User talk:Fowler&fowler

I will no longer be working on India-related topics. I'm taking them off my watchlist. Consider me site banned.The advent of the metaphorically professional graduate students with infinite time, obsessive bias, and ready access to sources which they have failed to fully comprehend has made this decision both inevitable and irrevocable. When I began editing India-related articles in August 2006, I had much more energy and enthusiasm to counter bias. I don't any more. I would like to than some fantastic people I met along the way such as Nichalp, Saravask, Dab, Ravichandar, RegentsPark, and Sitush. There were many others whose names I don't recall just this minute Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

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))[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ~~