User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Orphaned non-free image File:Herbert Reiner Jr Obit Front Pages.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Herbert Reiner Jr Obit Front Pages.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) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian National Congress

Hi, are you still in process of improving this article ?? I was about to edit the article but then I saw your message so stopped.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 21:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot. Please do, but keep my concerns in mind. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:King thibaws guards1885.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:King thibaws guards1885.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Cattle theft in India

Hi Fowler. Would you please not cast aspersions (as in this edit summary)? Without evidence, they don't help settle disputes on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize RP. It is just that I was scandalized by someone removing sourced content that was the subject of consensus presided over by an admin. But I do understand I should have kept my cool. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You misrepresent or inadvertently misunderstand admin Vanamonde, and it would be best if you leave it to Vanamonde to review the sources, discuss/explain it on the talk page and revise. It is not NPOV if we allow sources with a 'passing mention' for one side/POV and disallow the same for 'passing or more substantial mention' for the other side/POV. It does not matter which side it is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No I don't misrepresent anything. In that sentence, Vanamonde said what he said only about alleged smuggling of cattle from India to Bangladesh. He made no comments about "passing mention" in general and we are not free to interpret him as such. He wasn't saying, "When I am not around, go ahead and remove my edits and use my own words in one context to justify their removal in another on the grounds that all contexts are equal and their equality irredeemably NPOV. Use any freewheeling parsing of my English sentences, however eccentric, to interpret the scope of my remarks, and apply them retroactively to content that is the subject of previous consensus."

Please take this to ANI @Ms Sarah Welch: and allow me to deconstruct your edits where there are many more watchers than are on my humble talk page. Why are you wasting my time here? Seriously. Best regards and good night, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

F&f: That alleged "deconstruction" has been flawed OR and strange reconstruction of sources by you. On rest, if you post on my talk page as you did today, expect me to post on yours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Ms Sarah Welch: "on rest!" Hmm I haven't happened on that expression since I heard some PBJ (or is it BJP?) candidates use it in the 2014 Indian general election. At first I thought they had spent time in Russia and had begun to drop their articles. But an Indian linguist told me that "rest" for "balance," now archaic in Standard AmE or BE, is very much current in Indian English. Thanks for using delightfully quaint English and expanding our horizons. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• That reminds me of how I used to talk. I mean F&F, not SW. Since I'm here, I hope you'll drop the cattle theft topic and go to something with a bit more social impact. A famine, for example. According to you, no one is allowed to move it into PR or FAC without your permission. At the same time you've set the condition for granting your permission to be some sort of alleged massive "rewrite" done by you and only you (as dictated by you), and you aren't doing a thing. That is a nearly perfect plan for preventing any move the article to FAC with your overriding editing control. In fact, the plan deserves applause. I don't think I've ever seen anything so well played.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi: For reasons beyond my control, I'm still away from home. (See my editing times.) I have already told you that I am reading the hard copy sources I have. Except for a couple of days I spent drawing graphs in the Cattle theft article, I haven't really spent much time on them. I have also already told you that the article has issues of source misrepresentation, extensive use of one primary source, the British-India Famine Enquiry Commission Report, whose sentences are supported with a changeable cast of secondary sources, and widespread sentence-synthesis (in which one sentence is attributed to six sources with many page numbers cited for each source, and no one source drawing the conclusion of the synthesis). The Famine Commission Report, moreover, even dissenting notes and description of witness evidence, have appeared in the article in monotone equalizing descriptive prose, giving the reader no clue as to what is a conclusion drawn by a secondary source and what a witness statement. If I am having difficulties figuring out how to best to proceed, how do you think an average reader will fare? Again, I have not forgotten that article. I know you have worked hard on the problem. Please be patient. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Months of Vandalism problem

@Fowler&fowler: Hello. On Kannada people page, past few months there has been various vandalism.

I have tried to clear this vandalism as best as i can today, restoring everything to it's original reliable govt sources and books.

