User talk:Fowler&fowler

BNHS image

I plan to put up this image for deletion Image:BNHSimage national geographic.jpg. Its under fair use and I can visit the place and take a pic out myself, the pic is not essential for the article. PS I'm a member, and went for the 125th anniversary celebrations held today. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny because I first thought about asking you to take a picture (last year?), but then noticed that you hadn't logged in for a long time (it was around the time of your absence), and decided against it. If you could take a picture, that would be great! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PS If you are interested in BNHS stuff, check out some of the pages, Stanley Henry Prater, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, Herbert Musgrave Phipson and Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. My original goal was (and still is) to have pages for most of the BNHS naturalists and simultaneously expand the BNHS article itself. (I have access to all the journal volumes going back to 1886.) If you are interested in working on the BNHS article, we could work on it together. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like to get that up to featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency

Sir, how are you? :-) I need your help to fill the census statistics for the period 1911 to 1941 for this table. Thank you.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Will reply on the weekend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to get your opinion

Hello, you were most helpful when I left a message on the East India Company talk page concerning Robert Blackborne. I was wondering what you might know and what opinion you might have of the Prinsep family, who had many ties to India from the early days. In general, how were they regarded? Aside from making money, they do seem to have contributed to the life of the nation, along the lines of scholarship, archaeology and so on. In any case, I really appreciated your help on Blackborne, and wondered if you might have any random thoughts on the Prinseps. Many thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Will reply on the weekend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Thank you for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case you seem to know a great deal more than I do, judging from your contributions to the page Prinsep. I did know of James Prinsep, of course, and I vaguely knew both of the first John Prinsep and Val Prinsep, but I didn't realize they were all related. I certainly didn't realize that they came from such a large family of achievement. James Prinsep is one of the big names in Indian epigraphy, having deciphered the Brahmi script. The Prinsep Ghat (a memorial along the banks of the Ganges River in Calcutta is named after him.) Here's a nice picture of the same. As for the family, I found a reference to it in a letter written by Maria Edgeworth to Elizabeth Gaskell. See here; so they clearly were well-known. Am in a bit of a rush right now, but I'm intrigued. Will later look at other sources, as and when I find time, to see what turns up. Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look over the Prinsep page. I know a bit about them, but you obviously know far, far more about India than I, so I wanted get your take on things. I hope to write a bit at length about the Prinseps at some point when I can get around to it. And thank you again for responding to my earlier inquiry about Robert Blackbourne. Out of curiosity, is this your area of scholarship as a professor? Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: HEIC

Your version is perfectly fine to me. I'm sure I'll think of something to tweak later but for now its fine (Sorry for not getting back to you, somewhat swamped at uni) --Narson ~ Talk • 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on making Indies a disambig article

I've been waiting many months for someone to pipe up and support my position that Indies, as it currently stands, ought to be moved/renamed to East Indies and that the new Indies ought to become a disambig article directing readers to Caribbean or East Indies according to the context from which they came. Thanks. Now I might actually go ahead and do it myself. --arkuat (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Moving/renaming an article into an existing article's name will require an admin's assistance, I think. I'm afraid that we're going to have to talk someone with admin priveleges into deleting the current redirect article East Indies, which as of now has no history to speak of, so that we can move the current Indies article, which has rather a lot of history, into that slot, and then recreate Indies as a new, unhistoried, disambig page. I don't know that you know any more en.wikipedia admins than I do, but if you do, please help. Thanks again. --arkuat (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: British India

Sure, I'll take a look at the page. I will weigh in as I do not think that all those forks are necessary. I need to think over this, and my immediate thoughts are the period between 1757 and 1857, for which I need to research on the extent and powers of the East India Company. I also do not think that period can be termed as "British rule in India" as there was a lot happening in the region. Do you have any material for me to look at for this period? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The page is at British India/Article during the second half of 2008 and the full history is found in the usual way. Here is the full history. Within the next 24 hours I am going to place that probably has no internet connection, I'll be there for about a week. I'll touch this message when I am back. --PBS (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Undivided India

I don't mind whether the article is merged with British Raj or British India. But I strongly feel that "Undivided India" is not a term that is in worldwide usage and that the article should not stay alone. I am also against the merger of the article with one on the Indian subcontinent or Greater India due to reasons I've expressed in the talk page. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Kirrages's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My comments

I have added my comments to NickP's suggestion. Thanks for asking me to do so. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

INA move to British Raj

Good move. It did occur to me, after I posted the response, that it would be a distraction from the main issue. Thanks! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

comments

I've replied to your questions on British India and raised some more on the page. I got your picture on the BNHS headquarters on the 4th of Oct, but yet to transfer to my PC as my USB drive is not working. :( PS could you archive your page, it takes some time for the entire page to load, and this is unnecessary bandwidth consumed for both WP and me. And on a related note, you might want to remove/update the notice on this page... Oct 25 has just gone by. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Just archived. Will await your BNHS picture when PC problem is fixed. Thanks for replying on Talk:British India; will look now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India#Discussion of change

Hi - I request your feedback on this debate, as User:Gppande and I are grid-locked. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I have requested Nichalp to weigh in. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

No, that's not acceptable at all - it's perfectly reasonable to remove information if it is believed to violate one or both of those policies, and mention that in the edit summary, but the manner in which it was done here is a personal attack. That it doesn't appear Sarvagnya even attempted to discuss it with you doesn't help at all. I'll leave a note on their talk page to knock it off, but in the meantime, as always, do try to review what you're adding to make sure it's accurate. Personal attacks aside, a policy was cited in the removal. I don't know enough about this subject to judge on the validity of the content you added. If there are any more problems with this sort of thing, do let me know, or you could also consider posting a notice at WP:WQA. Thanks for the heads-up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency (2)

