User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 6

So did you have something specific in mind for modifying/improving those maps? I think just converting them to color would make them more readable. Also I was thinking of using the 1909 map as a base since the historical district boundaries are easier to make out there. Do you know if there were significant changes between 1909 and 1949 that would mess that up? Also for the 3rd map, does the original source give a table with numbers as well? I'll have trouble re-creating that one otherwise. Kmusser 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been swamped lately. Will reply in more detail soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:India-time-cover-oct27-1947.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring against consensus on the India page. You've come close to violating 3rr more than a few times on the India page in the last few months. WP:3RR does not give you the license to revert exactly three times in a 24 hour period. At the moment, the Toda image that you are pushing for does NOT have the consensus of the editors on the talk page. Far from consensus, several editors are expressly opposed to it. Once again, I warn you to desist from revert warring against consensus. This will be your only warning. Sarvagnya 09:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better we just point to the archives when the subject of replacing images keeps cropping up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you create a new section on a talk page (as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music), it is best to use the button/tab marked '+' (next to the 'edit this page' button/tab). This lets you easily create a new section and will also provide a correct and understandable edit summary. Making it easier for other editors to see what's happening.

Also, adding a new discussion to a talk page is not a minor edit, I would ask you to read a little bit of Help:Minor edit and perhaps change your usage of the 'minor edit' checkbox. :-)

You may of course disagree with me, feel free to argue. -- Pepve 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pepve! I didn't know about the + tab. I will read the help for minor edits as well. Thanks for the info! Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be able to help. -- Pepve 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler, I was looking through the IIM draft that you're preparing. I think the conclusions you come with regards to India in and around the WWI may be describing some of the aspects of the movement, especially the revolutionary movement, may be erroneous. For example, the Ghadar movement was not scutlled swiftly, it (incorporating early events) started around 1908 and were (and still deemed) as a significant threat up until when it whittled away around 1919. Another, revolutionary movement, especially in Bengal, and immediately after the war began, has been described as significant to the extent that the political concessions around this time has been ascribed to the movement. Could you please double check on this. Also, I felt in parts (eg coming of railways etc) loses focus or focuses wrongly and becomes more a history of India than a history of the Indian movement. I know its neccessary to include these to put context to the origin, but I felt these move awa quite a bit more than desirable. Regards,Rueben lys 19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am all too aware of the WWI time frame problems! Unfortunately, I got busy with my off-Wiki commitments, but I hope to get back to IIM in a day or two. In fact just this morning I was going add an interesting tidbit about Rowlatt, which as you know was partial response to what you describe above, but then I got sidetracked ... As for the railways, yes, what you say is true, but I've kept it there for now, because the History of India page doesn't have a general history 1858 to 1947; it has the British Raj, but the paragraph there is really about Company Raj, and ends with the mutiny. So, for now I'm cramming it in IIM with eventual goal of integrating that information somewhere. Why don't we touch base again in four or five days, after I've had time to do some more stuff. Thanks for the pertinent comments! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&F, I have been busy in real life so my time on wikipedia has been limited over the past few days, but I do intend to "come back" and help with the rewriting and referencing of the Culture section. I agree with the premise of your comments , which I read as: the section should be balanced, informative and interesting and certainly not listy. of course, the challenge is how to achieve this while keeping the section short enough for a summary style article. Hopefully some of the improvements will trickle down to the Culture of India article. Anyway, the details can be worked out on the subpage's talk page.
I suggest that we use the subpage to rewrite the section and not only as a place to comment on the current version. We can leave a note on the Talk:India page informing others of the effort and inviting them to contribute. My own contribution may be somewhat sporadic, but I look forward to the (overdue) revision effort. Cheers. Abecedare 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler&fowler, I need your help on the British Empire article. The article contains no balancing criticism and my attempts to add some have been repeatedly undone by Wiki-Ed and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Since I am relative newcomer to wikipedia any help will be greatly appreciated. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editors you 'pointed out' who 'stall' the India page do it 'to promote' their regions (or state). There are Karnataka, Bengal....etc. lobbies trying hard to promote their regions on WIKIPEDIA. Its NOT at all bad but can be DISRUPTING as in case of the India page (where they end up violating WP:UNDUE). Please be aware of such tendencies and do not give in to their pressure. That's all. Thanks. KnowledgeHegemony 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your efforts on the India page, I award you this barnstar. Your work and dedication isn't going unnoticed! GizzaDiscuss © 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request- Can you Harvardize (or any similar fashion) the Dorling Encyclopedia citations (with appropriate page numbers mentioned) and other citations if possible. This change is needed in light of the Havardization of other references. KnowledgeHegemony 07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do later today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Pakistan Studies and Category:Propaganda in Pakistan. They are full of Hindutva propaganda so please do something.

Thanks.