These vandalism editor uses these sources : Blogspots, Vistawide & ethnologue websites, none of them are reliable sources. I have removed them today.

They also add personal opinions/ethoncentric views due to current politics (anti-hindi sentiment) in the state. An "Economic" section was entirely unrelated (mostly about bangalore city) which mentioned how Kannadigas were "forced (without referendum or voting) integration with Union of India" etc. with source linked to news (not found in news/source itself) but a personal opinion of editor. I have also removed it today.

Please lock this page and stop further vandalism, until elections/state politics are over. Thank you. 117.192.217.224 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Aksai Chin

How was what I wrote POV-pushing? Please inform. Are you referencing the fact that I wrote it was part of China's Hotan prefecture in the lead sentence? Other disputed territories such as Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh state they are Indian territory before mentioning their disputed status. In fact, mentioning its disputed status first, rather than the political reality that it is under Chinese administration downplays Chinese suzerainty, which in fact is POV itself unless a similar approach is taken to disputed territories under Indian (or anyone else's) control.Willard84 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See Britannnica Aksai Chin: "Aksai Chin, Chinese (Pinyin) Aksayqin, portion of the Kashmir region, at the northernmost extent of the Indian subcontinent in south-central Asia. It constitutes nearly all the territory of the Chinese-administered sector of Kashmir that is claimed by India to be part of the Ladakh area of Jammu and Kashmir state." There is an encyclopedic convention. We can't make up our own. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See Britannica Jammu and Kashmir (state, India): "Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947."

See Britannica Arunachal Pradesh (state, India): "Arunachal Pradesh, state of India. It constitutes a mountainous area in the extreme northeastern part of the country and is bordered by the kingdom of Bhutan to the west, the Tibet Autonomous Region of China to the north, Myanmar (Burma) and the Indian state of Nagaland to the south and southeast, and the Indian state of Assam to the south and southwest. The capital is Itanagar." No mention in the lead paragraph, or for that matter the next (which is as far as I read) of any dispute. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so what did I write that was POV pushing? You're referencing the style of Brittanica.com, but it doesnt actually show that I was pushing a POV. The region is still administered as part of China's Hotan prefecture regardless of what britannica.com says. And the fact that it is disputed was listed in the very next sentence. Willard84 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Wait"? You appear 60 hours after I made my post, and you are asking me to wait? Besides, if it is meant rhetorically, I'm not your familiar. Please don't assume familiarity. Examine your own edit. Examine carefully what Britannica says, and examine even more carefully what you introduced in your edit. Where did your edit say "administered?" Instead, you made the lead sentence first a statement about undisputed Chines governance, claiming Aksai Chin is "part of Hotan County, which lies in the southwestern part of Hotan Prefecture of Xinjiang Autonomous Region." Please examine the CIA map of India. Gilgit there is shown outside India; Jammu and Kashmir in India; Arunachal Pradesh in India; but Aksai Chin, in striped shading, is disputed. Examine finally the CIA map of China. There too, Aksai Chin, is rendered in striped shading, and Arunachal Pradesh is not rendered "disputed." The dispute, it seems, is the primary notability about Aksai Chin, not its administration as a disputed region by China, let alone its status as a division of some province in China. The current phrasing of the lead paragraph (i.e. as of 11 September 2017, 19:08 (UTC)) is in keeping with reliable international benchmarks. It is best to leave it alone. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I have trascluded this discussion at Talk:Aksai Chin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh profile photo

Hi, It would be great if you could change Bhagat Singh's profile picture to the one with the turban,as he was a Sikh and the one with the hat was not his last picture. He tied turban and that's the original picture by which the world must know him. I could do it myself but it shows some privacy concerns to prevent vandalism,and as you were the one who last edited the profile thought you could make the picture change. I think you could understand this and do the same.