Hi! How are you? Could please help me in filling the population statistics for the districts of Madras Presidency between 1911 and 1941 or suggest some online source where I might find them or recommend someone who could help with this. My agenda is to improve this to FA level. This being the case, the presence of such large blank spaces would be to my disadvantage. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's a great article! I didn't realize such a change had taken place. Will look at it more carefully soon, and will look for more data. Part of the problem is that by the 1930s, the British (I feel sometimes) had subliminally seen the writing on the wall and seem to have lost the stamina for the kind of effort seen in the Imperial Gazetteer (but other times, it doesn't appear so). By the way, if you need a picture (say in the land section), feel free to borrow the 1880s (ryotwari) photograph from the Company rule in India page or the Fort St. George picture for some other section. Regards (and congrats), Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Well, among the provinces of British India, the case of Madras Presidency is quite unique. There were regular elections from 1920 onwards and not from 1935 as in the case of most other provinces of British India. By the way, a featured article for taskforces Wikipedia:WikiProject Orissa and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakshadweep would also add entries to currently empty FA categories of these wikiprojects-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. Will look for the additional data. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to share this article with you-[1]. Though my views differ significantly with that of the author's, I do find it interesting :-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

philisophical

"everyone is a foreigner, no one is a foreigner": philosophical but certainly true. I did not understand the final part though. What language? Unfortunate the user it was directed at hasnt cleary got it... Docku:“what up?” 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's just an old French expression, meaning, "That's life (or Such is life), it is too bad." (I meant I tried but he (KM) didn't get it. That's life, it's too bad.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

got it. :) Docku:“what up?” 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much, sir, for the barnstar :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Afd vs. prod

When you place a prod, the article gets deleted after five days if no one removes the prod. An afd, on the other hand, is listed under articles for deletion at Wikipedia:AFD#Current_discussions and other edits can comment on it. I must admit I was flummoxed by Mastan Malli. On the one hand, seven highest peaks in seven (?) continents seems notable. But, there seems to be absolutely no independent verification that he actually climbed all the peaks beyond the list on this page, and the Everest News article that I removed seems to imply that he did not actually climb to the top - although his name (spelled differently) is on the team roster. The list itself is troublesome as it does not say that the stats are verified in any reasonable way. Now you say that the 186th climber out of 229 is not notable anyway.

Listing it on Afd is no guarantee that the article will be deleted because the notability is borderline and it depends on how the discussion proceeds. So we may be left with having to keep the article with its murky notability. On the other hand, sometimes the process works very well and new evidence of notability emerges (for example, references for the claim that the speed with which he climbed is notable). Worth exploring, I think. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. Why don't you go ahead and file (if that's the word) for AfD and I'll do my bit. Sadly these "achievements" have got commercialized now. Semi-sedentary people in their 60s (if not their 70s) are now going up to the top of Everest. I expect a Coke/Macdonald's franchise there any day. I'm exaggerating a little, but you know what I mean ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Afd debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli‎

Help

Just to be brief - I was wondering if you would be able to answer some of my questions regarding the British Raj to aid the book I am writing. It is fictional and set in the Raj just prior to and during WW-2. If you agree and can spare a little time, I could hold a discussion on skype or gtalk. Do let me know. Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Much as I'd like to help, my family has put me on a tight leash as far as my Wikipedia-related activities are concerned. This "oversight" began when, over a year ago, I neglected to perform some of my duties towards certain feline members of the household. I have since then routinely refused all forms of interaction (internet, email, phone, gtalk etc.) beyond the routine ones on Wikipedia user talk. Sorry! All the best on your book. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks though. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

British Empire page - Indian Famines

Your input would be greatly appreciated Here --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I love this!!!

expected. :) My prediction is that India will accord the classical status to all languages in a few years by loosening the criteria including literary antiquity to as less as 100 years. I am going to start Classical language scam in India article. :) Docku: What up?

F&F. I agree with your edits and arguments. I am afraid that I see a lot of passion in Talk:Languages of India and see less room for reasoning. I guess we should leave it there until more responsible people get involved. What do u say? Docku: What up? 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Agreed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the decision hasn't been implemented...the implementation of the recommendation may take a while as a Chennai-based advocate has filed a public interest litigation in the Madras High Court questioning the expertise of the committee members. The PIL has requested the court to quash the decision and ask the Government to set up a new committee headed by a retired judge of the high court or the Supreme Court --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The conditions laid by GoI [2]

Some reports say Prakrit and Pali have also been granted classical language status. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't know what to do with these editors. One has to be vigilant that they don't create grossly slanted histories, but one can only spend so much time on issues for which they apparently have a great deal more appetite than anyone else. This article, although slightly dated, is still a good description of the sub-nationalism you see on the India-related pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

^^^Hey, hey, hey assume good faith! And this aint the way! That's all I want to say... --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone specifically. Opinion:I wonder if it is ok to call a spade a spade sometimes. Let us not forget History revisionism is a widespread phenomena in wikipedia. Docku: What up? 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes not calling a spade a spade works too. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of semi-protection

Hi - based on your advice and that of Nichalp's, I have initiated a discussion on the semi-protection issue at the village pump. Your opinion, now over the broader topic and not just India, will be most valuable. Shiva (Visnu) 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Hello again. I wondered if I might trouble you for some advice about another British colonial company that I am having trouble trying to run down. On wikipedia, for instance, querying 'New England Company' steers one to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the successor company to those holding the charters for early New England settlement. But it turns out there was an entirely different 'New England Company.' I came across this while looking into the Lord Mayor of London in 1699, who was a partner in it, and at which time it was apparently still active -- not in 'New England,' per se, but in Canada, the West Indies, Africa and perhaps other places as well. I was wondering if you'd heard of this early company, and what their mandate was? They certainly had an unusual 'mission statement,' but I suppose that that was a reflection of the times. Here's a query I posted to the Massachusetts Bay Colony talk page.[Talk:Massachusetts Bay Colony] To be honest, I don't think I'll hear much there. I think my luck is better with folks such as yourself who are experts in the various early British companies. Thanks again for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it. I do know that there were many companies, some with the same names. Meanwhile please check out Image:Prinsep new writerEICservice1822.jpg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What an extraordinary image. Thank you for alerting me to this. Wonderful. Thanks also for looking into the New England Company. As you say, there seemed to be lots of companies with the same names. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I do not understand what is meant by "source information", as the media rationale already specifies that the image's source is a book published in 1954 entitled Nine Man-eaters and One Rogue.

