wasn't so bad. (So thank you Dank and Jimfbleak.) The blurb certainly improved as a result of the contribution of various people: you yourself Dank, Kevin McE, and @Amakuru:. I have to apologize to Amakuru for losing my temper. Summing up, the forthcoming improvements at TFA will certainly be welcome. I trust you Dank. My presence is not needed. Thanks all for the kind words. Signing off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You presence may not be needed, but is always welcome; to spell it out, you are unusually competent, which should matter more than it does IRL. Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Good morning Fowler, thanks for the ping, and you'll be missed here, I hope you enjoy the wiki break and are able to come back refreshed, to contribute more excellent material. Hopefully there are no hard feelings about the India TFA issues, my only goal was to try to make the main page text be as accurate and polished as possible, I was not in any way implying the article itself was anything other than excellent. I also do not at all endorse the comments in the section above this o e, which seem to be about creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than engaging in constructive article improvement. All the best, and I look forward to seeing you around again.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Keeping the articles on India (and a few other countries) well-sourced and neutral is probably the hardest job anyone does on Wikipedia. Great work! Many thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Have a good break. @Dan: I think you're right. Sadly I've decided to withdraw from a lot of them, it's wasting a lot of my time I'd rather divert to other purposes. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Have a good break, Fowler! Thank you for the ping and for all your hard work. I would also be going into hibernation mode for a few months starting soon. Hoping to see forward to your brilliance post your break. Take care and have fun! Tamravidhir (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Long overdue

This editor won the Million Award for bringing India to Featured Article status.

--regentspark (comment) 15:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)\

I echo that. Thanks for all your tireless work on this key article! El_C 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
A colossal achievement, and to be held up as a shining light of what the project can achieve. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you RP! Thank you all for the kind words! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir

RE:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revocation_of_the_special_status_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir&type=revision&diff=926168159&oldid=926167635

Mate, I'm was literally writing a reply to both you and the other person in the another tab... --Edit-pi (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Bengal famine of 1943

On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bengal famine of 1943, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Bengal famine of 1943 was denied by authorities, news reports with images of the victims in English-language papers made it known internationally? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bengal famine of 1943), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for what did for this result of a giant effort! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Very welcome, and thanks in turn. I'm glad it is getting the attention it deserves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Re Deletion on Indus Valley Civilization page

Your recently deleted the "Genetics" addition on the Indus Valley Civilization page which included two 2019 population genetics studies on the Indus Valley people (I added it back). Was this a mistake? Why was this deleted? It seems very relevant and of interest in relation to the Indus valley civilization and its people. And I'm afraid I did not understand your edit note. In many articles about civilizations and population groups, genetic studies are included where relevant; it seems no less appropriate on the Indus Valle Civilization page. Skllagyook (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed material that is not in consonance with Wikipedia rules and regulations for high-level articles. I did so as the lead contributor to that page who made his first edit in 2006, and nearly 500 thereafter; in other words, someone who knows the lay of the land, not as an assertion of ownership. This is not the page for that discussion. Please establish a consensus on the talk page of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal images... Safe?

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Vaibhavafro 💬 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it really safe to release your personal image into the public domain? I know you might not be living in Somalia or Syria, but still... Do you feel comfortable with this?— Vaibhavafro 💬 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: Nothing untoward has happened thus far. Have my fingers crossed.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
yes, I was planning to upload one image (maybe next year). That’s why I asked.— Vaibhavafro 💬 05:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Infact, I had uploaded one personal image sometime ago but got it deleted after same concerns as above. I had earlier read the negative experiences of DiplomatTesterMan on his userpage. I apologise for offending you with this "somewhat bizarre concern". Maybe this question looks bizarre to you since you might be active on social media; I am not. Apart from having a twitter account (to occasionally troll people and) to keep up with UnknownCommando and other Indian defence forums, I think that shoshan media is bulls**t; that's why I was a bit uncomfortable with uploading personal stuff and hence I had asked you. Best regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 06:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. All pictures I have uploaded on Wikipedia illustrate some aspect of a Wikipedia page. None are personal pictures such as in the example you give above. I can't advise you there from personal experience, but I would imagine that the Wikipedia community—being a pretty laid back one, united mostly around goals of establishing and maintaining rigor in encyclopedic writing—would not hound you in any vengeful way in real life. Besides, if someone did that, they would be banned from WP. So, I wouldn't worry. But it is really your call. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Since you tagged me Vaibhavafro, I might as well add a comment. I sort of get what you mean I guess and where this is coming from. I am not sure what I had written on my userpage about all this (do remind me), but I do know that I had once asked peacemaker67 (the admin of project milhist) about this here. Even DBigXray had given some advice on that thread linked. Though this deals more with the larger personal identity of a person, it sort of covers the personal images aspect you are raising. As fowler mentions humoursouly - "Nothing untoward has happened thus far. Have my fingers crossed. :)" DTM (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Vaibhavafro, oh I guess you were referring to my real world identity note... DTM (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for taking the time out to reply. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Very welcome. Thank you DTM for posting that link with posts of peacemaker67. His caution about using third-party sources in contentious topics involving India and Pakistan is an important statement of WP NPOV, one which I endorse and try to follow in my editing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Typo?

I think you typed "~" five times instead of four so your comment isn't signed on Talk:Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir :-) — Vaibhavafro 💬 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
And to you @Johnbod:. Beautiful painting. May your Holiday Season be a beautiful one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Lashkari

Till early this year, the Urdu article had no mention of Lashkari. Then it was added in this edit as an alternative name of Urdu. Since then, Lashkari has spread its tentacles into the article and has also appeared in the disambiguation page Lashkari. All of this appears to be the work of one editor and I'm wondering whether this is a case of pushing a pov of some sort or whether all this is genuine. Could you take a look? --regentspark (comment) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Well, I checked one of the 19th century dictionaries, Platts. It does say, in its entry on Lashkari," لشکر lashkar (p. 957) ...A trull, a strumpet: — lashkar-kā, adj. (f. -kī), Of or belonging to an army or a camp; military (syn. lashkarī): — lashkar-kī bolī, s.f. 'Camp-language,' a mixed language; Urdū: " So, I'm guessing there is something there. Btw, the old English word (now obsolete) Lascar is the Anglicized version of Lashkar. I will look at the Urdu article tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler/Archive_22&oldid=1140610602"