SinghG (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 at WP:PR

• Bengal famine of 1943 at WP:PR  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your collaborative dialogue. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

One thing this editor does not need is another award to add to his growing collection. But with the current more relaxed structure of the Editor of the Week award it is time to give this editor his due. Over 32000 edits w/ 49% in mainspace and edit summary usage of 98%. Active since OCT2006. Continuous efforts at India, V. S. Naipaul and British Raj have left these articles as wonderful examples of collaborative editing. He has added dozens of images of maps and coins and stamps from his personal collections. His input into dialogues at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics show a concern for the growing knowledge that WP provides.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

The Bhagirathi River

Fowler&fowler

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 19, 2017

Veteran editor since 2006 with over 32000 edits, 49% in mainspace and edit summary usage of 98%. His continuous efforts are wonderful examples of collaborative editing. Has added dozens of personal collection images of maps and coins and stamps. Takes an active part in dialogues at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.

Recognized for

Collaboration

Notable work(s)

India, V. S. Naipaul and British Raj

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Well deserved. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Much deserved! --regentspark (comment) 18:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Congratulations on your well deserved honor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fowler&fowler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the amazing maps that you have contributed. Thank you! Mathuramg (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg

The file File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned, unlikely to be useful.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Back?

Not sure if you are back. It says you last edited 4 months ago. See you around :)
PS: All this time, I was misreading your name as Flower&flower. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Kinnara

Hello @Fowler&Fowler , i just like to give me an insight about this sources i will show tge references are for the Philippine section of Kinnara. In Philippines, there was a statue of gold kinnara at surigao dated back to 10th-13th century supported by citation from that source. Although it was comr from a valid source the user named N0n3up keeps reverting the article on the version s/he preferred. I dont want to get involve on to an edit war ,so i need some more famillar in wiki policies please treat this as a legal assistance , that n0n3up is the friend of gunkarta which you previously given a warning about edit warring. Also n0n3up is deleting every Philippine sections in India-related articles. I hope your answer will help. Thank you! (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Here was the source.

( Laszlo Legeza, "Tantric Elements in Pre-Hispanic Gold Art," Arts of Asia, 1988, 4:129-133.) (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Non-free rationale for File:Jaichamarajawadiyar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jaichamarajawadiyar.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Krishnarajawadiyar4.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Krishnarajawadiyar4.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

British India
... you were recipient no. 1656 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to

comment at this.[1] Involves you (don't worry, you have done nothing wrong). Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raksha Bandhan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sangh (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) 09:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

India

Why? Your "site-ban" is self-imposed, I suppose? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. Tired of people with a long memory for vengeance, of the bickering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Too bad. I've passionately disagreed with you on some issues, but I regard this 'retirement' to be a substantial loss to Wikipedia. Be assured, though, there's a substantial number of editors with youtfull energy to keep up the good works. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for the kind words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That's too bad F&f. Much of what passes for information on Wikipedia is definitely borderline ridiculous and a healthy emotional distance from actual content is the only way to survive here. I hope, though, that you'll devote your energies to some other part of Wikipedia rather than vanish into the blue! --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

^^ What RP said. This is very sad news. I've not been around to see the immediate cause but I know that there has been friction for some time and, frankly, I'd place my bet on your version of anything being more accurate, neutral etc than that of the person with whom I think you have most clashed. There isn't much I can do about it at the moment, though, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: @Sitush: Thanks. As V. S. Naipaul said somewhere, "The world is what it is and men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it." So, I hope I will be working on other things. Speaking of VSN, I had rewritten five or six or seven sections of WP's Naipaul page, which I really enjoyed writing. Two editors then began to deliver death by a thousand cuts to the article, forcing me to quit, and it is in a terrible state again. They haven't been active lately on that article or its talk page, but they are around, and could start bickering again ... Another article, Mandell Creighton was at FAC, but then I had to travel and withdrew it. I have some more sources now. Maybe, I'll take another look. Then there is History of English grammars, which I wrote a while ago, it needs to be expanded. But I might do something completely different. Some time ago I became the accidental owner of the first thirty odd books of the Oxford Children's Library. It was an attempt by OUP during the 1950s and 60s, to publish more innovative children's fiction. I might write short articles about those books. But a vacation first. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature uses deprecated </font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] : Fowler&fowler«Talk»

to

[[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] : Fowler&fowler«Talk»