The image was taken by an employee (government hunter) of the British Indian government, and released in the public domain before 1957.Mariomassone (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The photographer is not mentioned, whilst the publisher of the books is E.P DUTTON & CO., INC. Mariomassone (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The copyright is to the Berne Convention. Do as you see fit.Mariomassone (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility. Your assistance is much appreciated!Mariomassone (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Famine edit on British Empire

Hi there Fowler. Would you, or perhaps fowler, be able to reword the two sentences on famine to be more balanced, whilst maintaining brevity, and not rely on a clearly biased reference? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will come up with something tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright pictures

Hello there, My picture of "Stud 327 with blesbuck kill" is taken from save china's tigers' homepage at www.savechinastigers.org . I am a volunteer of Save China's Tigers, in fact if you visit the site, you will be able to see my name in the SCT team, i am responsible for helping them edit information and upload pictures for the project, i have mentioned that to another Wiki Administrator in the past. So, i do have the copyright over all the pictures i have uploaded, so please do not delete them, thanks.

My name is Heng Siang Wei and can be found on the Save China's Tigers webpage's sctteam: http://english.savechinastigers.org/sctteam

China's Tiger (talk)

Thanks for replying. I took a look at the website. It is not clear who the photographer is. Did you take these pictures? If not, who is the photographer? (I'm guessing that all the images in "Arrival of Tiger 324" are taken by the same photographer.) Also, the picture on the Tiger page is captioned with "... his blesbuck kill." However, since this is a breeding and rewilding center, and the Tiger had just arrived, it is more likely that the buck was shot (it has a tag) and then presented to the Tiger; in which case, it wouldn't be a "kill." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, well, I am not the actual photographer of the photos as taking photographs isn't part of my job, another Staff member in our team is responsible for that, it isn't convenient to cite his name because he has resigned from his position end of last year.

Yes, i understand that it isn't an actual "kill", but i felt that it was a suitable word compared to "food" or "prey". If you know of another much more suitable word, please feel free to change the 'kill' word to any other word.

China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Hey again, would you mind removing that "copyright infrigment" tag from my picture of "Stud Tiger 327 with Blesbuck.jpg"? And also, please help me place the picture back into those articles which had the picture removed due to "copyright infrigment". Thank you. China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Can you?

User:Ravichandar84 has left a message on his userpage saying he is quitting. Can you stop him? Your words may have an effect! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support and encouragement. :-) I have given my answers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Madras Presidency images issue. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I will check the noticeboard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Geography of India

Hi - I am working (with Nichalp) on re-attaining FA status for this article and I request you to please have a look at it when you have some time, so I may learn what more needs to be done. In particular, I request that you place {{cite}} tags on the facts that you feel need to be cited. Major changes include: (1) integration of "Climate" and "Natural disasters" information into the pertinent subsections, i.e. discussing climate and earthquakes in the Himalayas subsection, because both those sections had a lot of information (like cyclones, seasons, winds, etc.) that was not pertinent to geography, but more to Climate of India. Nichalp was in favor of removing climate and making the article compact. (2) formatting of all present references. (3) I've added details on the borders and disputes of India as it relates to political geography. Shiva (Visnu) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See [3] and [4] for the discussion I had with Nichalp. Shiva (Visnu) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

classical

I am happy to be over with the "classical" chaos. In the meantime, u have amassed a great deal of information in User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India. I wonder if all these information can be incorporated in an article such as Classical languages of India. We could think about it sometime when the dust settles down. Docku: What up? 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Sure, that sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Dravidian Barnstar
		for your ignorance and racial behavior towards Dravidian culture 59.92.147.225 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that the beginnings of literature in Kannada and Telugu were influenced by Sanskrit models, is not Anti-Dravidian. It only makes the point that they are not classical, in the way Tamil (Dravidian) and Sanskrit here. Here is Kamil Zvelebil:

From: Template:Harvard reference.

“ But in Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam, the beginnings of written literatures are beyond any doubt so intimately connected with the Sanskrit models that the first literary output in these languages is, strictly speaking, imitative and derived, ... the first literary works in these languages being no doubt adaptations an/or straight translations of Sanskrit models. The beginnings of Kannada literature are, thus, anchored firmly in traditions which were originally alien to non-Aryan South India. Quite the same is true of Telugu literature. ... In Malayalam, too, the beginnings of literature are essentially and intrinsically connected with high Sanskrit literature ... An entirely different situation prevails in Tamil literature. The earliest literature in Tamil is a model unto itself—it is absolutely unique in the sense that, in subject-matter, thought-content, language and form, it is entirely and fully indigenous, that is, Tamil, or, if we want, ..., Dravidian. And not only that: it is only the Tamil culture that has produced—uniquely so in India—an independent, indigenous literary theory of a very high standard, including metrics and prosody, poetics and rhetoric. ”

Why is that Anti-Dravidian? It is pro-Dravidian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

proto-dravidian, perhaps? (What's with this whole pyjama thing?) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Not sure what to make of it. Every now and then you get editors who have boned up on what is allowed under Wikipedia policy, but pay no attention to responsibilities, consensus, or expertise (i.e. secondary sources). They're so sure that their instincts about the issue are the correct ones that they don't bother with edit summaries. If you revert them, they get very hot under the collar, and apparently think that a revert with explanation is a much bigger crime than explaining their edits in the first place and providing sources for them. They prefer the page to look like a mess with various templates, than for them to voluntarily revert the edits and go find the sources first and build consensus. It could really have happened on any page. In some cases, I've even taken them to mediation; usually, they disappear the minute I complete my statement in the mediation, leaving me and the mediator high and dry. If nothing changes in a couple of days, I'll get admin help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It did seem weird for someone to go in with a bulldozer on the article as if no one else has put any thought into it. This is very instructive! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

FYI, there is a complaint about you filed by Kalarimaster here. Docku: What up?