Hi, Much as I'd like to help, this seems to be outside my area of interest or expertise. I have great interest in the History of Pakistan, but don't know much about Pakistan Studies. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the info there is very biased.Since you are such a balanced editor it would really help if you looked through it and the sources used so please help. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.77.252 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler, thanks for your message and for informing me of the result of the RfC. I tend to avoid "warnings" of established contributors to the project, which is why I wanted the warning that Sarvagnya placed removed. I prefer to deal administratively only with simple incidents, but believe that aggregates of behaviour or complex incidents should be dealt with by our dispute resolution avenues, which are better set up to deal with the same. I personally think that Sarvagnya is a very good editor, but is terse in his comments; mind you, I haven't interacted much with him. If you feel strongly about Sarvagnya's incivility, I think the best avenue would be a user conduct RfC, as opposed to administrative warnings. Thanks -- Samir 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler, thanks for your message on my talk page re: new sections on Science and technology added by Otlemur. Regards Rueben lys 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not replying to your message on my talk page earlier - work pressures have been keeping me frightfully busy, so I've not been here very much. The issue seems to have moved on quite a bit now, so an express comment on the suitability of that image would probably be redundant. Incidentally, I note that you're planning to upload Vinod Panicker's images. I've already uploaded a few to Commons at commons:Category:Images from doniv.org, and I plan to upload more over the next few days. If you don't mind, could you please add the images you upload to that category, so we don't unnecessarily duplicate each other's work. Thanks. -- Arvind 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, thankyou very much for your last edit which I thought addressed a number of points that I thought needed to be addressed. I would still ask for your opinion though, dont you think this same could have been said in a fusion between what I had said earlier and Dwaipayan's suggested prose. Nevertheless, I do aprreciate your hard work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, disregard my earlier comments. I must ask you though to use the sanbox in the future if you wish to experiment. RegrdsRueben lys 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that so many people reversed me to keep that garbage and then an admin protected it. Is this what wikipedia has become?? Best of luck to you. I don't think I am going to be spending too much time here anymore.--Blacksun 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you dig up the discussion that I believe you had started where many neutral wikipedians had commented on etiquette of editing an article like India? --Blacksun 02:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that original RfC from a long time ago (it seems now): RfC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the Analysis and Summary of the February RfC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know where to start. I actually don't edit the main India page all that much and don't intend to. As you said, adding the whole article probably isn't the way to go. I suppose I can start advertising for it though. Some sort of guidelines will need to be created in order for the page to not turn into a mess, which would be unproductive. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw your post regarding have two India pages on a talk page with one long one and a short one. There is already a second shorter India article here in the Simple English Wikipedia. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Raja 11:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad idea. See Wikipedia:Content forking. Those advocating greater detail should do something about getting subarticles featured first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been really busy (with real life work) lately and sadly can't be part of the India text review team. But do ask others. Thanks. KnowledgeHegemony 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree subsections should not be added to the article. He/She reverted the changes, so i dont think it will be a problem. IP198 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I award you this special barnstar for your work on Toda people Taprobanus 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am another one who is interested in their status. Has any DNA analysis being done on them ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert my edit as I'm not playing a cat and mouse game over there. I'll discuss in the talk page soon regarding inclusion of Yakshagana. You are most welcome to pursue this content dispute further in WP:ANI, if you wish. Thanks. Gnanapiti 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can also specify about himachal. it is very well known for its dance and music too. Sushant gupta 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're far from the first with whom Stacey has sparred over capitalisation. You need only look back over his talk page archives and you'll find many examples. He speaks of Wiki-wide consensus but ignores Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalization of common names of species and the huge discussion, in which he participated but has chosen to ignore, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 87 (large enough to merit its own archive page). The consensus reached in that discussion was incorporated into the MOS and NC (fauna) that I linked to, above, and those have remained stable for months without a whimper. But your opponent has made it clear, on more than one occasion, that he expects "to reach consensus" each time; a consensus which he seems to intend to block. Check out User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Oct 2007#Regarding your reversion where he indicates (I'm paraphrasing) that he feels there needs to be "unanimity" in the editors' willingness to "abide by" the capitalisation of an article. In my opinion, an exchange that is quite revealing comes from User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Oct 2007#Mr Fink's images where Addhoc asks him to cease revert warring as he's already over 3RR (over an issue not related to capitalisation). His response was "Now that it's removed, sure." In that case, he reverted even after having received a 3RR warning. Similarly, at Talk:Cougar#Protected again, after Kim van der Linde had protected the page during a revert war in which Stacey was an offender, Kim admonished the warriors that "...[I]n two weeks time ... anybody who changes the capitalisation either way will get blocked by me, because ... you have no business to revert war!" to which Stacey replied "Then it should be restored to how it was before the conflict..." And this was after the MOS and NC (fauna) provisions had been pointed out more than once. Stacey's tenacity is admirable but it is also too frequently disruptive. In my opinion, the most enlightening exchange, because it seems to capture pretty much all of the boringly repetitive elements of the thing, is at Talk:Cougar#Consensus on capitalization. Thinking positively, for a moment, one way to, perhaps, keep your chin up is, each time he hits you over the head with that whole WP:BIRD thing, imagine that Monty Python skit where the one guy keeps slapping the other with a fish... I wish you good luck with your adventure but I really do wish that there were an enduring way out of this tiresome circuit. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Fowler image rotation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Sarvagnya 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting it. I meant to do myself, but forgot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to ensure that you don't miss this out -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To user:Amarrg. I will obviously not reply, point for point, to your post, but would suggest you take up your complaint against me at Wikiquette Alerts itself, or more formally at some other Wikipedia forum. Let me briefly point out though that user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever. I urge you to examine both the histories and the aftermaths of those events. In other words, that witness list is not one you might want to present to any jury. That doesn't absolve me for my choice of words, for which I am truly and unreservedly sorry, but there was plenty provocation. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		for letting the obscurantist trolls feel the heat of knowledge 59.91.253.164 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! It brought much needed encouragement and also a smile to my lips! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those images are acceptable. I have added the URL of the exact page at the British Library's website where they can be found. However, I noticed that the image descriptions were copied from the British Library's website, so I removed them. Please be careful not to copy text from other websites. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  02:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- But|seriously|folks  04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed some interesting BNHS pictures. The photographs you have got have a lot of curvature (pincushion/barrel distortion). I have found that it helps to use the close up/copy setting of compact cameras and to use a suitable distance that can be found by trial to reduce the curvature effects. Also much better to avoid the flash. Shyamal 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag them {{db-author}}. -- But|seriously|folks  23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IUP#User-created_images, images should not be watermarked. It impairs their encyclopedic value and re-use. Part of releasing an image into the public domain involves letting go any claim to it. I think appropriate compensation would be a nice gallery in your user space of the free images you've contributed (aside from the credit on the user page). -- But|seriously|folks  23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:India#BSReddy_changes WhisperToMe 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work ! Even more surprised to see the article on Mrs Phipson. The caption to the "spider" Rhagodes will need annotation to point out that it is not now a spider but a solifuge (Solifugae). I started a piece on Frederick Nicholson Betts and his wife was actually more famous, but I cannot find enough material to start that article. If you do find some sources, you may be able to help. Cheers. Shyamal 08:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeHegemony 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sangam is very likely oral. Here is what the Britannica article on "South Asian Arts," says (in part) about Sangam:

And here is (in part) what is says about the Puranas:

Since texts in India began to be written down only around the 8th or 9th century CE, it makes it unlikely that Sangam was originally written literature; however, the Puranas generally are considered written, the WP article itself makes this distinction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS There really should be a sentence on medieval literature as well, since the transition from classical to modern is abrupt; however, I fear agreeing on what the include, and what not to, will become another endless argument ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on India/Text Peer Review/DemoText2, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because India/Text Peer Review/DemoText2 is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting India/Text Peer Review/DemoText2, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jinnah-time-magazine-cover-april1946.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post "Quandary" on an admin's page. You maybe interested in this new incident reported. KnowledgeHegemony 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. My total edits on India page are 3 and all are either constructive or vandalism removals. On what basis, did you go ahead and mention my name as a cohort here and that I have been adding contents to the article without discussion. This is the last time I am hearing this kind of nonsense from you, next time it will be to ANI. Please refrain from maligning other users without data against them. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My mistake was inadvertent. I have removed your name from that post. Thanks for letting me know! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: [[:Talk:India]]. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drop your unsubstantiated 'cohort' conspiracy theories now or risk being pulled up by an admin. Sarvagnya 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, It was rather unwise of you to try and malign my name on someone else's ANI. Please avoid such acts in the future. If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. Please dont make this mistake again.thank youDineshkannambadi 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler, I wonder if you would know anything about this at all, but I was writing on the Ghadar Conspiracy, which I have since expanded to the Hindu-German Conspiracy, and is now up for peer-review. Since you seem to have a very good repertoire of references and literature, I was wondering if you could have a look at the article? I dont know wether you know much but you were writing the review (?)Indian independence movement article, so I do believe you will know something. At the least, your views (I dont mean this in prejudiced way) may at the least to ensure NPOV. Hope you will be able to help.RegardsRueben lys (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, remember this? It's been quite a while.. I've recently attempted (once again) to get some co-operation from the BL but they're saying one thing and doing another and basically messing me about. On several occasions I've been informed that "something" has been posted to me, or emailed by some higher authority, and nothing ever transpires. When I query this, I get a "what, you didn't receive anything? oh.." type response, and then more promises of action which come to nothing. Fifteen emails on, I'm not a single step nearer the hi-res version we wanted. I'm here now to ask you to formally withdraw the nomination, maybe revive the nom in it's current state if you wish, but I don't think it would get promoted without the much more impressive file. Sorry, I did give it my best shot. --mikaul^talk 10:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for the message. I hope I haven't put you off editing the article? I would have done this last year but I have had one catastrophe after another to deal with since the autumn of 2006. This is why perhaps I am not familiar to some editors. I can assure you I will keep your concerns in mind when editing the prehistory. :) Green Giant (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response :). Green Giant (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest something similar but you beat me to the punch. It's the only way to de-clutter the article and ensure that the images get a fair exposure. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look now and incorporate the suggestions. :) Green Giant (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is looking good, a definite improvement and it means we don't have to decide which images to remove. Good work. :) Green Giant (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]