 — fr ⁺ 16:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. But now I have a bigger problem. I see to have forgotten where I record my signature. Somewhere in setting? Probably. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Preferences/User profile, sectin "Signature". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Go to Preferences → User profile and navigate to the Signature section. Your current signature will be there in a text box under the field titled Your existing signature. — fr ⁺ 10:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I copied Fowler&fowler«Talk» to the new signature and it said in red: "Invalid raw data" etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 10:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This time I did. Thanks everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Languages

Hi F&f. Is this ok? --regentspark (comment) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi RP. Nope. These are extinct or near-extinct languages. The Jarawa, an Ongan language spoken in the Andamans has less than 200 speakers, the other Ongan language has even less. The possible significance of the Andamanese and Nicobarese languages is in their potential link, or even direct descent, from the language of the first peoples who moved out of Africa in the coastal migration along the Horn of Africa, Yeman, Coastal Iran, Pakistan, and India, and then, because of lowered water levels of the ice age, on to Indonesia, Andamans, Papua and New Guinea and Australia, where the earliest anatomically modern human remains, dating to 49 KYA are found outside of Africa. But all this is too speculative to make it in the drastically summarized text of the India page. Best to remove all the addition, and simply write, "Other significant language groups are <here simply restore the ones that were part of the text before>. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fowler&fowler. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

3RR

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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) What is this? You have made 3 reverts, not I. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) No, my reverts were after the talk page. It was agreed some info can stay, while others needed consensus. That is what we are working on in the talk-page. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Wait... Above you stated: "I will no longer be working on India-related topics... Consider me site banned." Change of heart? Missing edit-warring on India related topics with your Eurocentric bias? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

What information can stay? Where was this agreed? Please give me the link to that discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

That discussion can be found here Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion on tagging some Kashmir articles

Could you please take a look at 1947 Poonch rebellion? I have been reviewing many of the articles on the 1947 events in Kashmir and can't say I am impressed. These include Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 and quite a few others. The content in these articles are both structurally and textually biased. Much of the sources used in these articles are either low quality or undue. And a lot of the content is written with a methodology of plucking out one thing from 1 source then synthesising it with something else from a different source. Being familiar with the historiography, different perspectives and academic canon of this subject, I have concluded that these articles don't represent the scholarship on Kashmir at all.

Before attaching POV and SYNTHESIS templates onto these articles I thought I should consult with you because you are our most knowledgeable editor on both the sources and the topic. Would you take some time out to review this issue? If you come to the same conclusion as me that these articles are suffering from pov and synthesis issues then I will add the templates. Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did read your post, but then forgot to reply. I'll take a look at the pages you mention and get back to you in the next 24 hours. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will wait :)′Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Code16, I was just reading a survey of Kashmir's historiography. (Vernon Hewitt, "Never Ending Stories: Recent Trends in the Historiography of Jammu and Kashmir," History Compass, 2007, Vol. 5 Issue 2, pp. 288–301)

It does seem to me from reading 1947 Poonch rebellion and comparing it with the survey's listing of the various views, pertaining to each stage of Kashmiri history, that the 1947 Poonch rebellion is shrewdly written to side with the Indian POV.

Not only is there no WP:BALANCE but the bibliography reveals the heavy use of Indian government sources, primary sources and articles with low cites.

Hewitt's survey dismisses the "I was there" kind of memoirs/biographies, which these article's sources are just often repeating.