India=Union

Yes, India=Union makes sense in some contexts. But in the case of the infobox we should make the difference between why we are mentioning Hindi and English, and the other languages separately clear. Hindi and English are the official langauges of the Union (whatever that may mean), why cant this be made clear in the infobox ? Btw, I am not a new editor. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Official languages of India

Actually, the bits you're objecting to - the distinction between the Union and the States, and their official languages - is entirely plagiarised from a working paper I circulated for comment in early 2006. I have no idea how it got out and made its way here. I noticed the plagiarism late last year, but it wasn't anything I could do much about, especially because it's plagiarism and not a copyvio. Anyway, I agree that it's totally OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (in fact, I *know* it's totally OR because it's *my* original research). -- Arvind (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! All those edits were made by one user, Lexmercatoria (talk · contribs), who appeared on Wikipedia one day, seemingly with this single-purpose goal. A few months later, when his project had run into the sands, he suddenly disappeared, but not before giving me an award, which I have long suspected was partly tongue in cheek. Anyway, if it is still a matter of concern to you, you could check his history and attempt to guess his identity.

However, if you have time (and you certainly have the expertise) would you still like to re-write the article in an OR-free manner? An objectively written (and referenced) article will certainly help enormously, if only to deter the myriad POV-warriors who have used it to vent their discontents. The many editors who would like to see that article improve could certainly attend to the background noise, and leave you to focus on the more important things, during the re-write. Let me know what you think. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I remember L. said in one of his posts that he had grown up Hindi-speaking (to the extent you can) in suburban Bombay, although this could be a false lead. I should add that he was pleasant to interact with; he was also, in a welcome change from the usual, very concerned that the fine distinctions not be swept under the rug. I sort of miss him now.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, it all makes much more sense now. Lexmercatoria's contributions have "freshly minted graduate student" stamped all over them (I'm thinking of the way he (she?) tries hard to use a basic level of subject expertise, and gives up in annoyed frustration when he's asked to produce sources that meet Wikipedia's rules). I guess it's just a case of one of the people who got the paper passing it on to a graduate student with a "Here's something you might find interesting", and s/he then using it on Wikipedia without thinking. Oh, well.

I tend not to edit Wikipedia in areas on which I work academically, so I hardly ever contribute to articles about law. Official languages of India is a particularly tricky one - as you've pointed out, the Constitution simply says "Hindi", and the Official Languages Act (despite the use of the plural) doesn't really change that, as Mallikarjun subtly points out. There is, however, a huge gap between the de jure and de facto positions. It seems to me that the article should principally get into the history of the Hindi movement, its success in the constituent assembly, and the reasons for the dilution of the constitutional commitement to Hindi. There's a wealth of information on this, so a well-referenced article should be doable (Incidentally, I was recently pointed to the articles by Prof. Annie Montaut of INALCO on the language question in India - there's some fascinating material in there). The rest of the article should be shunted off to List of Official languages of States and territories of India, or some such thing. The difficulty will be getting people to agree to this, though. Having a long list of official languages is a lot more satisfying if you're a non-Hindi speaker. -- Arvind (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Arvind. Yes, I agree with the plan you have laid out. Will look at the articles list. Or perhaps point them out to the brave editor who volunteers to take on this article. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I thought you might be interested in knowing that I tracked down Lexmercatoria. The bit about his being from south Bombay, having done a Ph.D. and the quote on his former userpage were fairly good giveaways. It turns out I actually know him - our paths crossed briefly at a university where I used to teach and where he was a Ph.D. student, which also explains how he got hold of the ideas that were in my paper. -- Arvind (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

POV edits at India. Please stop pushing your view in the article. The constitution prescribes both categories of languages. Not just the Union languages. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Your edits at Talk:India are considered to be WP:harassment. Please don't do that again. Thanks. --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, dont you think that you are overreacting a bit? Docku: What up? 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-Constitution of India

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Docku's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Languages of India

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

funny

I was reading the old archive and happened to read this, couldnt help but laugh. I am not sure, if you could take it lightly at that time, but u happened to have handled the situtation well though. Docku: What up? 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was funny. Its good to be reminded, every now and then, of the flip side of modern technology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurta and jeans

Hi, yes it has been a while. I still don't have the time to seriously contribute to Wikipedia unfortunately. Real-life always takes precedence since we are only volunteers here. Well, I suppose it may not suit my sense of fashion but Kurta/i jean combinations do exist as shown by the Google News results! It must obviously be a modern trend but would sound quite dubious to someone only familiar with India's "traditional" culture, so I suggest a citation be found for the statement if you have the time. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my feelings exactly. One reason why I didn't get more American or British newspapers was that these garments are called "embroidered T-shirts" or "embroidered Indian shirts" in the west. I agree these fashions keep changing, and I certainly didn't put the jeans in there; it was User:Zora who revise what I had written. Anyway, I will look for the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster

Him of course. I wonder why the seniors haven't blocked him... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India feels like a storm has just passed by. :) Docku: What up? 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The second guy is definitely him. How the first guy shows up as being over 1000km away in another country, I'll never understand. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Been away...

Hi! I had been away from Wikipedia for the past 5-6 days. I can't understand the Official languages of India fiasco (rewrite needed??)). Also couldn't get a grip over the Arvind and user:Lexmercatoria plagiarism issue?!