These Kashmir articles need to be based entirely on the main and prominent works of Kashmiri history, so it doesn't go beyond whats widely accepted. ~~ User:Arslan-San (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the "Pro-India POV" To be fair there are good quality sources in the bibliography like Victoria Schofield and Christopher Snedden, but are cited for subsidiary things. The main narrative is based off primary sources like Saraf, Suhrawardy, partisan sources such as Jha (see Taylor and Wirsing reviews) and low level journal articles by Ankit.Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

*@Code16 and Fowler&fowler: Indian authors are typically hesitant to accept that the revolt was indigenous. Overall the current tone of 1947 Poonch rebellion is also to de-emphasise the indigenous roots and nature of the rebellion. I can't give an exhaustive explanation but I can point out a few examples.

• The standard Indian POV is that the Poonch rebellion was a "social unrest" stirred by Pakistani operatives. This is reflected in the 4th paragraph of Politics of accession. Snedden's pivotal text on Sattis and the alleged Pakistani gangs is not represented. Particularly poignant was the fact that the sole evidence for the supposed Pakistani involvement was Henry Scott's report, which Snedden has already explained differently.
• The opinion of the Assistant British High Commissioner, H. S. Stephenson, that the Poonch unrest was "exaggerated" is quoted in August 1947. Its part of a small paragraph to play down the events in Poonch. Its sources are a low cite journal article and an Indian Government White Paper.
  • This opinion has even been added to a summary of the rebellion on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948.[2] If the British High Commission and its opinions are so important, why not add that the High Commission's meticulous investigation found that the Pakistani government was not responsible for any deliberate blockade on Kashmir? After all, the POV in the second paragraph of Pakistan's preparations, Maharaja's manoeuvring is that Pakistan cut off supplies to the state; that is also taken from lowly cited sources like Ankit and Jamal.
• Again, while there's a section called "Pakistan's preparations", there's nothing about the important Indian lobbying of the Maharaja for accession in June-July which stirred the Muslim Conference into action in the first place.
• The lead of 1947 Poonch rebellion goes further and claims that Liaquat Ali Khan authorised an invasion. There's even a full section called "entry of Pakistan" to advertise this POV. Its based mainly off Raghavan, Jha and their ilk who are known to be New Delhi's apologists. These apologists in turn depend on Akbar Khan's accounts. We know there is a cottage industry of "I was there" type memoirs which imply Pakistani involvement without actually proving it.
  • Akbar Khan is known to be one such low-authority individual who wrote many of his personal ambitions into his memoirs. It is an Indian claim that his memoirs support the Indian national narrative.
• There is then a sub-section on 1947 Poonch rebellion devoted to the 12 September meeting. It is the basis for the lead's Indian POV that Liaquat Ali Khan authorised an invasion. But the pro-Indian POV's favourite man, Akbar Khan, is on record as saying about the talks with Liaquat "there was complete ignorance of anything in the nature of military operations." Any account of the 12 September meeting should be based off Kashmir specialists who have covered the meeting, such as Alastair Lamb, and highlight the insignificant supply of weaponry barring the 4000 rifles originally intended for the Punjab police.
• The Operation Gulmarg is also further work in the same POV. Written with low quality sources and unacceptable sources (such as Prasad, Joshi, Kalkat and Palit) it advertises the Indian military POV that a plan called Operation Gulmarg existed. The only quality source in that section, Robin James Moore, actually concludes that the Pakistani government did not organise the invasion of Kashmir.
  • Even then, Moore's text on the non-state cross border raids on Kashmir has been synthesized to somehow support the Indian POV that Operation Gulmarg existed.
  • The cross border raids of September itself needs a balanced coverage, preferably represented the way Sumantra Bose or Victoria Schofield have covered them. After all, if state government and Muslim Conference sources can be "balanced" under August 1947, why not the coverage of the raids too, per Bose & Schofield?
• The caricaturable Indian POV also ignores the popularity of Muslim Conference leaders had even in the Valley in 1947. The claim that "The National Conference had almost total control in the Kashmir Valley" is a regurgitation of that POV.