I must say, I always unsure about the importance and significance of the eighth schedule. Is it really a big deal concerning to India as a whole? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just realized I forgot to reply to your post(s). Many apologies! Will do so later today. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. Take your time sir. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can answer now! :P --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki question

A friend asked me today...if you call India secular then why does it subsidise Haj pilgrimage? Why did Saint Alphonsa's canonisation at Vatican have the backing of a government delegation? I was caught off guard! What's your say on this? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Now to finally answer your questions! (Many apologies for the delay.) I guess before I answer the questions, I would like more information. Specifically, I would ask:

• In what way, and to the tune of what amount, does the Government of India subsidize the Haj pilgrimage?
• Similarly, what exactly did the Government of India say and do when it nominated the saint for canonization?

Part of the problem with your friends questions is that the word "secular" itself has many meanings, and those meanings have kept changing (even in recent usage). For example, I noticed a few years ago, that the New York Times began to use "secular" in describing the governing of India. In my memory, in the past, "secular" was used for more avowedly "anti-God" countries like the Soviet Union or China that didn't allow the practice of any religion. Even today, a country like Turkey, which is also "secular," for example, does not allow women in Government service or attending Government schools or colleges to wear the head covering or scarf (which is considered Islamic and has been banned since the days of Kamal Ataturk). However, India, on the other hand is more relaxed about it: for example, it is not unusual for a Government official to be at an opening ceremony in which obvious symbols of Hinduism (such as lighting a "prayer" lamp or applying "tikka" to the forehead) are plainly evident.

Another thing that I would keep in mind is that in every country there are some (historically) privileged groups. Often these groups (or their "admirer" groups) react strongly to instances of even small favors granted to the un-privileged groups. However, they often take for granted the societal "favors" that constitute their own good luck. So, for example, in the US, up until recently, some historically privileged groups, such as the so-called Boston Brahmins, could get into Harvard or Princeton or other Ivy League colleges on the basis of "connections" that were never even mentioned. All it took was an old college alum to mention so-and-so's name during a squash game in the club ... and so forth. However, also up until recently, if a person from a traditionally underprivileged community, say a woman or an African American, was seen in a traditionally "privileged" position, say in a major law-firm, they often elicited raised eyebrows, not necessarily from the Boston Brahmins themselves (who often tended to be liberal), but from society at large.

Similarly, many people are surprised, even in India, when they discover that Hindu Brahmins comprise a very small percentage (I believe less than 5) of the country's Hindu population. They have been taught that Brahmins are 25%, Kshatriya's 25% and so forth. Obviously, from a very early time, certainly from the time of Company rule in India, Hindu Brahmins have held a much larger proportion of Government jobs, larger than their proportion in the population would indicate. From what we know about modern biology, cognition, and learning theory, it would be hard to maintain that their privileged positions were entirely due to their own efforts. True, many male Brahmin scholars in the 18th century, say, spent many many years in the religious schools working hard on learning the sacred texts. However, that privilege was not granted to their women or poor untouchable contemporaries, so we can't say that the latter groups would not have demonstrated a similar capability of hard scholarly work.

So, I guess I would want to get more information about these two examples you mention, and then compare them with the historically un-secular, and sometimes taken-for-granted, privilege enjoyed by other groups, and then see where the chips fall. The latter taken-for-granted privilege might not be actively promoted by the government, but it might not be actively intervened with either. None of this of course means that what the Government of India did was correct in these instances. Politicians everywhere use different ethnic and religious groups cynically for their own benefits, offering them superficial "bonuses," while the major institutionalized forms of discrimination remain unchecked. So, that my two cents (and five paragraphs). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PS The Wikipedia Brahmin page seems to suggest that the 1931 Census of India was the last time different caste groups in India were counted. Then Brahmins apparently constituted 4.32 per cent of the country's population. I don't have my sources with me right now, but I will look at them later to see how correct this estimate is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the wait was worth it! Thanks a lot... By secular my friend probably meant (detachment from any religion)...and coincidently my friend happens to be a Brahmin! I got your point about "taken-for-granted" privilege which is so often overlooked. On this point I also realized how often people use so grossly equate the terms Indian and Hindu and use them interchangeably...

Probably all my friend was trying to imply was a "secular" government should detach itself from every thing remotely related to religion. The question I should have asked him back --- "Name one country where religion and politics never cross(ed) paths?" --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 13:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial context-setting

"Let $X\$ be a $4k\$ dimensional compact Riemannian manifold." is a really bad opening sentence for a Wikipedia article. The lay reader can read through that whole sentence without ever finding out that mathematics is what the article is about. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. I notice you have fixed it. Thanks. Will keep in mind next time on math articles. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1857_flag_staff_tower2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1857_flag_staff_tower2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review

Hi! I just saw your recent contributions. If you strongly feel that your concerns are not being well addressed, why not try the above process? It will attract more experienced editors and your thoughts will garner greater attention. Thanks, --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about FA review. You could list here for attracting attention of interested editors. Docku: What up? 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Docku, Sorry I did see that someone had posted to my talk page, but didn't read your post until I did the FAR. In any case the FAR doesn't mean the article will be de-FA'd, only that the issues will be discussed. And, yes, I've posted on WP:INDIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore FAR

I'm just an occasional, unreliable, clerk on the FAR page! You need to inform the main contributors - I see you've already informed User:Dineshkannambadi but I also suggest User:Sarvagnya based on the page history statistics. I see you've also popped a note onto the Wikiproject India talk page. All you need to do is post these notifications at the top of the FAR request (see any example on the WP:FAR page).--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing each point, you might get some ideas from reading Feature article review: Augustan literature where Awadewit is very adept at using general arguments of recency and inclusion of various points of view in article to FAR discussions to open up the discussion. In this FAR, she is arguing against an entrenched user who always gets his way, except at FAR. She also successfully argued to have Augustan drama FAR'ed, another article by the same entitled editor. (See: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan drama/archive1). She argued for up-to-date scholarship, saying the historical evaluations change over time, and that today it is appropriate to include a wider range of views. She doesn't spend much time arguing specific points. For example, regardless of what the original editor included, perhaps he needs to add the opinion of more recent scholars, and add more diversity of viewpoint. I urge you to consider this suggestion, as Awadewit has been very effective.