I can go on and on about the pro-India bias of these articles, but this ought to be enough for now. ~~ User:Arslan-San (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Request for guiding participation

Hello @Fowler&fowler:, your expertise would be appreciated over at Talk:Kashmiris#Dogra regime. We will both benefit much from your guidance, especially on the question of citing Talbot & Singh on the Hindu elite in Kashmir. Regards Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up to me

Thanks for the impressive resume on the ANI, though I think none of it was relevant to that dispute. :) I was impulsive to roll back. I need to be more careful. Thanks, once again. I don't think this is the last we shall see of HighPeaks. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@AshLin:You are most welcome. I don't entirely agree that it is not relevant on Wikipedia, though in an ideal world it shouldn't be. Sometimes we are dealing with editors who don't grant the works of others the good faith or the intellectual respect that they a priori deserve. To quote WP rules to them is unproductive as they pay only lip service to the rules. However, to occasionally remind them that their interlocutors are real people, living lives whose track records belie interpretations of bad faith, is an effective option. This is all I did; there was no hype. There was no need for hype. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, :) AshLin (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI

[3]. Pings don't work in edit summaries apparently. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And if you don't know this fact about pinging, what are the chances I would? :) I noticed Bidaris, or some such. None of the sources mention this clan name though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

IVC - citation errors

These edits of yours caused multiple cite errors. Please double check, would have fixed it myself, but I am almost certain you would be starting unproductive insult(s), trolling and edit warring with me:

However, recent geophysical research suggests that unlike the Sarasvati, whose descriptions in the Rig Veda are those of a snow-fed river, the Ghaggar-Hakra was a system of monsoon-fed rivers, which dried up around the time that the civilisation diminished approximately 4,000 years ago.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC))

@Highpeaks35: Please post this at the article talk page. That way all article-related improvement posts will be in one place. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Code16 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out of your understandably hectic schedule. I've tagged them. Code16 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Code16: I'm afraid you can't do this. On one article I checked, you have no history of editing the article nor the talk page. You need to first engage the other editors on the talk page and point out what you think are the issues and hear their responses. I gave general advice and assumed that you had already done that. Please remove that tag. If the same is true for the other articles, please remove the other tags too. Sorry, but we can't put tags without some previous engagement on the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. I went ahead with the understanding of the result in this discussion which didn't require a talkpage discussion prior to tagging an article.[4] Nevertheless I will remove the tags and will open up a few talk threads on my concerns before putting them back up again. Code16 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Code16:You can't just make a hurried, or even one unhurried, talk page post and then slap the tags back on again. You have to engage the other editors, engage in back and forth, attempt your edits on the page itself, and demonstrae that no equilibrium is being achieved. This is especially true for someone with no history on the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Friendly comment

Hello Fowler&fowler. I have read the recent discussion at Talk:Pilaf. While you are correct in everything you say, I think you are being unnecessarily curt and uncivil to this new editor Shofet tsaddiq. They are engaging in good faith. If you keep your comments to the matter at hand and avoid being rude ("You are a beginner", "You don't know enough", etc.) then you may find the discussion will be more successful. Clearly they have a lot to learn, but I think they should be encouraged, not discouraged. Please be a little more patient. Kind regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks for the reminder. I was trying to be sensitive to that, and left a message on his talk page after I noticed that his edits were imbued with the kind of recalcitrance that newcomers rarely have. But, regardless, you are right, I should have remained civil, no matter what the provocation. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sadly, my interlocutor has been blocked. Checkuser apparently confirmed he was a sockpuppet. He seemed earnest though towards the end ... I'm aware that civility is non-negotiable, independent of whom we interact with. That said, I try, I falter, and try again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned at AE

Hello F&F. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Highpeaks35. Your name is mentioned by User:Highpeaks35 in one of his comments. There is some reference to a discussion at User talk:Highpeaks35#Indian subcontinent. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @EdJohnston:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Indian Rebellion of 1857