Further, her approach is more likely to draw in the opinions of other editors, as it does not depend on determining which of two editors is correct on a specific issue, but rather argues for a general approach. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattisse! Will take a look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think DrKeirnan is right in his response on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Long, rambling, defensive posting disengage the other editors. They understand arguments targeted at the FA criteria, and by extension to WP:RS etc. Frame your arguments not to the article writer, but to the other editors who will be reading the FAR pages. They are not going to understand esoteric discussions regarding an article topic with which they are unfamiliar. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse. I didn't get around to reading the Awadewit links but I did take your advice to heart. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded to Fowler&fowler for his exceptional work on history-related articles. deeptrivia (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore

Though the POV issue is huge, it is very subtle. Unless experts or people with plenty of time at hand get involved in the review process and understand the problem as a whole, I wouldnt be surprised even if nothing comes out of this process. Guess the problem is systemic. Docku: What up? 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) restored for continuity

Reply to Docku

Hmm. What happened to your post? I had replied to it earlier, but I lost my connection. Tried it again and find your post has gone! Anyway, here is the reply! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Docku, I don't think it is that subtle in this particular case ... I don't know if the problem is "systemic" either. There are a lot of very conscientious and hard working editors who write decent FAs. (Off the top of my head I can think of Emmy Noether and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom). The English lit. people tend to produce good ones, as do the math people.

South Asia, is a different matter. Some people like user:Nichalp and user:Saravask (if he is still around) tend to produce good FAs. In some cases though, a page's becoming featured, in my view, has as much to do with how pushy and "wikiambitous" the primary author is, and how much, to a certain extent, they are willing to short-circuit the cooperative give and take of Wikipedia in order to achieve their ambition.

Look at British Empire, for example. It is infinitely better written than Kingdom of Mysore, yet the group of editors there are debating little points of bias and grammar and aiming modestly to recover the GA label they lost. Contrast that with editors, who relentlessly produce cockamamie articles on cockamamie topics, skip peer-reviews or GAs, find kind hapless copy-editors, badger them once, badger them twice, ..., badger them one hundred times, ... and if copy-editor1 keels over from karoshi, they offer perfunctory regrets about absence from funeral, and move on to copy-editor2 ...

I've never been particularly driven to go for FAs myself. I guess the process is too close to writing academic papers, and I'm looking to get away from work. I'm just as happy to spend time looking for corny Life-magazine images for footnotes in my pajamas article as I am adding text and old pictures to Company rule in India. Even in situations like an FAR, I'm having fun most of the time. That's why I can't imagine how people can write vague obfuscating replies. But, that's their problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be my first involvement of any kind in FA process and am going to watch it closely and may be should reserve my judgement till then. I might one day try a GA and FA for the sake of trying. I am not really fascinated. Have my own papers to work on in real life.

As much as I wish certain part of History was different, I have strong aversion for revisionism. If only people took their time to learn from the past (instead of attempting to re-writing), we could have prevented the recent invasion (Mumbai attack).

As of me, I occasionally like to shine up a little on areas I consider interesting which others generally tend to shy away for reasons of controversy, bias or dislike, till my interest drifts onto another topic. I was working recently on Hindi-Urdu controversy, was surprised to see such an important article in a pathetic state. I am generally restricted by online sources. I will be very happy to get your input (after this FAR drama of course) if you have time and interest and would certainly understand if you choose not to involve yourself, for i do appreciate that we all work on voluntary basis. Docku: What up? 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Provinces of India#Provinces of India in 1909

Hullo! Just came across this article. Well, do we really need to have population statistics. The population of these provinces at the time of dissolution varied a great deal from the population stats at the time when these provinces are created. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! The short answer is, "no." However, do you have popstats at dissolution? It might be worth having a comparison. Even if you have the stats of the 1951 census (for, I think that was before the reorganization of the states), it might we worth looking at them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1950 population stats are available in the Statesman's Yearbook. I'm not sure if they are estimates. Well, I'll look for census details of 1951 when I get time. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 09:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I guess I am still struggling to understand how FAR works especially because no one else so far seems to have made any major comments. I guess I will have to watch the process closely. Since the process appears to restart again, you might want to point the changes happened to the article and the template since the process started. Docku: What up? 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The typical FAR (and this one is far from typical) lists the various criteria that are not satisfied and provides examples of the areas that are lacking and, sometimes, outlines what needs to be done to bring the article up to scratch. Hopefully, various editors then leap in and fill the gaps/fix the problems and the article. Either way, the FAR then goes up for a keep/not keep vote. Note that the 'various editors' are usually editors with a history in editing that article or similar articles (which is why the notifications process is so important). It is s a little unusual to see an extensive content battle play out on the pages of FAR. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RP. I was just concerned a bit that I was making things messy by too many comments. Docku: What up? 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

J&K

Hi Fowler, I have reverted your edits on the article as I thought that you have missed something in the citations. Please visit https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html#Issues and give particular importance to the parenthesis. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have reverted my last edit. Thanks again. Shovon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria

A personal dotcom website of the page's subject is WP:RS - See Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. -Nv8200p talk 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

do you have access to these following books 1 and 2. Pls e-mail me some text related to Maratha regionalism and nationalism if it can be simply "copied" and "pasted". Pls dont bother if it takes too much of your time. Thanks. Docku: What up? 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Docku, These books, unfortunately, I don't have easy access to. Will look for that topic elsewhere. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

no problem. not urgent. whenever, u have time. Thanks again. Docku: What up? 14:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

File:Christmas collage.PNG

Hohhoho! --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you have a great and merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year! --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wish u a MERRY XMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! HAVE A BLAST!!!

Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I just wanted to say thank you for your help on my query about Robert Blackborne. I hope our paths cross again on here. In the meantime, take care and best seasons greetings to you and yours.MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how those Prinseps keep popping up, isn't it? ;-) Thanks for the ref on that page with the drawing. Interesing. I wish you a happy and prosperous and Prinsep-filled New Year! Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Weigh in

Talk:India#Pertinence of image and Talk:India#Infobox: Schedule 8 languages or Official State languages or neither. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. There isn't a WikiProject for Princely States - I do agree that having one would be a good idea. Regarding naming conventions we already have Patna (princely state), Rewa (princely state) and Amb (princely state) - rather than Princely state of Amb etc. Although Kashmir and Jammu was the actual name of the state it was moved due to ambiguity - the naming conventions used here as the same as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles, where the article class is included in parentheses. Thanks for the offer but I will not be participating in the Kingdom of Mysore article. Regards Pahari Sahib 19:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject British India

Well, sorry for the intrusion. I feel, we could have a Wikiproject British India. It would be laughable if I were to include Baron Willingdon in WP:INTN just because he was the Governor of Madras and equally ridiculous if I were to include Raja of Panagal in WP:UK. A Wikiproject for the British Indian Empire, I feel, would do better to cover that phase of India's history. We could also have the Rajas and Maharajas in it-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2009

Happy New Year Fowler&fowler!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year from me too! Shiva (Visnu) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Need help

Do you still need help with this? I'm going to try to get hold of you on IRC as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How to use this top Indian Wikipedian list for effective collaboration

Hi, I have added a section 'How to use this list for effective collaboration' on User:Tinucherian/Indians WP page to see if we can put this list to really good use, pl give your thoughts on the same and we can take it further from there. Thanks. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Hi there, Just wanted to say that I am only interested in India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) related topics. You can include me in that list if "Indian" means people interested in those topics. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your name is already there, may be you would like to put some suggestion on this page User:Tinucherian/Indians WP. Thanks. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know. I've removed it now. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore FAR

Can you give me the 2 second version of events?--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The relegation of Tipu was a bit puzzling as also was the slight credibility gap between the references to sources in the 'Origins' section and the first mention of the Wodeyars (a 200 year gap, if I remember correctly). And yes, the History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 is better written :-). The historian you refer to, is it Suryanath Kamath? I couldn't find anything on JSTOR by him, usually not a good sign in the social sciences. Nor could I find the referred book in our library (trust me, we have one of the best South Asian collections in the US) though there is a "Handbook of Karnataka" by him (published by the Government of K). On the face of it, the article seems very plausible, albeit with the need for massive copy editing but your comments are, as always, persuasive. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(The book is there after all. The author is listed as Suryanata Kamat. I'll ask around next week after the holiday.)--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:WP:BIE

Yeah, there have been a lot of British administrators who had been left out from WP:IN. By the way, what about Rajah Brooke? Should we add him and his descendants too?

By the way, do have a look at Raja of Panagal. I've nominated this article for a GA sometime back and it's yet to be reviewed. I also started a list, List of zamindari estates in Madras Presidency hoping to get it through the FL-process, but it has run into rough weather right now. I did not know that there were so many individual estates, officially classified as zamindaris. Moreover, the list has been compiled from a table of stats in a 1877 book. Later, I discovered that the table was incomplete and the author has left out a number of zamindaris which actually existed at that time. I could not get a "complete" list anywhere. It would be great if you could look for one. And then, sometimes, the term zamindari, in common parlance, was used to describe both zamindari as well as mirasdari lands. I strongly feel that the number of "official" zamindaris would be lesser in number than the non-zamindari estates which have been labeled zamindari. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ravichandar, I don't know anything about Rajah Brooke, but will look at the page now. The Raja of Panagal article should be copy-edited first. Should I do that on the page itself or copy it to a personal sub-page first? Once I've done that, I will be better equipped to write a brief review on the article's talk page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kanthirava Narasaraja I

On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kanthirava Narasaraja I, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore FAR 2

Hi Fowler&fowler. I think it's a mistake to take an article to FAR because you have content issues with it. The nature of FAR is such that most reviewers (as you can see) will not address the content but will focus on citations, readability, etc., because they cannot possibly judge the content that well. It is hard for editors not familiar with the field to judge things like bias and the reliability of sources, and so they focus on things like citation density instead. As well they should, because, short of reading all the sources, I don't see what else they can do. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am confused what an FAR is about then? Its criteria explicitly mention absence of bias, fair representation of the body of representative knowledge, accurate representation of individual sources, and readability. My interlocutors have put the readability on the back burner, as you know. They don't respond, except arrogantly, to posts on the talk page (as I already pointed out in reply to your FARC talk page post), and they don't let anyone else edit the page on the grounds that it is an FA and requires prior discussion. If one doesn't see the difference between the religion section in Kingdom of Mysore and that in Tipu Sultan, the other writes soaring essays in the FARC that even freshman in decent schools know better than to pen.