Hello. I am doing just what you had mentioned in the page history- presenting the crux of the article that follows the lead paras. In the lead para, it says - "the Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, summary treatment of some rich landowners and princes,[11][12] as well as skepticism about the improvements brought about by British rule.[f][13] Many Indians did rise against the British, however, very many also fought for the British, and the majority remained seemingly compliant to British rule" . Clearly, it is listing out major reasons that led to the occurrence. Therefore I am just adding the most important reason that is not mentioned- the economic exploitation of India by the Brits. The article does not include many major reasons for the revolt.So I have expanded it in the Causes/ Reasons section. You are editing that out too. It is evident that the events are not been seen through the Indian perspective and only English historians are being quoted. I have also included sentences from Bipan Chandra's book - The History Of Modern India.Read the whole edit first.I think you should reconsider your edit in my favour. Trojan 74 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)trojan74

There is no evidence that economic exploitation was felt in the regions in which the rebellion took place i.e. (North-Western Provinces = Western UP + Uttaranchal + Poorvanchal; Oudh = North-Central UP (more or less, which had just been taken from the Nawabs); Northern Central Provinces (Northern MP) or Delhi territory still nominally under the Moghuls). The regions that had seen British rule: such as the three presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras saw no rebellion. Punjab, annexed by the British ten years earlier, saw no rebellion. Districts of western UP, such as Etawah, which had seen the opening of primary schools by the Company saw no rebellion. Respectfully, you are new to Wikipedia, and to my judgment new to encyclopedia writing. You may also need to read the sources more comprehensively. My general advice to new, inexperienced, editors is to avoid heavily trafficked pages, to learn the art of encyclopedia writing unobtrusively in less visited pages. Without meaning to sound patronizing, that is the best advice I can give you right now. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#WP:INCOTM.
Message added 19:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kind suggestion is anticipated, and thanks is advance. Titodutta (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you sir

Thank you sir for your edit on kashmir valley. I had to start a discussion and am grateful for your kind words. Mhveinvp (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SCB death

Can you kindly point to any rigorous reliable source that deals with Mukherjee Commission's report? Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Sorry. Will look at the sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir

In 889348742|this edit summary you say "This article is not about the history of the later conflicts, or about the Hindu exodus of the 1990s,whose numbers in the link have been exaggerated." Can you expand on how the numbers have been exaggerated? Would probably be good to take it to that article. Gotitbro (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a brief mention in the Demographics section of the Kashmir article, with excellent references. It begins, "Kashmiri Pandits, the only Hindus of the Kashmir Valley ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlink User

Is there any advantage to create a user page than not having one (asking in light of the comments at Indo-Pak conflict article). Are users with redlink pages viewed with doubts? (thought to better ask here than "off topic" the discussion at that page).

If that is the case then I would contemplate creating one as well. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Redlinked user pages tend with high correlation to be those of drive-bys or sockpuppets. That is the buzz I have heard over the years, and has been my own experience. Why that is the case, I am not sure. I would encourage you to open a user's page and tell the WP Community what your interests are, what your general observations are on life, liberty, etc, what you have done, what you plan to do on WP. WP obviously encourages that as there are many templates just for user pages. Obviously you don't need to identify your real life identity. Among the notable ones I remember is that of the patron saint of the India pages, Nichalp who has since retired. Poignant ones are user:Awadewit who has passed away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mhveinvp

Hey. Someone is messing again with kashmir valley page reversing "administered" word which you seem to have accepted with other editors back in 2015,16 and once i made a revert, some other user undid my reversal, siding with the first party. I hope you can join the discussion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Valley Mhveinvp (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35

Technically, if they want you to stay off their page, you should only post specific warnings (the templated kind would be the safest). You can use article talk pages for content related issues and, for more general ones, you could use WT:IN, ask an admin to step in, or use an appropriate noticeboard. FYI. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @RegentsPark:. I had no idea. This is very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)