Frankly, I'm stumped. What do you suggest? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit stumped too. My problem is that the article reads fairly well (though, of course, it needs extensive copyediting) which means that most FAR reviewers will think it good to go. That's the nature of FAR. However, now that I've read a few of the sources, I see that the text comes largely from weak ones. Kamat, who has a central role in the article, has a total of 11 pages on the Wodeyar kingdom (including Haidar and Tipu) and most of what he says has found its way into the article. Some of the rest of the text seems to have been lifted from Chopra without regard to how it fits. I can't possibly go through each source and see how accurately the article reflects what the source says, let alone analyze the sources for reliability and veracity (wikipedia is not my day job!). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One problem with the way wikipedia treats bias is that most editors focus on the language used (hence you get statements of the sort 'implying that democracy is better than dictatorship violates NPOV'). One can get away with a biased article that satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, the three cornerstones of wikipedia, by presenting only one set of opinions as long as you do so in a neutral way and the subject matter is esoteric enough. This article, IMO, fails the language test only marginally, there are a few places where the language is inappropriately laudatory, but, on the whole, it seems ok. Your issue is with the way the text is framed, and, though you explain your view at length (perhaps that is a part of the problem), it is hard for others to wrap their hands around what you are saying. Instead the reviewers end up using heuristics like 'how it compares to other FAs' and 'citation density', which, I agree, are inherently flawed heuristics (and would not pass muster in an academic review article which is the content quality that wikipedia should be aiming for). But, wikipedia isn't the day job for these reviewers either and these heuristics get the job done, so this is natural, and, probably, more functional on the average. One has to understand the motivations of the reviewers and present them with a simple way of understanding and evaluating your point of view on the content.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(I have one more point after this one!) Like I said, content issues are best addressed in the article talk page. The FA status of the article does not mean that the article cannot be edited and I don't see how the editors can stop you from editing the article. If you find that you're on the losing side of the dispute, you can always call for one or more of the methods for dispute resolution. For example, if the editors don't let you edit the article, invoke WP:OWN and call for a third opinion on your right to edit the article. If the content dispute becomes an edit war, WP:DR outlines a number of steps you can take to invite outside opinions and adjudicators. (Side note: One of the FA criteria, 1e, is that the article be stable and that may the a line worth taking, along with bias, in arguing against relisting the article.) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that was my last point. I'm getting overly sanctimonious and that ain't good. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly didn't sound sanctimonious to me. So, no need to worry. You've made some very good points. Let me think about them. Thanks a million for taking the time to reply so thoughtfully! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be (marginally) instructive in looking into the minds of FA experts.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I cannot find any policy that states, or even implies, that a featured article has a higher bar for changes than other articles. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth asking Nichalp about it; he seems to think that FAs are less vulnerable to drive-by changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Nichalp seems to know how to make things work in wikipedia (though he seems to be on a wikibreak). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

KOM

You might want to consider removing the 'disputed title' tag for the time being - just to show dk that the proposal is in good faith. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution

I am warning you. Stop your "revisionist history!" tripe now. This is not the first article I've written an article and I am more than familiar with the ways of Wikipedia and research. I have hunted down and taken down several instances of revisionist history myself, not least the "Hindutva propaganda" tripe you tried to foist back in the days. If you have sources which contradict anything my sources say, bring it on. Or hold your peace. Unfounded accusations of "revisionist history", "whitewashed history!" etc., are personal attacks and uncivil I am warning you to cease and desist. Sarvagnya 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The history in the Kingdom of Mysore page is revisionist. As I have already indicated, please read what the scholars say about Mysore during the period 1800 to 1947 (especially, in the selection from James Manor), and contrast that next with what has been written in the Kingdom of Mysore page. Negationism, doesn't necessarily involve incorrect statements, such as the article had when it called Tipu Sultan "'de facto' ruler of Mysore", in spite of there being no precedent in the literature for it; rather, it can result from simply being selective in the use of sources. Consequently, a statement that a page has revisionist history, even that an editor has produced a revisionist history, is not a personal attack, but rather a statement about the use of sources which do not accurately represent the current overall state of knowledge about the topic—its consensuses and controversies. In contrast, the kind of posts you routinely pen, such as this one in the recent FAR/FARC (which has edit summary "duh" and which says, among other things, "What a load of "obvious blithering nonsense"!), especially after you have been warned by administrators, such as user:Hersfold, not to engage in them (see post by admin Hersfold, titled "Personal attacks" on your talk page, probably are personal attacks. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PS As an aficionado of tripe (especially in forms tripous, chakna, and menudo), I am assuming that your use of the word is not in the nature of a gastronomic remark. Since in its figurative use, "tripe" usually means "rubbish," it constitutes borderline intemperate language and one you might want to avoid. If editing the Kingdom of Mysore article is causing you unusual distress, please consider a short Wikibreak. I mean this sincerely and not sarcastically or patronizingly. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The "obvious blithering nonsense" was clearly referring to the phrase Pmanderson used which is why it was within quotes. Curious that you didn't seem to take excepton to it when Pmanderson used it. ?

As for de-facto, I could easily cite it to Venkataramanappa who explicitly calls both father and son de-facto rulers. In fact, there's no dearth for literature which explicitly calls Haider "de-facto". Even when they don't use "de-facto" specifically, all authors make it clear that Haider was the ruler for 'all intents and purposes' but not the de-jure ruler. I can't believe that you can keep going on an on and on about it even after it has been removed. Is that your best example of "bias" and "revisionism" in the article. An article doesn't become "revisionist" merely by your assertion. For purposes of Wikipedia, individual opinions are little more than "tripe".

If you think there are "factual inaccuracies" in the article (as one of your tags claims), list them out on the talk page and we'll take care of them like I took care of the vassals/Nizam issue after you brought it up. Merely asserting and reiterating your opinion is not going to cut it. I've read the scholars you cite and nothing in what they say is at odds with what is in the article. This article is only interested in an outline of the history and does not go into excessive detail. If you want to add details, add them to sub-articles and if we find anything that warrants importing into this article, we will.

KoM is a FA (whether you like it or not), just like the India article; and just like the India article, drastic changes to content will not be allowed without prior discussion and consensus. Sarvagnya 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, it was I who pointed out (in the FAC) that Tipu's image ought to find a place in the article. If I remember correctly, it was I who put it there. Without any resistance whatsoever from Dinesh or anybody. So don't give me your nonsense about ulterior 'Hindutvavadi' motivations or revisionism. We've had enough of it. Sarvagnya 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And also for crying out loud, Saravask was one of those who "lined up" at the FAC. huh. Sarvagnya 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't read the authors I cite. Haven't even read in its entirety the article you claimed you had, Subhrahmanyam's "Warfare and State Finance." This conversation has come to an end. You are welcome to keep posting your rationalizations here if you'd like, but I will not be responding. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the wishes F&F. I was on your talk page when I got the notification. I first ran into you was when you edited the lead section of the India page several years back (2006?), and asked people not to revert without discussion. I don't know how many years ago was that, but its nice to see you editing since then citing all those sources... I don't know how you manage to find the time to pull out so many sources or how u even get to them but it always amazed me. Hope to see you editing on Wikipedia for years to come. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)